John Lott is making much over the recent church shooting in Charleston.

The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Well, yes, no and maybe.  There’s more to it than that.  I play second fiddle to no one in terms of carry of weapons, including open carry which John Lott doesn’t like.  John and I have been in the ring exchanging blows over this very issue (see both article and comments).  But it’s important to be accurate on this issue because what we learn is dependent on a correct understanding of the law and choices we make thereto.

(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility;

(2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office;

(3) courthouse or courtroom;

(4) polling place on election days;

(5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;

(6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;

(7) daycare facility or pre-school facility;

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;

(9) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body; or

(10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor’s office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer.

The law is stupid and shouldn’t require “express permission” of the church officials.  But at least it does give the latitude to carry with permission of the church, and this isn’t defined in state law.  So for example, the church could have given permission for every man and woman over the age of 21 who has a concealed carry permit to carry in the church, up to and including posting at the door that carry of weapons is allowed with a permit (unfortunately, in a tip of the hat to racist Jim Crow laws, open carry is not currently allowed in South Carolina because Senator Larry Martin killed proposed legislation to make it legal, a sore spot with me that we will revisit as time goes on).

What does this mean?  Are worship centers in South Carolina gun free zones?  Well, sort of, if they so choose.  But they don’t have to be.  They can choose differently, and this pastor was a well-known advocate of gun control.  So you don’t miss it, let’s cover that again.  This pastor was a well-known advocate of gun control.

They chose to disarm.  The result is the same – sadly, men and women are dead.  But it’s important to get the facts straight so that the right things are learned from the horrible experience.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Bob Owens:

As a direct result of Cooley’s stunt, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson has now proposed a federal law to ban both open and concealed carry in airports … Thankfully, is is very unlikely that Johnson will amass enough support to make this bill viable.

Sadly, we’re now having to devote energies on defense to explain why Johnson’s proposed bill really isn’t “common sense.” It’s a prospect made all the more difficult because your average citizen isn’t going to be able to grasp why a mentally healthy person might want or need to walk into an airport with AR-15 with a drum magazine inserted to see someone off at the airport, unless that airport is in Afghanistan.

When gun rights activists and pro-gun lawmakers have to deal with distracting, grandstanding behavior like Cooley’s, it takes away time we could better spend attempting to pass other pro-gun laws, or dismantle gun control laws already on the books.

Jim Cooley’s fifteen-minute stunt did nothing to help the gun rights movement, and gave gun control supporters ammunition that they will reuse again and again for years to come to portray gun owners as extreme, paranoid, and out of touch with the American mainstream.

That’s not helping us, and never will.

I’m not even close … no, let me find a better way to say this … I am literally light years from understanding Bob’s argument.  If I were to lay it out syllogistically, it may look something like this.

• We currently have rights understood to be so by the authorities and people, one of which is open carry of both long guns and handguns.
• Exercising that right may invoke the disapprobation of the lawmakers.
• The lawmakers may remove their written approval.
• If they remove their written approval, we can’t exercise that right.

But of course the problem is that if we could never exercise the right without recognition of it being removed, recognition of it was a phantom to begin with.  It doesn’t work for me to say that perhaps he should have carried a handgun openly, because the same person could have gotten offended at the handgun, which the media surely would have called a “high caliber high magazine clip assault handgun.”  It would effect the same end for the collectivists.  If they are offended at long guns, they will be offended at handguns.

Now, if Bob’s real concern is that he believes we are ostracizing ourselves, then he is lobbying for the wrong thing.  He should be lobbying for a new law prohibiting open carry.

So completely aside from the issue of whether you concur with what this person did (i.e., carry of an AR-15 in an airport) or even agree with open carry, Bob’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me.  I don’t understand why he is in a fit and why he presented the argument the way he did.  Again, if he believes there is no reason to open carry and he wants folks behave differently, he can lobby for a law and we can evaluate his argument on its merits.

Kurt Hofmann:

… when a member of the audience at a speaking event asked Christie about the murder, and New Jersey gun laws’ role in it, he passed the buck just as quickly as he could

He’s always tried to shift blame to the Congress, when the entire executive branch reports to him.  The power of the governor’s office is huge to craft legislation, state up front what will be signed and what won’t, instruct the state attorney general to prosecute or not, and so on.  Furthermore, he thinks that we’ll forget his past concerning gun control.  Hell will freeze over before Chris Christie becomes president.  See also my own coverage of Chris Christie on gun control.

See this post by Mike Vanderboegh for the best extemporaneous speech I’ve ever read.

This is what governments do who are in financial trouble.  Plan accordingly.

Slain black pastor advocated gun control.  Bet he wishes someone in the church had a gun to stop the boy from killing him and his people.

From reader Ned Weatherby, Liberty News Now:

Transgender mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter Fallon Fox is the target of criticism after brutally injuring an opponent.

Fox defeated Tamikka Brents just two minutes into the first round of the match. Brents suffered a damaged orbital bone, which required seven staples, and a concussion.

Brents summed it up: “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life.”

“I’ve fought a lot of women,” Brents stated. “And never felt the strength I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because [he] was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

The video of the Brents-Fox fight was pretty brutal: Fox threw knees to Brents face and torso right at the beginning, to kick off the fight. Brents ultimately turned her back to avoid more damage–and took almost a minute of hard strikes from Fox’s elbows and fists, before the referee stopped.

But wait?  I thought women can do everything a man can do?  That’s what I’m led to think about Ranger school.

It’s down to three now — three female soldiers, out of an original 19, that refuse to give up their dream of earning the coveted Army Ranger Tab.

The one female major and two female first lieutenants failed at two attempts to make it through the first phase of U.S. Army Ranger School, but the trio has still earned the respect of the gatekeepers of this grueling, two-month infantry course.

The female soldiers had been at it for 29 days when the two top leaders at Ranger School offered them a choice – start over from day one with a new class or go home.

All three agreed to start over on June 22.

“Anybody that takes a day-one recycle — be it a male or female soldier — it displays an incredible amount of grit and determination; they want to earn the Ranger Tab,” Col. David G. Fivecoat, commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, told Military.com during a June 5 interview.

Fort Benning, Ga., held its first co-ed course of Army Ranger School on April 20. Nineteen women and 380 men were pre-screened for the combat training course.

Three of the women failed to pass the Ranger Physical Fitness Assessment, a requirement to enter Ranger School. Eight out of 16 female soldiers completed the Ranger Assessment Phase, or RAP week.

But the remaining eight females weren’t able to complete the first phase and advance to the second phase of the course. Instead, they were allowed to repeat the Darby Phase along with 101 male candidates.

Fort Benning officials announced May 29 that none of the eight passed the Darby Phase on their second attempt. Three of those females, along with five males, have been invited to start over on day one.

No female has successfully passed the Marine Infantry Officer Course either.  You can’t have it both ways girls.  You can’t claim unfairness if you have to fight men on the one hand, and claim you can do anything a man can do on the other.

That doesn’t pass even elementary tests of consistency.  And to reiterate what I said earlier, God has made men and women differently, in case you missed that growing up.

Via reader Mack, The Texas Tribune:

The Texas GOP has abandoned an effort to issue an official statement on the 84th legislative session, divided over a proposed resolution that initially would have accused individual lawmakers of standing in the way of gun rights legislation.

The resolution that named legislators never made it out of a committee of the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC), and the full body never voted on a version of it with softer language. But the very prospect of it riled some party leaders, sparking heated debate about the committee’s role in the Capitol and seriously complicating party fundraising in at least one instance.

As proposed at the committee level, the resolution would have rebuked four Republican lawmakers for “their refusal to allow Constitutional Carry legislation or amendments to be heard in any form or otherwise debated on the merits of the issue at any time during the 84th session of the Texas Legislature.” “Constitutional carry” is the unlicensed carrying of firearms. The legislators named included House Speaker Joe Straus of San Antonio, Rep. Dennis Bonnen of Angleton, Rep. Larry Phillips of Sherman and Sen. Joan Huffman of Houston.

The GOP is mostly worthless at both the state and federal level, and America needs to start over in the political process.  The entire process and everyone in it need to go.  As for the four politicians who were leaders in the sellout, Texans know your names even if the resolution didn’t pass.  Gun owners have long memories.  As for the GOP leaders who got their girly-knickers in a wad over this, you’re in the same camp as the sellouts.  And Texans know your names too.

LA Times:

One sheriff’s deputy shot himself in the leg while pulling out his gun to confront a suspect.

Another accidentally fired a bullet in a restroom stall. A third deputy stumbled over a stroller in a closet as he was searching for a suspect, squeezing off a round that went through a wall and lodged in a piece of furniture in the next room.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

Sheriff’s officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon.

But the problems may not be over, as more deputies switch to the Smith & Wesson M&P9. In response, department officials have imposed extra training requirements.

The M&P has obvious benefits. It is easier to shoot accurately, can be fired more reliably under stress and is a better fit for people with small hands. The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff’s Academy. More recruits — including more women — are now passing the firearms test, and veteran deputies are also logging better scores at the firing range.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

Bob Owens, editor of BearingArms.com, says the design of the Glock and the M&P makes such tragedies more likely. “I don’t think, with the amount of training most agencies have, that a gun that has so few tolerances for mistakes is the best choice,” he said.

For two decades, L.A. County sheriff’s deputies carried the Beretta 92F, a heavy metal gun with a large grip.

People with small hands often have trouble flipping up the Beretta’s safety as they prepare to fire. The first shot requires 12 to 15 pounds of pressure on the trigger, forcing some to use two fingers and reducing shooting accuracy for many. Subsequent shots take about 4 pounds of pressure.

The M&P is made of lightweight polymer, with a hand grip that comes in three sizes. Firing a round is as simple as pulling the trigger with a consistent 6 to 8 pounds of pressure.

Sheriff’s deputies have the option of sticking with the Beretta, and some have, saying they are used to it. But many who have switched to the M&P say their shooting has improved.

“At first, I thought, ‘No way, I’m keeping my Beretta forever,'” said Sgt. Mike Rafter, a firearms instructor. “Then I started shooting, and it’s a lot nicer. I can shoot better, and I’m more confident.”

Academy trainees began receiving M&Ps in 2011 and the rest of the department began gradually switching to the new gun soon after. About half of sworn personnel are now using the M&P and more are changing over. As more deputies converted to the M&P, accidental discharges rose.

This is rich.  In spite of the silly article that Bob Owens wrote on the Glock and the silly accusations in this article, the truth does come out.

They are blaming it on a SA/DA pistol because of the heavy trigger pull for the first round (although I have to say that 6-8 pounds isn’t exactly a light trigger pull for the M&P).  Thus they have trained officers to keep their fingers on the trigger of their handguns when they deploy their firearms.  They say so.

Think about that and let it wash over you again.  When a cop pulls his handgun and points it your direction, according to the training he has received, he most likely has his finger on the trigger of the weapon.  And thus do we reach the root cause of the problems – not Glocks, or M&Ps, or any other ridiculous culprits.  It’s a shame that Bob couldn’t have pointed out the truth rather than blame the gun.  Blaming the gun is what gun controllers do, and why the collectivists wanted the so-called smart gun.

So other than reminding you that this violates two of the sacred rules of gun safety (muzzle discipline and trigger discipline), let’s rehearse sympathetic muscle reflexes again, and I’ll remind you of what I said about how the Marine Corps trained my son Daniel as a SAW gunner.  First concerning sympathetic muscle reflexes.

The term sympathetic contraction refers to the fact that an involuntary contraction may occur in the muscles of one limb when the same muscles in the other limb are performing an intended forceful action. In physiology literature this effect is known as a mirror movement, with the intensity of the sympathetic contraction depending on the amount of force exerted during the intended action. In policing, a common situation that may evoke such a sympathetic contraction would be, for example, a law enforcement officer attempting to restrain a struggling suspect with one hand while holding a handgun in the other.

The second scenario described by Enoka involves loss of balance. When balance is disturbed the human body evokes rapid involuntary contractions to return itself to a position of equilibrium. Thereby the involuntary contractions used to prevent a fall depend on the options available to counteract the disturbance of balance. Usually, compensatory movements following gait perturbations primarily involve correcting movements of the lower limbs to keep the body in balance, whereas movements of the arms are restricted to their extension forwards as a safeguard to counter an eventual fall. When an individual is holding a handle for support, there is, however, a tendency to use the arm muscles to maintain balance rather than the leg muscles. Under such circumstances the focal point of automatic postural activity is any contact point an individual has with his or her surroundings. In other words, if an individual’s posture is disturbed while grasping an object, for instance a handgun, he or she is likely to grasp it more forcefully.

Startle reaction, the third scenario identified by Enoka, is a whole-body reflex-like response to an unexpected stimulus, possibly a loud noise. It evokes rapid involuntary contractions that begin with the blink of an eye and spread to all muscles throughout the body. The reaction of the hands occurs less than 200ms after the stimulus and leads to individuals clenching their fists. Enoka concludes: “Accordingly, an officer who is startled by a loud, unexpected noise while searching for a suspect with his weapon drawn would surely increase the grip force on the weapon, perhaps enough to cause an involuntary discharge.”

Next concerning training.

My son was a SAW gunner in the 2/6 infantry, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, during the 2007 combat tour of Fallujah and the pre-deployment workup.  The senior Marines had experienced a tour of Iraq, and wanted their SAW gunners to have a round in the chamber, bolt open (the SAW is an open bolt weapon anyway), and finger on the trigger.  They had seen combat and they wanted their SAW gunners with zero steps to shooting.  Their lives depended on it.  They also did CQB drills with live rounds, along with squad rushes.

My son had an ID (if I’m not mistaken it was during training at Mohave Viper).  He tripped and had a sympathetic muscle reflex, squeezing the trigger of his SAW.  He spent an extended period of time in the “room of pain.”  They wanted him trained to overcome that sympathetic muscle reflex (which can be done, but it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of drills).  He spent the time learning to overcome that reflex, and performed well during his tour.  He also tried to teach his “boot” Marines the same way he was trained, but the Marines had begun to change and focus more on cultural sensitivity training and other COIN tools.  He got out of the Marine Corps.

Why am I discussing this?  Because no matter who you are, no matter how much time you spend, no matter how earnestly you wish it, no matter how many directives you write, if you are a SWAT team member, you will never be trained in such a manner.  Never.  You will never be trained like a U.S. Marine who has spent every day for a year and a half in pre-deployment workup to do a combat tour of Iraq.  Because you will never be trained in this manner, your tactics are dangerous, all of the time, and in all situations.  I don’t care how many times you have inexperienced Soldiers spend a week with you doing CQB drills.  With the standdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, they oftentimes know as little as you.  These tactics place people in danger when there are better alternatives.

In spite of all of this, officer safety is paramount, not your safety.  So things we would never do on a range, and never allow our mates to do, are done every day by cops around the country.  They keep their fingers on the triggers of their weapons when they deploy them.  They are trained to do it.  And Bob Owens, along with the LAPD, blame guns with light trigger pulls rather than the horrible safety protocols police use.  They would apparently rather continue the tradition of ignoring trigger discipline and use pistols with a heavy trigger pull to ameliorate sympathetic muscle reflexes rather than teach cops to follow the rules of gun safety.

Good grief.  Horrible.  Just horrible.

Prior: Gun-Mounted Flashlights Linked To Accidental Shootings

Guns.com:

Gabby Giffords’s super PAC is dropping six-figures into an ad buy in an effort to keep would be gun owners in North Carolina buying gun permits beforehand.

The group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is coming out swinging with its television ad against a gun reform bill, HB 562, currently in the state House’s Rules, Calendar, and Operations committee that would end the current process of obtaining a Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP), from their local sheriff before one could buy a handgun.

Critics of the scheme contend that it is an outdated process and that current federal background checks more than replace the antiquated system. They further argue that the permit law has racist origins from the Jim Crow-era and was originally designed to deprive African Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

However, gun control groups would disagree, calling the proposed change dangerous.

They have joined with the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, a former member of which appears in the ARS ad.

“As a sheriff for 28 years, I fought to keep our communities safe. But right now, some in the legislature want to repeal background checks on handguns. This will make it easier for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns,” says former Sheriff Wayne Gay of Wilson County. “When Missouri repealed their background check system, homicides shot up. I need your help. Tell the folks in Raleigh we need to keep background checks.”

Besides the ad buy from the Giffords group, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety group and Moms Demand Action have done polling and purchased their own set of ad as well as hosted legislative lobby days and reached out through social media to keep North Carolina from repealing the background check requirement.

There is more at Fox8:

Instead buyers would only have to go through a federal background check.

It’s a type of screening local sheriffs say should be left to local government.

“It’s a more efficient and more thorough way to check,” said Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page.

It’s always best when collectivists self-identify.  It prevents us from having to do the hard labor of proving the point.  Congratulations to the Sheriffs of North Carolina, who have apparently sided with the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Jennifer Mascia (see here and here for Jennifer).  How does that make you feel?  You and Jennifer, common sympathies, world view and interests.

Good grief.  Just good grief.

Detroit Free Press:

When a man armed with a loaded assault pistol strapped to his leg, dressed in camouflage, and singing to himself, began walking in front of a Grand Rapids church one snowy Sunday morning in March 2014, an alarmed churchgoer called 911. When police arrived, they took the man’s gun, and briefly handcuffed him while they questioned him. The man, Johann Deffert, an “open carry” gun advocate, then sued police saying they had violated his constitutional rights.

A federal judge disagreed.

In a decision released last week, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff tossed Deffert’s lawsuit, saying the police officer “was justified in following up on the 911 call and using swift action to determine whether plaintiff’s behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

[ … ]

“We’re seeing sporadic reports of it from around the state, those who are trying to draw attention to themselves and it’s needlessly alarming people,” said Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, which has 1,100 members. “People aren’t used to seeing someone brandish a gun in front of their kids’ schools.”

Stevenson said the increasingly confrontational nature of the clashes is dangerous.

“It puts the police in a position where, we don’t know what their intent is, so they’re going to approach this person, not realizing that the intent is to hurt somebody. It’s a terrible situation what these people are doing, somebody is going to get hurt.”

Sheriff’s officials say they are duty-bound to investigate what they perceive as threatening behavior, regardless of whether a person has a permit to carry a weapon or whether they are openly carrying a weapon in a place permitted by law.

Michigan is an open carry state without a stop and identify statute.  Thus has judge Neff fabricated law out of whole cloth, without even the input of the legislature.  A black robed tyrant, she is.  As for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (assuming Stevenson is the one quoted on the duty to investigate threatening behavior), he is of course lying.  He is wrong and knows it, which makes it a lie.  See Castle Rock versus Gonzalez.  Police are absolutely not “duty bound” to do any such thing.

Thus has Stevenson fabricated duties out of whole cloth in order to support the illegal stop and identify and detention.  Rights?  Laws?  Eh, who needs them?  The system has judges and cops.  That’s all they need.

Daniel Barger:

“This would fall under the ‘self fulfilling prophecy’ description. People comment about how abusive, invasive and criminalistics government employees and the judiciary are and those same people
engage in conduct that PROVES THE POINT.”

ARSTechnica:

Federal prosecutors got Ross Ulbricht thrown in prison for life for running the Silk Road online drug marketplace. Now, they’re going after people who made comments online about the judge who sentenced him.

The Department of Justice is seeking the identities of commenters at Reason.com, a libertarian website that has covered Silk Road extensively. The hunt for commenters was revealed yesterday, when the legal blog Popehat published a grand jury subpoena (PDF) that DOJ investigators gave to Reason.

“Why is the government using its vast power to identify these obnoxious asshats, and not the other tens of thousands who plague the internet?” wrote Popehat blogger Ken White. “Because these twerps mouthed off about a judge.”

On May 31, two days after Ross Ulbricht was sentenced, Reason published a blog post looking back at his plea for leniency. The post is sympathetic to Ulbricht and Silk Road, which it calls “a revolutionary website that made it easier and safer to buy and sell illegal drugs.”

There are more than 100 comments on the short Reason article, and a quick scan suggests they are universally negative. US District Judge Katherine Forrest threw the book at Ulbricht, giving him life without the possibility of parole—more than prosecutors asked for. Her sentencing speech was a full-throated defense of the drug war.

Prosecutors want “any and all identifying information” related to the following eight comments, all published shortly after the May 31 blog post went up:

• Agammamon: Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.
• Alan: It’s judges like this that will be taken out and short. FTFY.
• croaker: Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.
• Cloudbuster: Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.
• Rhywun: I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.
• Alan: There is.
• Product Placement: I’d prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.
• croaker: Fuck that. I don’t want to oay [sic] for that cunt’s food, housing, and medical. Send her through the wood chipper.

In the subpoena to Reason, the government requests that the company “voluntarily refrain from disclosing the existence of the subpoena to any third party,” but makes it clear they have no legal obligation to do so. The Popehat blog post does not identify the source of the subpoena.

Also see this important article at Popehat.com who does a good analysis.  Their conclusion?  Regrettably, The Government Can Probably Abuse the Grand Jury Subpoena Power This Way.

What you see here is incestuous law at its worst.  The prosecutors – who are part of the system and “officers of the court – want to find anonymous commenters in order to keep the system firmly ensconced.  They will get their way or send out the LEOs – who are themselves part of the system and officers of the court.  It will all eventually be heard or adjudicated by judges, who are officers of the court.

I firmly believe that even more troubling times are headed for our country.  An economy based entirely on fiat money, debt and fractional reserve banking cannot long last.  Furthermore, as “European American” correctly observes, “Armed, Law Abiding Citizens, and a Militarized Fascist Police State cannot coexist.”  Hard times are coming, and they cannot be stopped or held in abatement.

In the mean time, though, be careful what you you say and where you say it, even anonymously.