I’ve been enjoying something of an extended hiatus from blogging. It’s not that I’ve lost interest it’s just that thanks to the policy decisions made by the nit wits in Hartford and Washington D.C. I’m working longer hours for less money and that leaves me less time to write.
Anyway, since I can’t leave these pages silent, I thought I’d share a few things for my stack of stuff… First up there’s couple of interesting articles over at The Arms Guide you should check out. The first is by Brian (a.k.a. Rev2DaLimit) titled “Do All Roads Lead to Glock?‘ the second by Nate Granzow titled “The Anti-Glock Talk: A Rebuttal“. Brian does a good job of walking the reader through his “Glock journey” — even though I don’t share his fondness for the, well, ugly Austrian pistols.
As Nate says I don’t want to be that guy—the Glock hater, but I am… Sorry. And to be honest it’s not just Glocks, maybe I’m just a dinosaur, but I have yet to handle a polymer framed pistol that I actually like. I have handled a few, like the HK P30 or the FN FNX-45, that I don’t hate, but I’d still rather have a Sig, or 1911, or Browning Hi-Power in my hand than a polymer framed pistol.
Second, there was a piece in the Wall Street Journal on July 31, highlighting that applications for pistol permits have surged in Newtown, CT:
The number of people seeking permits to buy guns has surged in this town following the December massacre of schoolchildren by a local man, even as the parents of some victims had urged stricter weapons laws nationwide.
Through July 24, more than 200 people in Newtown have received new local pistol permits, according to a review of local records, surpassing the 171 new permits issued for all of last year. Such permits are prerequisites for Connecticut permits that allow people to purchase and carry pistols as well as rifles or shotguns.
I’m not really sure why this news to anyone, the surge in permit applications in Newtown and in Connecticut in general follows a national trend. As gun sales have increased over the last few years so have applications for pistol permits. And as the Journal points outs you can’t even buy a pistol (or long gun) in Connecticut without first obtaining a license… I’m not necessarily opposed to licensing, assuming said licenses are:
- Inexpensive and relatively easy to obtain.
- Reciprocal — meaning they’re valid in all 50 states just like a driver’s license.
- Can’t be denied or revoked for arbitrary reasons. If you meet the statutory requirements, you get the license and it can only be revoked for cause i.e. you’re convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incompetent.
Lastly if government is going to require law-abiding citizens to obtain a license before they can legally buy a firearm it has to strictly enforce draconian penalties for criminal, i.e. the unlicensed, possession of a firearm… say 25 years without the possibility of parole for the first offense; 50 years any subsequent offenses or if you’re have previous felony conviction. The simple truth is if you really want to reduce violent crime you have to lock up criminals who are committing the crimes… punishing law abiding citizens with more and more restrictive laws won’t solve the problem. Plato said it best “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
Third, the Florida Sheriffs Association has voted to support the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law as currently written:
The Florida Sheriffs Association is no longer neutral on the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, the new president of the association, announced Friday that members agreed earlier this week without opposition to support the law “as currently written.”
“Our current judicial system is comprised of multiple checks and balances to ensure fair and equitable application of all laws, including ‘stand your ground,'” Judd said in a prepared statement.
When the National Rifle Association-backed law was approved in 2005, the association remained neutral on the issue.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Fort Walton Beach Republican who supports “stand your ground” and whose subcommittee will hold a hearing on the law, called it enlightening that a group that “has traditionally been tepid” on the law now “recognizes its value.”
“I think they recognize that Florida is a safer place when our citizens don’t have a duty to retreat and run,” Gaetz said.
The voice vote Tuesday came with 57 of the state’s sheriffs in attendance.
I have to admit I’m a little surprised by this, “stand your ground” laws have been under attack since George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, even though “stand your ground” was never raised as defense by Mr. Zimmerman.
In simple terms “stand your ground” laws are an extension of the “Castle Doctrine”… The Connecticut Office or Legislative Research has good summary of “Castle Doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws here:
The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one’s “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.
Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one’s home, to the extent that a person’s conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one’s property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.
Twenty states have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws allow an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first if the individual (1) has a legal right to be at the location and (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity. Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law. Connecticut law specifically requires an individual to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force.
And finally, a video of a full-auto gauss gun (H/T: Ironic Surrealism)
Yeah, I want one.