A Geek With Guns

With the imminent hearing on HR 1467, the bill that would bring “stand your ground” to Minnesota, tomorrow I think we need an example of how important such legislation is. For an example we need look no further than Iowa:

One couldn’t blame him. Lewis had just finished 112 days in jail because he didn’t have the cash to make bail. When jurors finally freed him on Feb. 9, Lewis walked out homeless, unemployed and minus most of his possessions.

[...]

Ludwick, a former soldier and convicted felon, was driving four people home from a Halloween party. Documents say Ludwick slowed; Lewis passed him. Ludwick sped up, and the cars raced down 11th Street until they came to Regency Woods. They collided when Lewis, in front and on the right, started to turn left.

Lewis said Ludwick and a passenger, Justin Lossner, got out of the Taurus and began punching the Mustang’s windows.

They backed off when Lewis pulled out his .380-caliber pistol. But they came back.

Lewis said he was outside his car, evaluating its damage, when he caught Ludwick and Lossner trying to sneak up on him from two different directions.

The recording of a 911 call made by Lewis begins with Lewis yelling at the two to “just stay where you are. Get back! Get back! I’m going to start shooting!”

There are exchanges of profanities while Lewis explains the situation to a police dispatcher. Then, “Get away from me. Get away from me!” And a bang.

You read that correctly, Mr. Lewis was found innocent of any crime was greeted with a loss of his property and months of his lives stolen as he rotted in prison awaiting his trial. What’s most egregious about this story is the fact that Mr. Lewis would have been legally protected from all of this if Iowa had a stand your ground law as it gives the defender the benefit of the doubt. Without such legislation the state gets to assume guilt until innocence is proven, and in such cases those forced into a self-defense situation may lose everything even if a jury acquits them.

As I stated yesterday the other problem when a stand your ground law isn’t on the books is the fact that any action taken in self-defense can be argued to be “unreasonable.” One person looking at Mr. Lewis’s situation may claim his use of a firearm wasn’t reasonable because his attackers were, apparently, unarmed. Another person would point out the fact that Mr. Lewis was outnumbered, a fact that makes a self-defense situation far more dangerous. Mr. Lewis had every right to be where he was and therefore should have the right to defend himself at that location. Stand your ground laws benefit those who find themselves having to defend themselves against initiators of violence.

I have further commentary about this story that I’ll post up tomorrow. Considering that the “stand your ground” bill is being debated tomorrow I wanted to get this out so people could read it and understand the importance that this law holds.

Obama has been pretty careful about the topic of gun control, a stance that has left some of his supporters less than impressed. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been warning the people about a second Obama term without offering any real solution, Obama has been fulfilling his promise of working on gun control under the radar in the form of Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious has been a fiasco, one so severe Congress put a prohibition in the Department of Justice appropriations bill against using funds for another Fast and Furious-esque operation. As Uncle brought to our attention, Obama wants to strip that prohibition from the appropriations bill:

President Obama is using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda just before the election. One particularly sneaky provision buried deep within his submission to Congress Monday would, if enacted, allow the mistakes of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to be repeated.

In November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.

Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”

Emphasis mine. The prohibitions isn’t necessary? I think the very fact that Fast and Furious exists is enough proof that such a prohibition is necessary. Fast and Furious isn’t a hypothetical operation that has been whispered about in the halls of the Department of Justice, it is an actual operation that went down and cost lives.

Wanting to remove the prohibition from the appropriations bill demonstrates the desire of Obama to enact stronger gun control in this country. The same goes to every member of the legislature that agrees to the removal of the prohibition. Fast and Furious being about gun control isn’t an unsupported conspiracy theory, it’s an accusation backed by strong evidence.

I was bored and needed something to write about so I went to my favorite source of inane stupidity, the Star Tribune. Let me say that I found some gold:

Those writing letters in favor of the “shoot first” bill apparently haven’t bothered to check out existing relevant law.

It is clear, in my opinion, that Minnesota statutes 609.06 and 609.065, taken together, authorize a person to use force, including deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent an offense upon that person, or when assisting another.

I’m not aware of any “shoot first” bill making its way through legislature, only HF 1467 and SF 1357. My assumption is that the letter writer is referring to those bills without actually understanding them because there is no wording in either version that authorizes anything about shooting first.

Either way, being a diligent man I decided to look up the statutes being referred to by the author. First we have 609.06 titled Authorized Use of Force:

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger’s personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person’s control, conduct, or treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

The obvious fact I wish to point out is the wording “reasonable force.” What amount of force is “reasonable?” There is no set in stone answer to that because everybody’s idea of reasonable is subjective. Whereas I find it reasonable to use deadly force to defend yourself from a mugger (because you can’t be sure mugging you is the only thing they intend to do) another person may not. As the law is currently written any use of force subjects the person using force to scrutiny and another person’s idea of what amount of force was reasonable (and remember that the person(s) judging were not there when you had to restort to force).

The use of deadly force is outlined in the second law mentioned by the author, 609.065:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.

Emphasis mine. 609.065 specifically states that 609.06 does not authorize the use of deadly force. Therefore the use of deadly force in all mentioned actions in 609.06 is prohibited except “when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which an actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death…” Once again the wording of this law is the part that can bite you in a self-defense case. Is deadly force necessary in resisting an assailant? That really depends on who you ask and whether or not the person you ask can come up with methods in which deadly force could have been avoided. If you’re being mugged and you shoot the mugger was violence necessary? Could you have simply surrendered your belongings? Some people would say yes, while others would say there is no way of knowing.

The self-defense bills in the legislature are written to eliminate these subjective statements and give those involved in self-defense cases the benefit of the doubt. Namely the bill removes the argument that a person involved in a self-defense case could have retreated by eliminating their duty to retreat:

Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force with superior force when the individual’s objective is defensive; the individual is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant until the danger has ended.

If a person no longer has a duty to retreat they can no longer be prosecuted for using deadly force if a third party could perceive a method in which the defender could have fled. Remember that those judging your actions and determining whether or not your use of force was “reasonable” weren’t there, they didn’t witness or take part, and they have no firsthand knowledge of what went down. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is possible that an outside looking at the situation after the fact could conjure up an avenue of retreat the defend did not notice. If somebody attacks you the benefit of the doubt should be on your side and you should have a legal right to take any means to ensure the preservation of your life. In a self-defense case the defender is not the initiator of violence and thus should not be judged as the criminal.

Not written into these statutes is the requirement to first “retreat” from a confrontation if it is reasonable and safe to do so. Importantly, the requirement to retreat does not apply in one’s home.

People need to understand that Americans inherited a great deal of common law, which is where the duty to retreat originates from. If the author of this letter actually read either HF 1467 or SF 1357 he would know this:

relating to firearms; clarifying and delimiting the authority of public officials to disarm individuals at any time; clarifying law on use of force in defense of home and person; codifying and extending Minnesota’s self-defense and defense of home laws; eliminating the common law duty to retreat in cases of self-defense outside the home;

Emphasis mine. Both bills specifically state that they eliminate the common law duty to retreat; it does not make any claim of repealing a supposed duty to retreat statute currently on the books. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to figure this out, you need only open Google and search for “common law duty retreat.”

The author is correct that the duty to retreat doesn’t apply to one’s home. This was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court:

A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim – that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person’s judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person’s election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended – the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.

Of course the failure here is, once again, the author’s lack of actually reading either self-defense bill (or, if he did read them, a lack of comprehension). Let’s look at the language in HF 1467 and SF 1357:

expanding the boundaries of dwelling for purposes of self-defense;

[...]

(d) “Dwelling” means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home. A dwelling includes, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building’s or conveyance’s curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home, tent, or the equivalent.

Both bills expand the definition of dwelling to include things like camping tends, automobiles, etc. In other words you will enjoy the same protections in your car as you would in your home.

Minnesota’s self-defense laws have worked very well for a long time. No one is in prison for acting reasonably in defense of one’s self or home. There have been several cases in recent years of the use of deadly force by a person in defense of their home, and the defenders were not charged with any crime.

The bill proposed by Rep. Tony Cornish would seriously alter long-accepted standards of reasonableness, to the detriment of our citizens and the safety of law enforcement officers.

Actually the bills add clarification to a currently subjective scenario. Instead of leaving the just use of force open to interpretation it more strongly clarifies when force can legally be used. As I stated before “reasonable” is a subjective and as much subjectivity as possible should be removed from law.

Our legislators would better serve if they paid heed to the positions of Minnesota’s Police Chiefs, rank-and-file law enforcement officers and our state’s County Attorney’s Association, all of which adamantly oppose this bill.

JERRY DHENNIN, COON RAPIDS

Why would they be better served?

Just a heads up, HF 1467, the Minnesota self-defense bill, is being heard in the Minnesota Senate tomorrow. The bill already passed the House last year so once it’s through the Senate is merely needs to get Dayton’s signature (some people are doubting he’ll sign it but he’s an alcoholic so we only need to wait until he’s drunk before slipping it onto his desk) and Minnesota will have some much needed improvements to our self-defense laws.

Via Gun Free Zone we get a lesson in fighting with the elderly, and that lesson is don’t fight with the elderly or they’ll outlive you:

When a residential burglar fired a gun at Jay Leone last month, he was initially too angry to realize he had been shot in the head, he testified Friday.

“To tell you the truth, I never felt a thing,” said Leone, 90, of Greenbrae. “I said, ‘F—- you, you son of a bitch, now it’s my turn.’”

Getting shot in the head won’t stop a pissed off old man. Some punks forget that these people didn’t get old by being total pushovers, they got old by being bad asses. So if you’re cruising around looking for easy marks to rob just remember that the 90 year-old man walking down the street is 90 years old and has probably dealt with far worse than you’re little punk ass.

Uncle has more proof that Fast and Furious was about gun control, not curbing the supply of weapons to Mexican drug cartels:

In the Fronteras interview, Coulson also claimed ATF knew that what has come to be known as the “90% lie” was a myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others had been pushing the line that 90% of guns seized in Mexico came from the U.S.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
“Among federal law enforcement, that became somewhat of a joke,” Coulson said. “We all knew that was whatever weapons the Mexican government decided to follow or trace back to the U.S. and never took into account the weapons that came in from Central America, from other countries around the world.”

This myth was behind the Justice Department announcement last April 25 that it was making 8,500 gun stores in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico report individual purchases of multiple rifles of greater than .22 caliber by law-abiding American citizens to the ATF because — get this — such guns are “frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest border.”

This corroborates previous evidence demonstrating that Fast and Furious was nothing more than a sham operation meant to create an excuse to enact more gun control in this country.

Americans seem to believe that they can hold the government responsible through voting, protesting, petitioning, and writing their “representatives.” These beliefs are false because if the populace make too much of a fuss about something the government simple goes from using overt tactics to covert tactics. Passing gun control laws in this country has become far more difficult today than it was back in the heydays of the 1990s. Members of the government, still wanting to disarm the populace, know passing gun control laws is akin to political suicide so they’ve changed their tactics. Instead of passing bills that decree further restrictions on gun ownership they are using their already possessed regulatory power and creating false flag incidents to justify the new regulations.

I realize many people will simply label me a conspiracy theorist (something I’m not, in general I’m very skeptical) for the claims I’ve just made but the proof supports Fast and Furious being a false flag operation so, at the very least, I’m vindicated on this issue.

Remember that today, Valentine’s Day, is also Starbucks Appreciation Day. For those who aren’t in the loop Starbucks Appreciation Day is where gun owners of all sorts viste their local Starbucks, buy some coffee and pastries, and thank Starbucks for now bowing to anti-gunner pressure. Starbucks has stated numerous times that they will not ban the carry of firearms at their establishments, something that has been irking the anti-gunners something fierce. In a fit of rage the anti-gunners have declared today to be Starbucks Boycott Day. I’m pretty sure a bunch of gunnies going to purchase coffee will more than offset the lack of anti-gunners patronage.

What happens when the police fail in their duty to protect the populace? The populace gets armed for their own defense:

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

I say good on the people of Detroit for defending themselves. Detroit suffered from massive economic collapse due to their over reliance on the automobile industry and when the economy goes bad crime rises. When the crime rises the police are usually the first to run and hide in the safer parts of town leaving those living in the poorer parts of down in a position where they must defend themselves. The anti-gunners would rather these people be dead than have a means of defending themselves against criminals.

I’m back in Minnesota and thus can begin posting time relevant information again. My arrival in Minnesota greeted me with some good news, last year’s omnibus gun rights legislation is back:

Last year, GOCRA worked with Minnesota legislators to introduce the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act, a sweeping set of legislation that would fundamentally rebalance Minnesota law to protect and support the rights of law-abiding citizens.

While the House bill, HF1467 passed a vote, SF1357 was tabled in order to delay a vote for one year. That year is up and the omnibus gun rights legislation is back and ready for action.

I disagree with a great deal of what the Occupy movements have been advocating but my biggest objective, by far, is their espousing of mob rule. Of course they don’t call it mob rule, nor does anybody else who supports the idea, instead preferring the friendlier term democracy. The problem is democracy by nature is nothing more than mob rule:

Democracy, of the unlimited kind lauded today,[3] is a form of socialism, in the sense that it arrogates ultimate power over all decisions to the government. Implicit in the notion of people’s present love affair with mob rule is the assumption that government, through the collective “will of the people,” should have the prerogatives of ownership of all resources in society, should it choose to exercise these. The democrat brooks no limitation on the legitimate powers of government and hence gives total ownership over all of society to this institution.

While people often call the United States a democracy it is not. Unlike a democracy the founding fathers of the United States attempted to limite government power over the people through the Constitution (it was a valiant effort old chaps, I’m sorry it didn’t succeed). In a democracy every decision can be chosen by the majority in society whereas the United States, as envisioned by its founders, specifically prevents certain decisions from being made. The Bill of Rights is an example of this attempt. Unfortunately the founding fathers left the Constitution open for changes via amendments meaning nothing in the Bill of Rights was really set in stone but at least there was a high barrier of entry to start mucking about. Either way you get the idea, the United States wasn’t meant to be a democracy where any decision could be made by the mob.

Yet those who advocate democracy are saying that they desire the majority be given rule over the minority. Sometimes advocates of democracy try to conceal that fact by using fancy terms such as consensus. With consensus, advocates claim, no decision is final until everybody involved has agreed to it. In all honestly many people eventually break down and agree to things simply because they’re sick of debating and wish to move on with their night (a phenomenon I’ve witnessed numerous times at OccupyMN). Oftentimes people will simple say, “Fuck it, I’ll vote for it to get things moving along but I’ll try to get it repealed later.” These same people don’t stop to think about the fact that repealing it later will be almost impossible (a fact demonstrated by our government that never seems to repeal any law).

My biggest gripe with democracy though is the fact that rights become conditional:

It is true even when a democratic government chooses policies that are relatively liberal and purportedly support the ownership of private property. For such property ownership is regarded as conditional. Supporters of the system of democracy assert their right to forcibly interfere in the lives of others whenever they have sufficient support from the mob to do so, or are otherwise capable of capturing political power.

Do you own a business? Good for you! Unfortunately the majority of people have decided that a park would be a far better use of the land your business is occupying so we’ve voted to demolish your livelihood. Too bad, so sad, get the fuck out. Are you enjoying your protection against government goons breaking into your home and searching through your belongings without so much as a warrant? We’re sorry to inform you that the majority have agreed that persons making more than $1 million a year are no longer protected from warrantless searches. Why? Because we need to ensure that you’re paying your “fair share” to society!

Uncertainty is bad for everybody. Who is going to start a business if they are uncertain of what regulations will be coming down the road? Why invest the money to build a home if you’re not sure the mob will vote to seize it at a later date? Nobody is going to strive for success if that success can later be taken away by those who did not enjoy similar success in their lives.

Many people will often claim that democracy can work so long as the right people get elected. Who are the right people? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 10 different recommendations:

If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when “the right people” are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time.

Right now Barack Obama is the president because of two mob decisions. First a mob of Democrat Party members agreed that Obama was the candidate they wanted to run for president. A second mob later decided that Obama was the person they wanted to be president of the country. The same goes for Bush. There is no way to elect the right people into office because everybody believes different people are the right ones. Whereas I believe Ron Paul is the only decent candidate for president others want Romney or Obama (but I repeat myself).

If I’m against democracy that must means I’m an advocate of a dictatorship right? Wrong, that’s a false dichotomy:

Those who support democracy tend to conflate the issue of the method of selection of rulers with the preliminary question of whether political power is legitimate in the first place. Hence, it needs to be clearly understood that objection to democratic rule does not mean that one prefers dictatorship — it means than one does not consent to have others initiate force against them, regardless of the method of selection of those with the power to do this.

I am my own sovereign. If somebody believes they can become a sovereign over me they can kindly go fuck themselves. Each person is born a free individual and has power over their own life. Just because a gang of assholes get together and call themselves a government doesn’t mean I have to recognize their authority.

What alternative exists though? How can one man defend himself against a mob? If the mob has decided on a decision isn’t your only option to comply? The answer to those questions is to be thankful that you exist today and not centuries past.

Since the idea of dragging capitalists out to the town square and running them all through guillotines is a popular idea among collectivists I’ll provide my standard rebuttal to it. Even if you get 100 people to vote and agree that I should be executed for advocating capitalism I don’t have to agree. Sure there may be 100 of you but me and my .308 can make one hell of a protest against your little mob. In the end you may win, I may die, but your victory won’t come without cost, I won’t go alone.

With the way things are going in the world I’m glad I live in this century. Before the invention of repeating firearms there was little a single individual could do against a mob. Today one man with a semi-automatic firearm can refuse to comply with a mob and have a halfway decent chance of surviving. Imagine a democratically elected vengeance seeking brigade lynch mob decide you were to hang. What could you do? Quite a bit if you have a quality firearm by your side and the skill and ammunition to use it. In the end the firearm is the free man’s defense against democracy.

Some will claim that my attitude goes against the principles this country was founded on. Those people are wrong. The founding fathers of this country did establish a government but always believed the individual to be sovereign. A quote by Noah Webster brings the founding father’s ideals to light:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Webster strongly believe the people not only had a right to keep and bear arms but that this right was essential to ensure the government wasn’t allowed to encroach on individual sovereignty. Let us not forget Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote:

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Not only did Jefferson believe in the right of the people to defend themselves against their government but he also advocating periodic rebellions to ensure the government was reminded that the people reign supreme. While I’m not a fan of violent rebellion in any regard I am an advocate of self-defense and that self-defense includes people being assailed by their government.

These are just two quotes in a virtual library of materials penned by the founding fathers regarding the sovereignty of individuals. We have to remember that the founding fathers had just previously overthrown a tyrannical government and were still riding high on the idea of individual liberty. They didn’t believe in democracy, where the mob reigns supreme, but in the sovereignty of individuals. In their minds it was the right of every individual to defend him or herself against infractions on individual sovereignty. By declaring my distain for democracy I’m not opposing the ideals this country was founded up but actually promoting them.

Those who cow to the majority are some of the most despicable people of all. They think that so long as the majority believe something to be just that it is, that so long as decisions are made democratically they are good. These same people often complain about the state of the world today but only suggest that the people who are responsible for this dystopian state, the government, be given more power so that “the people” may reign supreme. By “the people” they really mean everybody who agrees with themselves wholeheartedly.

Do not fall into the fallacy of democracy, stand up and assert your sovereignty. Let no other person or persons rule over you. Just because a large group of people made a decision doesn’t mean it’s right. Do not allow yourself to fall into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.