Articles by Herschel Smith

Good Lord.

First up in this most recent but awful recent procession of the ugly and parade of the vulgar is a report from New Mexico.

The New Mexico State Police released additional information Thursday on a deadly shooting that happened the day prior in Farmington after officers mistakenly responded to the wrong home and shot one of its occupants to death.

In a Thursday statement, the NMSP said an officer with the Farmington Police Department fatally shot the victim, identified as Robert Dotson, 52, after responding to a call for a domestic violence incident at around 11:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Farmington police officers responded to the area but visited the wrong address.

“Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached 5305 Valley View Avenue instead of 5308 Valley View Avenue,” the NMSP said. “Officers knocked on the front door of 5305 Valley View Avenue and announced themselves as Farmington police officers. When there was no answer at 5305, officers asked their dispatch to call the reporting party back and have them come to the front door.”

The addresses are located across the street from one another. Police said the occupants of 5305 Valley View Avenue opened the door armed and an exchange of gunfire ensued.

“Body camera footage shows as the officers backed away from 5305 Valley View Avenue, the homeowner, Robert Dotson, 52, opened the screen door armed with a handgun. At this point in the encounter, officer(s) fired at least one round from their duty weapon(s) striking Mr. Dotson,” police said.

The NMSP added: “After the initial shooting, Mr. Dotson’s wife, also armed with a handgun, fired from the doorway of the residence. Once again, officer(s) fired. Once she realized that the individuals outside the residence were officers, she put the gun down and complied with the officer’s commands.”

If one doesn’t know who is at the door making a commotion, it seems to make perfect sense to go armed.  But in fact it doesn’t.  If police can shoot you with immunity for simply being in possession of a firearm, then the RKBA doesn’t exist at all.

Second, the wisest counsel would say don’t open the door for police.  Just like you never talk to the police without a lawyer, you don’t open the door for the police.  Simply don’t do it, especially if you’re in possession of a weapon.  Don’t let your dog[s] out or they will also get shot by Barney Fife.  Ensconce inside your home and assess the situation, but don’t believe for even a single second that the police are there to protect your safety.  In fact, there is no situation so bad and so dire that it cannot be made worse by the presence of the police.

The second event up in this obscene spectacle comes from Florida.

Two police officers in Clearwater, Florida, were suspended following an incident wherein they both shot at each other in the darkness. They responded to a call about a man firing a gun in his backyard. They approached silently, in the darkness, positioned themselves, and when the man fired a round, they both essentially mag-dumped at each other. One of the officers was hit.

The violations of extremely important rules of safety are so stark it boggles the imagination.  Don’t shoot if you don’t know what you’re shooting at.  Know your target and what’s behind it.  The Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner, and so much more that it’s just not productive to lay out all of the failures here.

Third up in this display of foolishness comes straight to you from the FBI and SOCOM.

Members of the FBI and the US Army Special Operations Command who were conducting a training exercise in downtown Boston raided the wrong hotel room and detained the person inside before realizing their mistake, the FBI said in a statement to CNN.

The FBI said its Boston division was helping the military with a training exercise around 10 p.m. Tuesday “to simulate a situation their personnel might encounter in a deployed environment.”

“Based on inaccurate information, they were mistakenly sent to the wrong room and detained an individual, not the intended role player,” the FBI said.

[ … ]

An officer with the US Army Special Operations will lead the investigation into the incident, Burns told CNN Friday. The investigation will be an administrative fact-finding inquiry, but it can result in recommendations that could lead to judicial proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It’s a wonder they didn’t kill anyone.

Good grief.  Have things gotten so bad in SOCOM that they have to take lessons in how to screw up from the FBI?  My son did this for real among real bad guys in Fallujah and could teach them how to do this right.  Better yet, there are tactical trainers out there who make a living doing this (here you must be careful since there are also some fakes, like the FBI, and also some trainers who don’t believe in the RKBA and would tyrannize the American people).

The point is that the FBI is the very last place SOCOM should go for training.  If they have fallen to that level, America’s armed forces are truly in trouble.

I knew a sergeant in a local PD who knew that I have a penchant for 1911s.  He told me once that he wouldn’t trust any officer in his department to carry or decock a hammer fired pistol, even if it’s a backup pistol to his service issued firearm.  Of course, you must know what you’re doing with a striker fired gun too, but he’s a wise man to restrict his officers to something he thinks they can handle.

You’re never in more danger than when the police are around.  Do everything humanly possible to get away from them as quickly as possible.

Never forget that you owe this precedent-setting debacle of an empowered ATF making up law out of whole cloth to Donald Trump.  Never forget that. This all gave the go-ahead for the pistol brace rule, and many other things yet to come.

Huge Breaking 2A News! Biden administration late last night at the last hour before the final deadline filed a 197-page Writ of Certiorari, aka request that the US Supreme Court hears the Garland v Cargill bump stock lawsuit at SCOTUS. #2A #GoodFriday2023 #2AShallNotBeInfringed pic.twitter.com/wY8XSzQ0Bz

— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) April 7, 2023

This is interesting for most of us, although it wouldn’t and doesn’t dissuade me from carrying a revolver for personal defense.  Of course, if your name is Jerry Miculek, none of this applies to you.  It seems to me that one of the lessons is to carry a backup handgun if you think you might be in a protracted gunfight.  If you can’t predict the future like most of us, I guess get good with speed loaders.  I like the idea of carrying a secondary weapon better.

On a related note, I don’t ever buy Armscor ammunition.  One comment to Sam’s video is interesting: “Back as a cop, I carried a 22 mag pocket revolver as a backup to the 38 issued weapon. Our armourer specifically warned us not to use Squires Bingham (what Armscor used to be in those days) 22 wrmf rounds for this reason. And this was quite a while ago now. Seems their QA for their rimfire mag round has not improved much.”

It’s all a myth.  So says Serene Jones of Union Theological Seminary, writing at Salon.  She discusses politics extensively, and then finally gets to her main point.

But as a theologian with deep biblical expertise, I must say, I’m struggling to find the part in the Bible about unlimited access to guns. I hate to break it to these “devoted” religious followers: The Bible says absolutely nothing about allowing people to run amuck with guns. It’s a completely ludicrous reading of the text.

Generally, conservative politicians justify this vague connection by claiming the Bible gives people the right to self-defense. But that’s a preposterous jump from the text. The Bible barely touches on a right to self-defense. There are a few sentences that could allude to one – but in no way is there a concrete message on the subject. Plus, the deadliest weapon the Bible ever mentions is a sword – hardly an AR-15 that can kill dozens of people in seconds.

All in all, it seems to me that the Bible would perhaps support a hefty supply of pepper spray. But weapons of war? That’s absurd.

One might cite Exodus 21:12-15, Numbers 35:6-34, and Deuteronomy 19:1-13, Exodus 22, Nehemiah 4:8-23 and especially Esther 8:11-12.  But it’s apparent she doesn’t want to hear it.

Something simpler must be done.  Here we will get detailed and a bit deep for a usual post, so the reader must pay closer attention than the usual 2 or 3-minute read.

Recall that we’ve approached this many times from the perspective of the Decalogue, the most didactic and straight forward statement on the issue of man being man in God’s image.  We’ll do that shortly, but in order to couch this in the usual boundary conditions thrown around by statists, it’s necessary to mention that the American government doesn’t function like Paul intended in Romans 13.  Evil doing goes unpunished, and even more to the point, there is no legal requirement for the police to provide protection of its citizens.

That’s a myth usually told to those with childlike thinking in order to pacify them.  The American court system has ensured that the police can watch a woman being raped on the streets, eat doughnuts while it happens, and then arrest the perpetrator after the fact and be within the law (even if not their department policies depending on the specific PD).  The police are there to effect arrests for law-breaking, not make peace or supply protection.  For those who doubt this, see again the following cases.

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

In fact, the surest and quickest way to get shot is to invite the police into any situation.  So if the police cannot and will not provide protection, who will?  Who will protect the women and children?  Who will provide the same function as the men did in Esther 8:11-12?  It isn’t enough to conflate protection of national borders with the self protection discussed in Esther.  The armed forces of the nation are no located on the street corners protecting women and children.

Ms. Jones teaches a course on John Calvin.  It’s to Calvin we turn right now.  The best case for the necessity of self defense comes straight from the Decalogue.  John Calvin, commenting on commandment and prohibition, observes:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

I then make these remarks.  “Matthew Henry observes the same concerning Proverbs 24:11-12 (“If we see the lives or livelihoods of any in danger of being taken away unjustly, we ought to bestir ourselves all we can do to save them …”).  Far from a weak or forced case for self defense, this is one of the strongest in the Scriptures.  Thou shalt not kill means that thou shalt not allow yourself or those around you to be killed, thus says the Lord.  It isn’t an option – it is His commandment.”

“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.  Finally, self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14).”

As the reader might suspect, it’s necessary to invoke Luke 22:36, if for no other reason than to dismiss the persistent false views of what Jesus is saying there.

Paul Carter writing at Gospel Coalition states the following.

This passage is often submitted as evidence that Jesus permitted violent self defence if the situation so warranted. However, the vast majority of commentators think Jesus was speaking metaphorically here and that the disciples misunderstood the point he was trying to make. John Calvin for example said:

It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron. [1]

Indeed, had the disciples’ understanding been accurate, it would be hard to understand why just a few hours later Jesus would rebuke Peter for drawing a sword in self defence.  “Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52 ESV).

Either Jesus had a very short memory, or the disciples were guilty of gross misinterpretation of his teaching.

I’m not aware of a single commentator who thinks Jesus was telling the disciples to stock up on actual swords.

He utterly misses the point, misapplies Calvin here, and falsely states that Jesus spoke in riddles.  Calvin nowhere denies the biblical right of self defense, but rather states clearly that the sword will not win the souls of men.

Also quite clearly, Jesus did tell His disciples to purchase swords (actually, what was common then was a more concealable cross between a knife and sword).  More to the point, however, is that this command directly ordered His disciples to violate Roman law in order to obtain weapons of self defense.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

There is a wide gulf between negating OT law regarding self defense, and merely emphasizing that the kingdom of God will not be won without the winning of souls.  It’s all too easy for modern “scholars” to conflate these ideas.

It would have been useful if Ms. Jones had provided more of her allegedly biblical objections to self defense, but she does not.  Her focus here is mainly on politics.  But it’s easy enough to demonstrate that a rock is useful in self defense, a stick maybe more so, a sword even more so, and a firearms the premier self defense weapon in the world today.

I usually ask most who object to the notion of self defense if they would take a life to prevent a home invader from taking the life of their wife.  When the moralistic legalistic among us tell us no, it’s interesting to watch the reactions of their wives.  They are quite literally willing to sacrifice their wives to rape and even death for the sake of their false sense of morality.  The next follow-on question usually ends the discussion: What about your children – are you willing to sacrifice their lives too?  Is your duty to protect the little ones?  What would Jesus do?

In the end, Ms. Jones is advised to moderate her claims to having “deep biblical expertise.”  I’ve done a bit of reading and study myself, my professor having forced me to read Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology.”  It would also be wise to rehearse her knowledge of Calvin before teaching on him again.

And she might want to question her husband or other protector on his intentions in a home invasion.  She might find the results bracing.

It doesn’t help to assert as some do that God will take care of us.  That’s ineffective even for a Calvinist like me.  God expects us to follow His laws, meet our responsibilities, and fulfil our duties.

If this comes down to what weapon we think best to effect the self defense that God commands, Ms. Jones is stepping in between God and man if she presumes to decide that for us, and is taking the seat of Christ.  That’s a dangerous perch.

She would be best to ask the question, “Why has society changed so that misuse of weapons is the problem we think it is today?”  Or better yet, “Where does sin come from, and how long has man been committing it?”

As for the later, read Genesis Chapter 3.  As for the former, she might ponder the effects of the Auburn Affirmation with its rejection of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, and the general defenestration of Biblical theology, along with the awful effects on American culture of that decision to make friends with the source, form and redaction criticism of the Germans.  In other words, look in the mirror, Ms. Jones.

Cases.  Because there is more than one.

Here is a video from Silencer Shop.  This sounds like a nice idea, but at the expense of registering it with the ATF, not so much any more.  You’re free to disagree. I see that they have designed the suppressors with different choke sizes in mind. That answered the only question I had before watching he video: what does this do to the shot pattern? I do wonder what this does to the weight distribution and balance of the gun though.

I find that using shotguns in particular reduces the need for any sort of suppression of the sound because of the comfort of wearing sound enhancing ear muffs (or electronic ear muffs).  They work well with the lower comb of the shotgun and don’t interfere with getting a good cheek weld.

Rifles are a different story.  With rifles the stock doesn’t have the same profile, and this is especially true of modern sporting rifles where the stock is along the same axis as the recoil.  I find that electronic ear muffs do interfere with my cheek weld.  The only option at that point is foam hearing protection for the ear canal.

The upshot of electronic ear muffs for hunting or other shooting sports is that, especially for a person who is somewhat hard of hearing like me, the muffs actually enhance the sound (other than the shot itself).  I damaged my hearing by running power equipment for years before we thought about things like hearing protection. I always use hearing protection now. Thus, the last time I went quail hunting I had a regular conversation with someone with muffs on, and yet suffered no hearing damage from the shotgun.  The downside of foam hearing protection is that no such conversation can be had.

I am a fairly well rounded engineer, and in addition to studying both mechanical and nuclear engineering, I have studied the physics of sound, including all of the OSHA regulations and the dumbed-down ways they force you to compute reduction in decibels (for example, when double protection is used).  OSHA crafts its calculations for the simplest minded health and safety technician to use, not for the engineer.

But those regulations do provide worker protection.  And while it can be said that OSHA has no jurisdiction over hearing safety for those other than workers, if the FedGov cared in the least about the health and safety of its citizens, OSHA would be in front of Congress lobbying for removal of suppressors from the NFA.  Hearing loss is a human safety issue.  There are no two ways about it.

The only conclusion one can reach is that OSHA doesn’t really care about you, any more than the federal government does.  Because you engage in hunting and the other shooting sports, they hate you.  It’s that simple.  If they cared about you, they would have removed suppressors a very long time ago and allowed them to be sold at the local hardware store.

I dislike that the judge relied on the fact that no psychiatrist needs to be involved in the current New York law in order to seize firearms.  The mere word of another person can do it.  This law should have been overthrown because it’s clearly unconstitutional.  But turning to the neighborhood witch doctors for the infallible word on your state of mind is a bad idea for too many reasons to list, not the least of which is the fact that only God knows the heart of man.  Another problem is that one can trust due process only if they trust the process (this sounds like a tautology but it’s not).  The ‘due’ part of due process relies on the truthfulness and viability of the justice system to administer justice.  More often than not, justice is whatever wicked men want it to be.

But this is better than the alternative, which is that the law could have been found constitutional.

Gov. DeSantis just signed a bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, making Florida the 26th state to allow permitless carry. We spoke to Florida @SheriffMina who said this won’t make his state safer — in fact, just the opposite. https://t.co/ZfmG8sXOCm pic.twitter.com/fW0Ap7eqrF

— The Problem With Jon Stewart (@TheProblem) April 3, 2023

I won’t ask a copy what he thinks because it doesn’t matter what he thinks.  He doesn’t determine my rights.

As for Jon Stewart (do you see the look of unction on his face?), he’s just a court jester wearing funny hats.  He’s not the serious person he wants to be.  It’s amusing, though, how easily alleged progressives flip to become totalitarians.  That’s because in fact they are totalitarians.

The children of hippies believe in the state as god because their parents believed in nothing.

Cry all you want, it’s now the law in Florida.  And open carry will happen eventually, so cops won’t have to wonder if there’s a gun stuck in the waist band for open carriers.  For everybody else, they should assume people are carrying.

That’s easy enough.  I’m glad I could be of help.

I have several remarks about the events depicted and discussed below, but make sure to watch the entire video.

First, none of this would happen if the cops involved – FedGov and local/county/state – didn’t want to engage in it.  In other words, they like beating people up.  There is no other explanation for this.  This is sociopathic behavior.

Second, the problem is exacerbated when local/county/state LEOs are deputized as agents of the federal government, whether FBI or Marshals Office or whatever.  Far from being protectors of rights and peace officers, as would need to be the case if the notion of second amendment sanctuaries means anything, it’s apparently too tempting when a local LEO hears the words “Deputized as a Federal Marshal.”  They can’t turn it down under their own volition.  They are in need of a body of laws and regulations on the local and state level telling them they cannot do that without state penalties.

Third, they should not be armed.  They have all proven much to contemptuous of rights and liberties, and much too dangerous, to walk around armed.  In the case of most LEOs, they are “armed to the terror of the public,” as contrasted with open carriers who obey the law, and act in a peaceful manner.

Fourth, whatever body of law that supports the notion of qualified immunity must be turned back.  It essentially means that LEOs, especially federally empowered LEOs, can violate constitutional liberties and rights with no remedy by those they have offended.  This is prima facie ridiculous, and certainly wasn’t envisioned by the founders.  The founders fought a war to stop this sort of thing and then prevent its recurrence.

Fifth, the FedGov has no business in local and state matters.  Fusion centers and joint operations task forces should be banned by law.

Via Instapundit, Judge Don Willett knows what’s what with this doctrine.

Today’s decision upholding qualified immunity is compelled by our controlling precedent. I write separately only to highlight newly published scholarship that paints the qualified-immunity doctrine as flawed— foundationally—from its inception.

For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has claimed that (1) certain common-law immunities existed when § 1983 was enacted in 1871,2 and (2) “no evidence” suggests that Congress meant to abrogate these immunities rather than incorporate them.3 But what if there were such evidence? Indeed, what if the Reconstruction Congress had explicitly stated—right there in the original statutory text—that it was nullifying all common-law defenses against § 1983 actions? That is, what if Congress’s literal language unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity? Professor Alexander Reinert argues precisely this in his new article, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation—that courts have been construing the wrong version of § 1983 for virtually its entire legal life.

Wait, what?

[ … ]

In arguing that qualified immunity is flawed from the ground up, Professor Reinert poses a provocative question: “If a legislature enacts a statute, but no one bothers to read it, does it still have interpretive force?”9 It seems a tall order to square the modern qualified-immunity regime with Congress’s originally enacted language. But however seismic the implications of this lost-text research, “‘[a]s middle-management circuit judges,’ we cannot overrule the Supreme Court.”10 Only that Court can definitively grapple with § 1983’s enacted text and decide whether it means what it says—and what, if anything, that means for § 1983 immunity jurisprudence.

If was a gambler, I would lay all of my money down on the SCOTUS not turning back such awful, wicked doctrine and qualified immunity.  Thus, the LEOs dispatched by the FedGov will become ever more hated, performing ever more cruel deeds as they see that they have no check on their behavior.

I had completely missed this significant case coming from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.  It had to do with Mr. John Holden who, upon completion of his Form 4473 as it turns out, was under indictment at the time.  Being under indictment is not the same thing as being found guilty of a crime.  Furthermore, recall that the Fifth Circuit has dealt with a situation somewhat similar to this one.

Anyway, the judge makes this startling statement in the conclusion of the decision.

This opinion was drafted with an earnest hope that its author has misunderstood New York State Rifle v . Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111. If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional . For one constitutional reason or another, a similar fate has befallen several other laws that Congress adopted with beneficent purposes . But unlike those instances , the decimation of the nation’s gun laws would arise from an assumption that our leaders and ratifying legislators in the late 1700s didn’t foresee that their descendants might need a different relationship than the founders had between the federal government and the right to bear arms. Yet a glance at the Constitution they were amending shows that they could foresee the growth in population that would change the number of representatives to be elected ,that future members of Congress might need higher pay, and that future states might aspire to join the union.

The United States Constitution, as amended and as imperfect as itwas ,is the legacy ofthose eighteenth-century Americans ; it insults both that legacy and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulatingguns in new ways.

The role ofa United States District Court is to apply the law as understood by the United States Supreme Court; today’s rulingrecognizes that role. But the author of this opinion retains hope that he hasn’t accurately grasped the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment.

The court GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to dismiss the indictment . Mr. Holden’s plea of guilty is WITHDRAWN and the indictment DISMISSED.

The Firth Circuit was unapologetic in their decision, whereas Judge Miller seems to be begging and pleading for his interpretation of Bruen to be shown incorrect.

I think his interpretation is correct, as much as he hates it.  On a positive note, it’s nice that he was honest in his stated loathing of the Bruen decision, while still coming to a constitutional decision.