News from Texas:

JUNCTION, TX — The gunfight in Junction yesterday morning involved more than gunfire between law enforcement and the suspect running from an El Paso 7-Eleven murder during a robbery.

According to multiple sources, Kimble County Sheriff Hilario Cantu shot an innocent civilian during the gunfight. The civilian was not killed.

The Kimble County Sheriff’s Office referred us to the Texas DPS for information.

According to the Texas DPS, the shooting of the civilian bystander happened during a vehicle pursuit. DPS said an officer with the Kimble County Sheriff’s Office shot at a vehicle similar in appearance to the suspect’s vehicle.

Is that the way this works?  Shoot at all similar cars?

I have to confess that tactic had never occurred to me.  Shoot at all cars matching the description of a suspect.  They could end up with a lot of dead innocent folks, but hey, as long as they get their guy, they can call it a win, right?  As long as they get to go home safely at the end of their shift.  That’s what really matters.

News from Williamsburg:

It took 19 hours for the Williamsburg Police Department and The York-Poquoson Sheriff’s office to tell the media one of YPSO’s deputies “accidentally” discharged his service weapon during a traffic stop.

[ … ]

“Anything than a less than perfect response regarding an interaction between police and citizens is something that should be reviewed. This was an unfortunate accident with no malice or ill intent towards the occupants of the vehicle. Thankfully no one was injured in this event.

It’s always worked for me.  I remember the last time I shot at a car.  I just told the cops I was “less than perfect,” and they nodded with understanding and let me go.

Breitbart:

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schimdt led seven other Attorneys General in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States contending that the Second Amendment protects suppressors too.

The seven other AGs represent the states of Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. They are asking SCOTUS to review a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision that held that firearm accessories fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protections.

The Tenth Circuit specifically ruled that Jeremy Kettler could not be granted relief for being trapped between federal law and Kansas law regarding possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor. They reached their finding, in part, by ruling that suppressors are not protected under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) because they are not “bearable.”

[ … ]

The AGs are asking SCOTUS to reverse that ruling. Their amicus brief states:

[The undersigned AGs] have a strong interest in protecting their citizens’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the lawful use of firearms—including for hunting or recreational shooting—is a venerable tradition in many amici States. This is especially true in Kansas, where its citizens recently and overwhelmingly voted to amend the State’s Constitution to reaffirm that an individual “has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose,” Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 4, and the right to “hunt . . . by the use of traditional methods,” id. § 21. The Tenth Circuit’s unsupported conclusion that firearm accessories are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protection threatens amici’s citizens’ right to enjoy these time-honored pursuits.

That suppressors aren’t “bearable” is an idiotic reason to suppose that the second amendment doesn’t apply.  How big do they suppose suppressors are?

In any case, I hate to see the AGs arguing that suppressors shouldn’t be excluded from the scope of the 2A because of “sporting purposes,” which as we all know has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2A.

I predict the SCOTUS will not grant it a hearing.

This is what happens when FedGov has to much printed currency to spend on unnecessary things like building tactical teams.

BUFFALO, NY (WIVB) It’s not the way you usually see the SWAT Team in action. On Wednesday, members of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office tactical units took part in the latest in a series of cold weather training on skis and snowshoes at Sprague Brook Park in the Town of Concord.

“I think one of the greatest strengths of what the Sheriff’s department can offer here, this is just a greater way for us to serve the community,” said Lt. Neil Held, a member of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and Bomb Squad.

A few winters ago, when many people became trapped in their vehicles during a storm, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office took a better look at ways to get to them, according to SWAT Team Captain Warren Hawthorn. “If a vehicle, regardless of how large the vehicle is, can’t get into a narrow spot or snow is simply too deep for a snowmobile, the last resort is you have to go get those peple on foot or on skiis or on snow shoes and this gives us that ability to do that.”

The ability to get to them on foot could be a matter of life or death, according to Lt. Held. “Maybe it’s dropping off blankets to them, or some type of cold weather supplies to help sustain them through them being stranded wherever it is that they are, so if they need to be evacuated then we have that capability also.”

The Erie County Sheriff’s Office received a tactical team grant through the New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services to pay for the type of training which took place Wednesday at Sprague Brook Park in Concord.

Why such a grant as this would go to a SWAT team rather than a local fire department isn’t clear, probably because there is no excuse for this.

And this is what happens when local taxpayers spend too much on their SWAT teams.

The United Arab Emirates’ record on human rights abuses and arresting dissidents has drawn criticism from the international community and the U.S. Department of State. But that didn’t stop three Florida sheriff’s office SWAT teams from attending a nearly two-week competition there earlier this month.

Dubai police have come under criticism for arresting people for posting videos to social media that are critical of the government or otherwise deemed offensive. Undeterred, sheriff’s offices from Flagler, Alachua, and Osceola counties — along with the New York Police Department — recently flew to Dubai to learn from those police agencies on trips subsidized by the UAE’s Interior Ministry.

The three Florida agencies and the NYPD were the only four American law enforcement agencies invited to the competition, which stretched from Feb. 4-14, according to the event’s agenda.

[ … ]

The Alachua County Sheriff’s Office told the Times-Union that the Dubai Police covered all expenses for the team to include travel, lodging, meals and “things needed for the competition.”

“The only expense we had was we paid the daily wages of the deputies involved and for travel insurance,” said Public Information Officer Art Forgey.

In its press release, the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office said Sheriff Rick Staly “personally met with the Dubai Police Chief and Deputy Prime Minister Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan.”

“He also learned how Dubai Police serve their community, which is significantly different than American policing and extensively uses advanced technology and does not use traditional patrols,” the sheriff’s public information officer said.

Dubai is blanketed with thousands of surveillance cameras that are connected to a central command center that uses artificial intelligence and facial recognition to monitor civilians.

Well I’m glad the Sheriff himself got to be a part of this shindig.  Perhaps they can figure out a way to blanket America with thousands of surveillance cameras along with all of those JTTF Fusion centers.  After all, the constitution doesn’t really matter.

Then there’s the issue of a standing army and the objections to it.  Not a standing army, you say?  Go take a look at the picture of the team.  It matters not how they’re dressed – what really matters is what they think of themselves.  You can tell it from the photo.

David Codrea:

Ironically, or not so much if you think about it, the same parties that petitioned the Court to hear the matter en banc oppose the motion to reconsider the order staying the case. After years of doing everything in his power to use the system for redress of grievances against a state with comparatively unlimited resources, Young wants his day in court, but the government is in no hurry to give it to him.

The progs love the courts only as long as the black-robed tyrants rule like they want.  Otherwise, they’re just a hurdle until they can be replaced with court packing or manipulated.  FDR would be proud.

I have been following this closely although not writing about it.  I travelled to Hawaii once (probably not again), and was astonished at the anti-2A sentiment there.  I hope the government’s case eventually goes down in flames.

So apparently the intel is that Surefire is also a donator to anti-gun politicians.

Hey, I like Streamlight.  I find Surefire way too expensive for what you get.

The comments seem to point to willingness to forgive, given that they have to get FedGov contracts.  Pay-to-play, and all that.  It can no longer just be about making a good product at a competitive price.  It’s got to be about who you pay off.

Very well, maybe they are well off enough to do without a few of those civilian sales.

On my various travels, I crossed paths with this quote.

“…to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally” (The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues for Our Time, by Dr. Norman Geisler and JP Moreland, Greenwood Publishing, 1990).

This sounds like things that have been said here before at TCJ.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

…

If you believe that it is your Christian duty to allow your children to be harmed by evil-doers (and you actually allow it to happen) because you think Christ was a pacifist, you are no better than a child abuser or pedophile.

…

God demands violence as a response to threats on our person because of the fact that man is created in God’s image and life is to be preserved.  It is our solemn duty.

…

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

…

If you’re willing to sacrifice the safety and health of your wife or children to the evils of abuse, kidnapping, sexual predation or death, God isn’t impressed with your fake morality.  Capable of stopping it and choosing not to, you’re no better than a child molester, and I wouldn’t allow you even to be around my grandchildren.

I’m in good company.  Or maybe Geisler and Moreland are.

I stumbled on this via reddit/firearms, but David Codrea has a number of links as well.  Look at what the boys at reddit have dug up.

You can Google Darlene Hooley and see here love for gun control and the Brady Center’s love for her.  So how did this all come up you ask?

Here’s their reply to the kerfuffle.

Not good enough.  Traitors.

I don’t own any Benchmade knives, and never will.  There are too many good companies out there (Ka-Bar, CRKT, etc.) to give my money to traitors.

How about you?

ABC13:

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo says ‘no-knock’ warrants will end on his watch after the controversial raid that left a man and his wife dead on the southeast side.

The announcement came during a town hall meeting Monday night hosted by the Greater Houston Coalition of Justice.

Acevedo added that any exceptions to that rule will be circumstantial, and he’ll know about it.

He also promised a new policy, stating that undercover officers will wear body cameras during a raid.

[ … ]

“Under my watch, we uncovered it. Under my watch, we haven’t covered it up,” said Acevedo, who was interrupted many times throughout the meeting.

First of all, if you were transparent your officers would already have been wearing body cams.  Second, you’re a liar.  In spite of the fact that we pointed out to you that innocent people had been killed in a botched raid that should never have been conducted, and that the whole thing was your own damn fault, you went on national television and used this raid as an opportunity to pimp gun control.

You’re a loser, and the officers involved in this deserve to be in the state penitentiary.  Oh, and I noticed that this isn’t really the end of no-knock raids.  Some raids will be “circumstantial.”  Liar.

So says the editorial board of the Seattle Times.

After their elections, county sheriffs take an oath to uphold the laws of the country, state and county — even when they disagree.

At least 13 county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the state’s new gun law, Initiative 1639. They must reconsider, enforce the law as it is and find another, legal way to protest. Not to do so is to flout their oath and responsibility to citizens.

And, as Attorney General Bob Ferguson warns in a sharply worded letter, the sheriffs would be held liable in the case of a gun sale that could have been prevented by the new background checks and then someone uses that gun in a crime. These elected officials should be accountable for doing their jobs.

The courts will determine whether the wide-ranging new gun law is constitutional or not. It raises the age to 21 to buy semi-automatic rifles, requires enhanced background checks for those purchases and can hold gun owners responsible if their weapon was stored carelessly and is used in a crime.

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation are pursuing such a court decision with a lawsuit they filed in federal court. If the sheriffs — from Adams, Benton, Ferry, Franklin, Grant, Grays Harbor, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Mason, Pacific, Stevens and Yakima counties — want to join that lawsuit, and their county ethics laws allow it, they could.

The sheriffs have not clarified what part of the law they plan not to enforce, with journalists who have asked. Gun stores could lose their licenses if they sell to someone under age, regardless of whether their county sheriff will look the other way.

Sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers are already doing the enhanced background checks for handgun purchases, so refusing to do so for semi-automatic rifles would be illogical. At least one sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond, said he would follow the new rules concerning background checks and a 10-day waiting period. Their main responsibility under the new law is to check at least three state and federal databases for outstanding warrants and pending criminal charges.

“These enhanced background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals who lawfully cannot own firearms because of a mental illness or criminal record,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to law enforcement.

The First Amendment protects the right of free speech for county sheriffs and all of us. They may continue to object to the law with their words. But their actions must stick to their oath of office, in which they promised to uphold the law of their county, state and country.

The sons and daughters of libertarian hippies so quickly morphed into statists, controllers and communists that you didn’t even notice.  Signs gave way to 中华人民共和国, and disdain for the politicians gave way to blind, unquestioning trust in senators and black robed tyrants, as long as they say everything is okay.

So here is their logic.  A law gets made, and as long as the judges say it’s okay (since they’re infallible), the Sheriffs must enforce it.  But the Sheriffs take an oath to the U.S. constitution too, whether they attended Yale or Emory law school or not.  And every man has a conscience, is accountable to God, and must do what he thinks is righteous without being a respecter of persons.  I’m left wondering how the Sheriffs feel about being considered monkeys who obey orders without thinking?

That gun control and confiscations preceded every genocide in recent history is irrelevant or unknown to these sophomores on the editorial board, and that mass shootings at the hands of state actors in “gun free” nations approaches 170 millions souls (death by government) matters not to these moral pygmies.

They could be betting that once the state declares such-and-such concerning guns, the hundreds of millions of gun owners in America will willingly comply.  They could be right about a large fraction of them.  I suspect that were AR-15s to be declared illegal except in the hands of LEOs, all but ten million people would comply.

And there are other less draconian edicts in the pipeline as well to catalyze death by a thousand cuts, from lockup requirements for your guns, to increased age before buying, waiting periods, red-flag confiscation laws (one potential red flag being that you believe the second amendment codified God-given rights to ameliorate tyranny), no more bequeathing of firearms in wills, etc., etc.  They have all the solutions.  They will tell you so.

But ten million.  Come up with your own number, folks.  Ten million, five million, fifteen million.  Or two million.  Recall at the absolute height of the war in Iraq (in which my son fought, so I know these things) that the Multinational Force estimated the total number of combatant insurgents to be approximately 20,000.  No more than 20,000 combatants in Iraq caused the torment you watched for a decade, and required saturation by several hundred thousand troops to quell, including 5000 U.S. deaths and around 50,000 more casualties.

Compare those numbers.  Two million (a very low estimate) versus 20,000.  And here is the thing to ponder.  The editorial board of the Seattle Times doesn’t care.  They don’t mind some shedding of blood, some violence, some brutality, because good communists never do.