When the State Won’t Protect You

Whenever I get into a debate about the right to carry firearms the conversation often turns to the person debating me claiming that I should rely on the police for protection. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the police aren’t required to protect you. The right to self-defense should be universal as should be the right to own the best tool for that job. Thankfully I live in a state where I have access to the ability to carry my firearm but others are not so lucky.

But what can you do if your entire community is vulnerable and the state is unwilling to protect you? In that case you have to band together with the other members of your community and work together in common defense. The Firearm Blog has a link to an article that discusses the method which the people of Obo, a small African village, use to defend themselves against roving marauders:

An old woman had died. Before burying the her, the residents of the village of Obo — in southern Central African Republic, just north of the Congolese border — gathered around a campfire to eat, drink, cry and sing in celebration of the woman’s long life. It was a night in March 2008, just another beat in the slow rhythm of existence in this farming community of 13,000 people.

Then the dreadlocked fighters from the Lord’s Resistance Army rebel group — tongo-tongo, the villagers call them — rose from their hiding places in the shadows and advanced toward the fire. Others blocked the paths leading from town. The rebels killed anyone who resisted, kidnapped 100 others and robbed everyone in sight.

The LRA forced the captured men and women to carry stolen goods into the jungle before releasing them. Boys and girls, they kept. The boys would be brainwashed, trained as fighters and forced to kill. The girls would be given to LRA officers as trophies, raped and made to bear children who would represent the next generation of LRA foot soldiers.

Much of Africa consists of poor farming villages such as this one. In addition to that many of this villages fall under various ineffective governments (lucky buggers there) that will refuse to offer aid to those who take defense into their own hands but also are unwilling or unable to provide defense for those who comply with the state’s demands of being disarmed and easy prey. Well the people of Obo had enough shit from the LRA and decided that shit was going to end:

Instead, Obo’s surviving villagers raised their own volunteer scout force (depicted above), armed it with homemade shotguns, and began disseminating intelligence on the LRA’s movements using the village’s sole, short-range FM radio transmitter.

The results of this do-it-yourself approach were encouraging. Since the attack three years ago, Obo has not suffered another major LRA invasion.

I think this proves the point that you can do a great deal of things with very little money or equipment. The citizens of Obo may not be able to afford shotguns but they certainly are willing to make them. They’ve been able to stave off any other major invasions from a likely superior fighting force. I did chuckle a bit when I read the following though:

But there’s a downside to DIY security. In arming itself and taking on intelligence tasks, Obo is essentially giving up on ever receiving help from Central African Republic’s impoverished government. That can only further undermine the government’s tenuous legitimacy — and could fuel wider instability in the future.

That doesn’t sound like much of a downside to me. Obo’s government did do jack shit to protect the villagers from the LRA so I have no idea why it would be a disadvantage to not receive any help from that state in the future. Of course this could lead to the Central African Republic’s eventual invasion and disarming of Obo but let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

You know what another benefit of having a means of self-defense is? Being able to defend yourself against outside threats usually does amazing things are removing your fears:

The morning after the LRA’s March 2008 attack, the sun rose on a transformed community. Before, the tongo-tongo had been able to terrorize an entire village, kill scores of people and take more than 100 prisoners using just their machetes. During the 2008 raid, the LRA reportedly didn’t fire a single bullet.

After the attack, the surviving villagers were determined to never again be defenseless. “We are not afraid,” an Obo resident named Joseph told Invisible Children’s Adam Finck. “We are not afraid because we are the victims. They attacked us. They took our children. They killed others of us. That motivates us not to be afraid of them.”

This goes for both villages and individuals. Given a means of self-defense most people become less fearful for they have a means of controlling a situation involving an attacker. People generally fear that which they can’t control and if somebody is mugging your while you’re defenseless you have no control over the situation. On the other hand if you have an effective means of self-defense you gain some semblance of control over bad situations and thus are less fearful. It’s a great bonus to being able to save your own life as well.

I’m also impressed with Obo’s determination of keeping their fellow villagers safe. Some people often cry because they can’t afford a proper means of self-defense. Guess what? The people of Obo are very poor as well but that didn’t stop them either:

But the men of Obo knew they needed more than courage and manpower. Too poor for military-grade weapons or even the kind of firearms American hunters take for granted, Obo set about building an arsenal of homemade, single-barrel shotguns loaded with hand-packed shells.

Anything can be a weapon in the right hands which is why making possession of weapons illegal is pointless. But even if you can’t afford a proper tool for self-defense the chances are you can build something that will work in a pinch. If you can’t afford to buy a proper self-defense tool do as the people of Obo and build something that will work.

The Obo scouts represent a phenomenon found in many conflict zones. When government or occupying armies fail to provide security, vulnerable communities often organize their own forces. It has happened in northern Iraq’s besieged Christian communities, across Afghanistan and, most famously, in Sunni-dominated north-central Iraq, where volunteer “Sons of Iraq” groups helped turn the tide against Iraqi insurgents.

I like how they call this a phenomenon. I’d call it common sense as nobody likes to be victimized and those who live in conflict zones haven’t spent their entire lives being told that self-defense is impossible and you should rely on the government to protect your life. Of course the article also spews the following statist bullshit:

The downside of these DIY militias is the risk they pose to the long-term stability of their countries. Baghdad and the U.S. military struggled to stand down and reintegrate Sons of Iraq groups after security improved and they became unnecessary. NATO has canceled several Sons of Iraq-style initiatives in Afghanistan after sedition-minded warlords co-opted some of the militia groups.

The Obo scouts could entail a similar long-term liability to Central African Republic’s weak government. “The very act of civilians taking up arms outside of their government’s direct control is a potentially problematic issue without an easy answer,” Finck admitted.

Fuck you you statist pieces of shit. This is a great example of governments wanting control. If you are able to defend yourself that means the government has that much less control as you no longer rely entirely on them for your self-defense. Being capable of independence is what tyrannical statists fear most because it takes away their control over the lives of those living under them. On top of this the Central African Republic didn’t do shit to defend these villages so I don’t see where they have the right to talk about how it’s improper for civilians to defend themselves. It’s not like the government was rushing in to offer help.

Wisconsin Senate Passes Carry Bill

The Wisconsin Senate voted on plan B and passed it with a 25 to 8 vote:

The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed.

The bill is expected to pass the Assembly and Governor Walker has already expressed support for carry legislation. Things are looking up this time around for Wisconsin which will join the 48 other states that allow some form on concealed carry (then Illinois will remain the only holdout). One “representative” against this bill actually made a great argument for expanding on the bill:

Some Democrats pointed to the exemptions as proof that allowing concealed carry does introduce a new set of dangers.

“If this bill helps make Wisconsin safer, then why are there any exceptions?” said Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville. “Are some citizens of Wisconsin protected by this bill and others aren’t? If you go to the county fair are you not as safe as if you go to Summerfest?”

I completely agree with the statement, all exemptions should be removed from the bill and people in Wisconsin should be allowed to have a means of self-defense regardless of where they are. I hope this bill goes through and shortly afterward another bill goes through that removes the exemptions that are listed in the current legislation.

Resistance is Futile

I’ve mentioned several times on this blog that I believe a conflict of interest exist in our legal system. Namely the government controls the courts and the police thus the courts generally have a bias towards believing police officers. How far does that bias go though? In Indiana it goes pretty fucking far:

Citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers,” Indiana’s Supreme Court declared May 12 in a controversial 3-2 decision, Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Justice Steven David wrote for the court in the decision that “this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, if the police are acting outside of their government granted authority you have no right to protect yourself against their actions. Just think about that for a minute and let it sink in. If a police officer unlawfully enters your home and attempts to cause physical harm to you it is illegal for you to fight back in Indiana. I just shook my head when I read this bucket of statis bullshit:

Justice David concluded: “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.” Specifically, Justice David found not that anyone had amended the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or that the legislature had passed any new laws, but rather that Americans are the beneficiaries of “modern developments” that include: “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies.”

Wow… just wow. Basically this guy has said you must submit to unlawful police actions because you have options available to you that apparently didn’t exist back when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Options including (1) pay the state to allow you to leave jail knowing you’ll never be reimbursed that bail money should you be found innocent, (2) hope that the courts will decide to side with you instead of the police in regards to determining if the arrest was lawful, (3) hope that the courts will find evidence unusable, (4) hope a conflict of interest doesn’t exist when the police department tries to determine the lawful nature of one of their officer’s actions, and (5) hope the government courts will allow you to sue the government for their wrongful actions.

Those options are not valid reasons to force people to submit to the will of a police officer executing a wrongful entry into a home. The article also points out the fact that the file options listed by David have been violated by the government before (not surprising at all).

So the state ruled that you can’t resist the state when the state is performing unlawful actions against your person. Yeah that doesn’t simply reek of conflict of interest or anything.

Why I Carry Part 10,174

Criminals who prey upon other individuals are scums and almost every one of them are cowards to boot. They try to find the weakest possible targets in the hopes of accomplishing their goals of either obtaining material goods or fulfilling their need for violence. The area of Minneapolis traditionally known as Uptown has been suffering a rash of violent attacks:

A group of violent robbers struck six Uptown pedestrians three nights in a row within a six-block area, beating people into concussions with fists, kicks and, in at least one case, a set of brass knuckles, while taking phones and wallets, Minneapolis police said.

The three attacks occurred between 11:30 p.m. and 1 a.m., one attack each night starting in the early hours of Sunday morning, in an area bound by Hennepin and Lyndale Avenues, W. 32nd Street to W. 25th Street.

One of the punks also appeared to enjoy making inane threats against his victims:

“You want me to shoot you, bro?” he asked Houser, before running off. The three men drove away in a late model white minivan that was parked nearby.

Unfortunately for these thugs karma is a cold-hearted bitch:

The Uptown robbers struck again Tuesday night, only this time their victim was armed, police say.

Edward Curtis, 61, who described himself to police as an ex-Marine, fired several shots at a group of men who attacked him as he got out of his car near his apartment, according to police records. Curtis thinks he may have struck one of the men, said Minneapolis Police Lt. Mike Fossum.

“He had just parked his car in the parking lot,” said Fossum. “These guys blitzed him. They just started kicking his ass. He managed to get off three rounds.”

These brazen cowards weren’t so smart when faced with an individuals with the ability to defend himself. When facing multiple attackers a gun brings the odds of your survivability up greatly. After three similar successful attacks the criminals were sent running from their fourth attempt because Mr. Curtis was able to fight back.

Stories like these are why I’m such an advocate of the right to carry. Ultimately you are the one responsible for the defense of your life. The police won’t magically teleport to your location when needed and most people who witness an attack will keep out of it so you’re down to you and the tools you have available.

EDIT 2011-06-12 12:20: It was brought to my attention that I mixed the name Curtis and Fossum around. That’s been corrected. Thanks Nicole.

Never Bring a Knife To a Gun Fight

Even if you’re a fucking ninja you’ll still lose:

A Fayette County man attacked by a “ninja” with a sword quickly ended the encounter by pulling a gun.

“The only word that comes to mind is, ‘seriously?'” Santino Guzzo, 29, of South Union said today. “I know this isn’t a laughing matter, but how many people get attacked by a ninja? Really, a ninja?”

I’d like to point out that the confrontation was concluded without shots fired just in case somebody wants to make some comment about how this situation escalated unnecessarily. Many anti-gunners often claim introducing guns into a scenario ensures all confrontations turn into shooting wars but in reality that usually isn’t the case. An asshole with a blade because far less ballsy when his intended victim turns out to have bigger teeth.

A hat tip goes to Alexi for bringing this hilarity to my attention.

Important Self-Defense Bill Introduced in Minnesota

I guess it’s my turn to utilized the activism page. The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance has just dropped word that H.F. 1467 has been introduced into the Minnesota House. The bill is a sweeping reform to Minnesota’s self-defense laws and would enact the following changes:

Enacts Stand Your Ground – Stand your ground legislation removes the requirement for an intended victim of a violent crime to flee the area where you have a right to be.

Enacts Castle Doctrine – Similar to the above except this applies specifically to your own property. As it currently stands if somebody breaks into your home you have a legal obligation to attempt to flee before using force to defend yourself. A person should not be required to flee their own home because a malicious person has illegal broken in.

Prohibits the Confiscation of Firearms in a State of Emergency – This would prohibit the government from confiscating the firearms of gun owners when a state of emergency has been declared. During Hurricane Katrina the National Guard confiscated the firearms on New Orleans residents leaving them defenseless. A time of emergency is one of the most important times to have access to a means of self-defense.

Extends the Validity of Purchase Permits to Five Years – In Minnesota you are required to get either a permit to purchase or a permit to carry in order to buy a handgun or a military style semi-automatic rifle. A permit to purchase is only valid for one year while a carry permit is valid for five. This would make a permit to purchase valid for the same period of time as a carry permit.

Recognition of All Out of State Carry Permits – This would make the state of Minnesota recognize carry permits from all other states. A person shouldn’t be barred their right to self-defense just because they entered our fine state.

The members of the House Public Safety committee need to be contacted and asked to support this bill. This numbers and e-mail addresses are located on the first link.

Why People Should Be Allowed to Carry a Gun

Anti-gunners often claim there is no need for regular serfs to carry firearms. They go on about how the chances of somebody being attacked it almost zero and if it does happen you can just call 911 and a police officer will be magically teleported to your location instantly. Those of us who promote the right to carry see things quite differently. Every person should have the right to defend themselves regardless of where they are and the best tool for self-defense is a firearm. A story was posted on the Red Star that gives an example of one fo those situations where a firearm would have been good to have:

A St. Catherine University student reported that while she was out for a walk Sunday three men ambushed her and were laughing as they sexually assaulted her near the Ford plant in St. Paul.

The woman was sexually assaulted by three thugs. Disparity of force was obviously against her as there were three versus her one. Sadly she had no means of defense available to her at the time and ended up becoming yet another crime statistic. Yes these situations are relatively rare but go ahead and tell somebody who has been a victim of such a crime that these events almost never happen. Bad people do bad things to good people.

A firearm is an force multiplier. In a situation where the scales are tipped completely against you having a firearm will tip the scales back towards your favor (maybe not back into your favor but at least the scale will have moved a bit in your direction). One person with a firearm and the training to use it can stand against three assailants. Maybe the armed person won’t win every time but at least there is a chance and honestly many situations can be defused by the insertion of armed resistance.

The golden rules are always be aware of your situation and surroundings and have a plan.

The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Although those of us residing in the United States are promised a right to keep and bear arms by the very document that created the powerful federal government we now have this right is often ignored. This shouldn’t be too surprising as the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are always assumed to have a rider attached that says, “With permission of the states.” Our right to keep arms is restricted by specific types of firearms and our right to bear arms is restricted in so many ways I can’t begin to list them.

After McDonald vs. Chicago the second amendment was finally incorporated and thus now applies to the states. Due to this very fact I believe it is now time to pass national carry reciprocity. Truth be told I previously believed we needed to pass such a law but now we have justification for loosening the restrictions on one of our rights. Thankfully there is a bill on the table titled The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011:

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

The bill number is H.R. 822 and the text can be read here. As of right now the bill need co-sponsors so the National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging people to contact their “representatives” and urge them to support this bill.

Why “Gun-Free Zones” are Dangerous

One of the biggest problems with having a carry permit is ensuring you don’t enter so-called “gun-free zones” while carrying your means of self-defense. If I were to accidentally walk onto property owned by a high-school I could be in some deep shit should my Glock 30SF be in its holster. Proponents of “gun-free zones” seem to be under the belief that bad people will choose to leave weapons behind when they enter these zones as well. Those proponents also exist in a world of make believe that they’ve traveled to on a trolly and to seek the wisdom of puppets.

Gun bloggers have been making the states that criminals are law breakers by definition for a while now. It’s really a simple concept, somebody willing to commit a violent crime isn’t going to be deterred by a law that says they can’t bring a weapon into a zone. “Gun-free zones” only serve to disarm the law-abiding and put them at the mercy of violent criminals. Sadly this is something that Amanda Collins had to experience first hand:

Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father’s law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.

“It’s got a pretty standard magazine,” she said, “and night sights so you can see in the dark when you’re aiming.”

However, Collins couldn’t aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That’s because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a “gun free” zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.

Because she followed the law and left her firearm behind when entering a “gun-free zone” she was unable to defend herself against a scumbag piece of shit who preyed upon victims he could be reasonably assured were unarmed. This type of bullshit needs to end. Thankfully in Minnesota no legal restriction exists against a permit holder carrying a firearm onto a college campus. A campus can make rules against students and faculty doing this but should such a rule be violated the college can’t bring any legal actions against the violator (they can expel or fire them though, which is why a law should be passed preventing public colleges from enacting such rules). Sadly many other states have such legal restrictions.

Mrs. Collins’s story is an example of the dangers of established “gun-free zones.” If your state bars the lawful carrying of firearms onto college campuses you should be working diligently to get these restrictions lifted. After all there have been no cases of a person lawfully carrying a firearm shooting up a college campus but there have been many cases where violent criminals have been on college campuses and couldn’t be stopped quickly as mere peasants like you and me were unable to carry our means of self-defense.

Brazilian School Shooting

12 children are dead after a crazed fuckwit went through a Brazilian school. Of course like most of these lunatics this pussy offed himself as soon as opposition showed up. This demonstrates two other reasons I’m such a proponent of carry laws and against so-called gun-free zones; these shootings always happen in gun free zones and the shooter almost always offs himself the second he meets any form of resistance. If school faculty were allowed to carry while at work they could present this resistance sooner than the police could arrive which would likely cause the shooter to off himself earlier on thus potentially saving lives.

I’m sure this event will be used by the anti-gunners in Brazil to further restrict what can and can’t be owned by the mere serfs but after looking up Brazil’s gun laws I have to say they’re not as bad as expected but certainly are restrictive.

All firearms must be registered, a person must be 25 years-old before purchasing a firearm, and in order to keep a firearm you must pay a registration tax every three years. I’ll also mentioned the scumbag shooter broke Brazilian law as it is apparently almost impossible to get a carry permit there. I also found it interesting that there was a referendum in 2005 to ban all civilian firearm and ammunition sales in Brazil. It failed but the following got my attention:

The ban also had the backing of the federal government (which wanted a government monopoly on gun possession), the Roman Catholic Church, and Rede Globo. The anti-gun lobby received vast support and free coverage from the press.

It would seem that the Brazilian government is in favor of disarming the serfs and was willing to give anti-gunners free coverage in order to accomplish it’s goal of disarming the public. I’m not at all shocked by this though.

Another thing that is interesting about this story are the weapons chosen by the scumbag shooter:

At least 12 others were wounded when the man entered the school with two revolvers and began shooting.

It would seem a ban on standard capacity magazines wouldn’t have done jack shit here. I’m not at all surprised.