Ninth Circuit affirms the right to carry for self-defense

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law yesterday that allowed local governments to effectively ban citizens from exercising carrying a gun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense:

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego…affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Why We Need Guns for Self-Defense

Second Amendment

You may have heard about the recent slaying of a Texas district attorney and his wife in their home. It follows the brazen daylight killing of a prosecutor in the same county, and it has everyone on edge. This is what local law enforcement is going through:

The judge was on the phone.

“Yep, I said I’ll do anything,” Bruce Wood told the person on the other end, rubbing his forehead. “They asked me to do a eulogy. I don’t know what I’m going to say.”

Elsewhere in the Kaufman County Courthouse, a sheriff’s deputy was handing out bulletproof vests. “I brought the smallest one,” he said to a secretary, who stared at the khaki armor as he explained how to adjust the side straps should the need arise. “These have the neck for a female.”

Outside, two armed guards escorted a white-haired judge from his parked car to the mirrored doors of the yellow brick courthouse in a county where little seemed the same anymore.

“Judge! How are you doing?” shouted a reporter.

“Everybody is making do as best as we can,” he said.

Colorado Democrat says women don’t need guns for self-defense

Joe Salazar

The gun control debate has brought out the crazy. This issue always brings out the passionate opinions from both sides. For those who oppose the Second Amendment and wanted to extensive gun control measures enacted by Congress or in various state legislature, they’re forgetting one basic thing — criminals don’t obey laws. That’s why they’re criminals.

The Second Amendment provides a means for Americans to protect their life, liberty, and property from those who would do them harm — and they do so millions of times each year. But don’t tell that to State Rep. Joe Salazar, a Colorado Democrat. He doesn’t think women need guns for self-defense. In his opinion, they would be better off calling the police or using a rape whistle to alert of an attack.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” State Rep. Salazar said on the floor of the House. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop…pop a round at somebody.”

Here’s the video:

Trayvon Martin: A Victim of the Fear State

There’s a lot of outrage over the death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida, last month. Trayvon was allegedly killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, who is claiming “self-defense.”

I’m not really clear on what actually happened. It appears that Trayvon entered a gated neighborhood, visting his father, when Zimmerman confronted him. Trayvon ran, unsure of what was going on, and Zimmerman—apparently the guy was some sort of criminal—shot and killed him. At some point during all of this, Zimmerman spoke with a 911 dispatcher, who asked him to back down. At least, this is what I think, from my limited knowledge, happened. (It should be noted that Zimmerman has not been arrested and is still out and about, though apparently in hiding.)

There have been calls to disarm neighborhood watch groups over this. There is also a lot of criticism towards a particular Florida law, called “Stand Your Ground,” which brings the self-defense claim out of the home and anywhere the person may be. These are both charges I disagree with; I am against disarming people in general, since law enforcement is essentially useless when it comes to actual, personal defense, and it seems ludicrous to me that you can defend yourself in your home but not on the street, such as if you get mugged. Such arguments are irrational.

But so are defenses of George Zimmerman.

Armed citizens are the first line of defense against violent crime, and it shouldn’t take a budget dispute for cops to say that

Facing a $64 million budget shortfall, officials in Miami have proposed a budget that would trim back some 650 jobs, including hundreds of police officers. Police are, of course, waging their own public relations campaign against the cuts, telling residents that they may want to purchase firearms to protect themselves (emphasis added):

If police department cuts are made, officers from administrative posts would likely shift to the street and certain specialized units that deal with robberies and child abuse cases could see positions vanish. “One of the directions I told the director was that I wanted to have the same number of patrol officers in the street that we have today,” said [Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos] Gimenez.

The Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association fired back after the proposal, saying public safety is paramount and these proposed cuts will have a negative impact. John Rivera, president of the Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association, said, “If the mayor’s not going to provide security, then my recommendation, as an experienced law enforcement officer for nearly 40 years, is either buy yourself an attack dog, put bars on your windows and doors and get yourself some firearms because you’re going to have to protect yourselves. We won’t be able to.”

Stanford law professor doesn’t understand the law

The left and their fixation on guns never ceases to amaze me.  In particular, it’s amazing the mental gymnastics some go through just to make sure they don’t have to acknowledge that they’re wrong on guns no matter what.

Take, for example, Stanford University’s John J. Donohue.  Stanford has a reputation of a top flight school, which means it should have top flight faculty.  Well, Donohue makes me question that belief.

From The Daily Caller:

“I support the right to self-defense,” said Donohue during the debate, according to The Stanford Review. “But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.”

Donohue explained that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in historical context. The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said.

He also criticized the argument that the right to bear arms was necessary for American citizens to guard against tyranny.

“It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”

First, let’s look at his assertion that we have no right for so-called “high-capacity magazines”.  The last four words of the Second Amendment say, “shall not be infringed”.  That’s a pretty clear case that we actually do have the right to have as many bullets as we can handle.

NFL refuses run Super Bowl ad promoting armed home defense

Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad

The National Football League (NFL) has picked sides in the gun control debate by refusing to run an innocuous ad by Daniel Defense, a gun manufacturer based in Georgia, promoting armed home defense.

“It’s been a long road getting here. And a lot has changed since I’ve got back. Now this is the center of my world. And my families safety is my highest priority,” says the narrator over video of a man coming home to his wife and child.

“I am responsible for their protection. And no one has the right to tell me how to defend them. So I’ve chosen the most effective tool for the job,” he says as the ad cuts away to the logo for Daniel Defense and its slogan, “Defending Your Nation, Defending Your Home.”

Obama-backed study confirms firearms are a crime deterrent

Back in January, President Barack Obama signed a number of executive orders into law, including one that ordered the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to study ways to reduce the threat of gun violence. That study has finally been released and it likely doesn’t produce the narrative that the White House wanted.

While it offers insight into gun violence and how to identify and prevent it from occuring, CNS News dug into the study and notes that it points to firearms as an important deterrent to crime and that instances of gun violence have fallen over the last five years:

Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

Holder Calls for Repeal of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

One of many issues that has come under fire since the start of the whole George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin drama has been “Stand Your Ground” laws.  To many, they were the root of Martin’s death.

Zimmerman’s acquittal has clearly done nothing to change this.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder threw his own opinions into the ring.

“Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention,” Holder said of the Zimmerman case, “it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if – and the ‘if’ is important – no safe retreat is available.”

Holder said the law has “victimized too many people.”

“By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” Holder continued. “The list of resulting tragedies is long and – unfortunately – has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation – we must stand our ground – to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.”

First, I’d like to point out something to Mr. Holder.  “Stand Your Ground” laws only apply to actual cases of self defense.  His desire that you or I should have to try to get away from a criminal before being able to defend ourselves will not save innocent lives.  No, it will further empower criminals who will then know that they can have their way after you retreat.

Michael Bloomberg’s Next Target: The Constitution

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, there are new calls from a host of politicians who want Americans to give up their liberties. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) were among the first to say that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged bomber who was apprehended on Friday night, should be held as an “enemy combatant” and thus denied his constitutional right to due process.

Michael Bloomberg agrees. During a press conference on Monday, the New York City Mayor said that Americans should be willing to sacrifice their liberties — including their privacy — on the alter of security:

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.