To some lawmakers, carrying around an empty gun seems threatening. In a quick response to this perceived but non-threat, AB1934 was drafted to make it a crime to carry an empty firearm in plain view. The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, is quoted as saying, “What I’m concerned about is people, who have no training, can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement.”
California is a may-issue state. Translation for the uninitiated; do you like kissing ass? Because if you want a license, start kissing your local sheriffs ass. People to protest this have been doing protests legally by carrying unloaded firearms openly. Instead of looking at the flaws in the process, she intends to further restrict and punish law abiding citizens. I find it interesting that some law makers are uncomfortable by firearms being in possession of their constituents, is it because they’re afraid that one day they may be held accountable for their actions?
Moore was off-duty and shopping with his girlfriend in the Commercial Drive store Thursday when 79-year-old Abraham Dickan entered and opened fire on the employees.
Moore used his personal gun to return fire, killing him, police said.
thats kind of the point. We as a society shouldn’t have to feel the need to carry all the time every where. I don’t begrudge anyone that choses to, but I myself (an avid gun owner) feel that stores are the last place that I need to carry one. You are right, no one knows when and where, but to carry one into Lowes, and then should Thug Joe walk in waving his around, I doubt I or anyone else would have the presence of mind and the requisite training to take him down without endangering others around us. And I can assure I have had extensive training in firearms use, but that was a different setting, not a local store. Lowes is not a controlled gun range, nor is it a competition urban range either. Those are controlled areas where everyone that could be harmed are moved into secure areas up range. This is a live area, with real bullets coming at you as well as yours going at them and anyone near them. So to walk into a store expecting to take the bad guy out in a grand display of heroism, is foolish at best for even the most avid of shooters. Another thing to take into account is that this is not a war zone. There are consequences for collateral damage here. This wasn’t some burned out hovel in the streets of Fallujah. This is an American store populated and operated by Americans, just like you and me. And when a bullet goes astray or off target because you squeezed one off while taking cover has far more dire consequences than taking out a Islamic extremist in Baghdad. So in short I would have to disagree with you on principal here. Disarming idiot thugs in this setting should be left to the professionals and not the weekend warriors with a penchant for Dirty Harry movies.
The whole incident was ended with only one innocent injured because someone was carrying a firearm while shopping. Very few people I spend significant time around do not carry. Those that do carry firearms all state the same reason for carrying everywhere, even for a trip down to the corner store, “It can happen anytime and anywhere and it benefits no one to be disarmed by choice.” Being an unarmed victim is a choice that can easily result in your death. My goal is self preservation of myself and those around me, if you see something wrong with that might I suggest seeking professional help. There are those who truly live by the scout motto, and those that just pay lip service. Guess where I live.
Also the comments regarding proper training are a joke. You have officers that screw up so badly they kill a 7 year old girl. Most officers only have to qualify twice a year and even then it’s a minimal course. I shoot more rounds a year than three average officers in Pullman PD combined. There are also manyinstances of civilianresponsewith 0 innocentcasualties due to civilian responders. If you don’t want to carry a weapon that’s fine. Don’t be bigoted towards those who are willing to do the job because you’re too cowardly to handle the responsibility.
The quick and dirty synopsis though is that an individual was shooting on the back of his property. A neighbor heard the shots and called the police. The officers responding over reacted, and proceeded to perform an illegal search of his house as well as locked containers within the house. After nothing was really found, they made up excuses for searching the premises and stretched for reasons for the arrest. They also confiscated his firearms. All the charges were dropped, however the sheriff’s office has returned all but 4 firearms. What is most interesting though is that those four firearms were mentioned by officers as wanting to keep for their own.
This officer had no clue of the situation or what going on. However before even arriving there he state he was going to be arresting someone for anything he could find. When nothing was immediately available they proceeded to perform an illegal search of the house. This was done under the guise of exigent circumstances. When they saw the safe, they extended the exigent circumstances to the interior of the safe. Then each officer proceeded to pick out which guns they like best after ripping the keys off of the victim to get into the safe.
The locked safe provides no basis for exigent circumstances. Securing the house I could somewhat believe, however all they were allowed to do during the exigent search was verify the house was empty. Upon finding the safe, if they wanted to search it a warrant must be obtained. There was no immediate threat to officers, and if probable cause existed that the safe contained evidence pertinent to the crime being investigated a warrant would be issued. Instead they conducted a search without consent and made up an excuse that a dying family member may have been contained in the safe. Never mind the fact that the safe was too small, or the fact there was no blood or any other evidence to support that fact.
This is obviously an abuse of this man’s civil rights. However this man who only was able to enlist the help of a public defender was railroaded by the system. The only hope is now that this is flying around the tubes someone will take the case and go after those officers for violating Title 18, U.S.C. Section 242. This is such a blatant and serious violation of civil rights and abuse of authority it is a mystery why those officers were not publicly dismissed. It is not surprising that this happened in Californistan, however this is still disturbing because it is completely unacceptable behavior.
What is completely unsurprising is the fact that the “shooter” was stopped after an armed individual returned fire. He actually killed himself after the armed individual returned fire.
I would like to point out there was this incident as well recently. The homeowner is damn lucky. I would have either waited outside, or found a way to pull down the tarp. Further upon seeing the intruder had a weapon pointed at me, I would have dropped him. That is NOT the time to hesitate. The only reason I think that home owner survived is because it ended up the firearm was unloaded. Problem is though Rule #1 says I should fear for my life, PERIOD. Never the less though the homeowner successfully defended his property, but entering the way he did was a huge risk. That tarp doesn’t provide cover, and will display your location.
Doing some more digging he is in fact a convicted felon. It’s a double failure, < Begin Sarcasm > I thought that the laws were supposed to keep this from happening!< End Sarcasm >
A death that occurs under mysterious circumstances probably needs an investigation. However when someone is dying of a terminal disease, or a baby is born without developed lungs. Odds are in those later cases, cause of death is already known. Why does the state need to further investigate it and send the bill? Also in many cases, such as this one, why is it “societies” business?
Comments Off on Quote of the Day–Tamara (01/26/2011)
“At some point in American history, the first clause of Section 3 of our CEO’s job description,
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…”
came to be interpreted as “Our Dear Leader shall, once per year, commandeer all our airwaves so that He might make the Divine Will known to us all. And then all the networks shall read the entrails of a goat. And there will be much rejoicing.”” – Tamara K. (Something I don’t Understand)
[I no longer have TV service and am instead just watching things occasionally on Netflix. Even when I still had TV I never really watched the SOTU, instead I would read it. It is considerably quicker to read without the long pauses for the praises clapping from the congregation congress. His domination of the airwaves though is quite annoying, especially since all he does is read a damn teleprompter. I can read on my own and don’t need the teacher to read it too me. After the 10 minutes of reading, unlike the stooges that sit around watching the damn thing I can go back to being productive. Some one has to be productive to fund the governments spending. Though now that I just discovered this, that could have been fun! –B]
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email
