Maryland Jury Sees Self Defense As Good And Substantial Reason
Aug 2, 2014 Second Amendment
Any citizen of the People’s Republik of Maryland knows that it is nearly impossible to get a permit to carry a firearm. Maryland law does not allow open carry and unless one is wealthy or politically connected then one has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a concealed carry permit.
The hold up is that Maryland requires good and substantial reason against apprehended danger to carry a firearm and though what constitutes good and substantial is not well defined the Maryland State Police has decided that self defense is not within the definition.
After the original Woolard decision many people applied for a permit based on the ruling that stated the existence of the right was reason enough. Through stays and an eventual overturn of the ruling those who applied and listed set defense and all other legal purposes as their G&S reason were denied. The state has violated its provisions for a hearing to appeal the decisions but that is another story.
In any event, a recent court case shows that a Maryland jury believes that self defense is a justified reason for carrying a firearm.
New Jersey police officer Joseph Walker was involved in a road rage incident in Maryland and he pulled his car over. The other driver, an intoxicated man with a criminal history, pulled over some 150 feet from Walker and got out of his vehicle (as did Walker). Walker retreated to his vehicle and retrieved his service weapon and shot the man three times (two of the shots after the man reportedly raised his hands).
There are plenty of issues here. Walker is allowed to carry a weapon in any state because he is a law enforcement officer. But, we in Maryland hear all the time that police officers are better trained to handle tense situations in which deadly force might need to be used. Walker exercised no such restraint. He could have shown is badge with the firearm and told the guy to move on. He could have phoned the police and told them what was going on before he ever pulled over (or instead of pulling over), he certainly could have allowed the man to get within 50 feet and then got back into his vehicle and drove off. He would have been long gone before the victim was able to get back into his vehicle.
I will not debate here whether the jury was right or wrong. I was not there but I do feel there were many options before the use of a firearm was needed.
However, the Maryland jury said that the cop’s actions were justified in the name of self defense. In other words, self defense is a good and substantial reason to shoot someone who is threatening bodily harm. In order to do that one must be allowed to carry a firearm. Walker is a special case because he is a cop and allowed to carry one. What would have been the outcome if this had been an unarmed Maryland citizen?
I venture to say that the outcome would have been different.
While I believe that a citizen should not have to demonstrate any reason to carry a firearm, assuming of course the person is not otherwise prohibited (mentally ill, a felon, etc) I will state that if Maryland is going to continue to play games in this regard it is time for the state to recognize that self defense is a good and substantial reason against apprehended danger.
Average law abiding citizens are many more times likely to be harmed by bad people than are police officers and they all get to carry an assortment of weapons including a firearm. Let us not forget the number one reason a police officer carries a firearm (and his other weapons) is to defend HIMSELF against apprehended danger.
[note]Apprehended Danger means fear or apprehension that something is dangerous or could be[/note]
Law abiding citizens who pay the salaries of all government employees including police officers deserve the same consideration.
In fact they are entitled to that consideration as enumerated in the Second Amendment and Maryland’s Constitution which states the Constitution of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the state (that would include the Second Amendment for the liberals out there).
[note]Despite claims that Maryland does not address the right to keep and bear arms in its Constitution the fact is, it does address it in Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights:
Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.[/note]
It is tragic that a man lost his life in an incident that has so many questions but the result demonstrates that self defense is a natural right that does not depend on government.
Therefore government should not infringe on that right or the right to bear arms as a means to defend.
The Second Amendment is the only good and substantial reason needed and it is time for Maryland’s liberal politicians to get their head’s out of their rectal cavities and do what is right, proper and CONSTITUTIONAL.
Remember, gun control is not about guns it is about control.
Just ask any survivor (if you can find one) of tyrannical governments that disarmed their populations.
Tags: good and substantial, gun control, liberals, Maryland, mspo, Second Amendment
When Seconds Count Even The Police Are In Trouble
Jun 7, 2014 Second Amendment
In Washington DC there is an uproar among the police because Chief Cathy Lanier has issued an all hands call requiring officers to work for five weekends in a row. Officers balk that this will leave the public less protected on the higher crime days like Tuesday and Wednesday. The person who made the assertion then gives an example (that interestingly takes place on a Thursday) where an officer needed help and no one was free to assist.
For example, on Thursday night in the Seventh District, a school resource officer radioed for help in trying to control two kids, but no one was free to answer.
He said, “I heard a radio transmission. A lieutenant needed some assistance on Suitland Parkway for a possible DUI suspect. It was a good five to ten minutes before anybody backed him up. Because of the manpower issues, we have minimum staffing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. [emphasis mine] My FOX DC
There is a saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Looks like this is true even for officers.
Why is this important? The people who oppose the Second Amendment and who do not want law abiding citizens to carry firearms always tell us that this is what the police are for and that if we have a problem we should call 911. Why do you people need firearms when the police are here to protect you? If we have all these guns out there more folks will get hurt. We don’t want to confiscate them we just don’t want YOU to have them.
And on these assertions go. The leaders of most police forces are politically appointed and they do the bidding of their puppet master political bosses. This has been very evident in Maryland where Governor Martin O’Malley pulled the strings of his appointees and prevented others from discussing the Maryland gun control laws because safety was not really the concern. It was all politically motivated because O’Malley, a man who has armed officers around him at all times, does not like guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and he wants to tout his liberal gun control success as he aspires to higher office. He does not believe in freedom, he believes in tyranny and control of the masses and he believes in screwing the public to advance his career.
In any event, the DC situation and the example given clearly demonstrate why law abiding citizens must not have their Second Amendment right infringed upon. It took a long time for a fellow officer to get help and officers rush to help their own. They are not so motivated when it is some schmo they do not know or work with.
[note]We see this time and again. A cop gets murdered and it is all hands on deck to find the murderer. When an average citizen gets murdered they work on it and sometimes close the case but the intensity is nowhere near that when it is one of their own.[/note]
Most rank and file police officers prefer armed citizens. There are the few anti social morons who shoot dogs and innocent people and get away with it under the cover of I feared for my life but most of them try to do a good job and get home at the end of their shift. They realize that armed citizens provide extra protection in society. They know that there is less violent crime in areas where people carry firearms because criminals do not like to face opposition and they don’t want to die.
In places where people’s rights are infringed upon (like DC and Maryland) the crime rates are higher and crimes committed with firearms increase. Bad guys don’t obey the law so they get guns anyway. Most officers are comfortable with law abiding citizens who own and carry firearms because they know that is a force multiplier. They know there are people who can protect others when the police are not around and they know the prospect of armed people deters criminals. How many of these mass shootings could have been stopped before huge loss of life had people been allowed to carry firearms where the shootings occurred?
[note]My friend Kit Lange made a brilliant observation that demonstrates this point. In Canada some nut is going around with a rifle and has already shot and killed three Mounties. There are pictures of the guy people have snapped with their cell phones. She points out that there are pictures because people see him and if they were allowed to carry firearms in Canada they could take him down but since they can’t do so all they can do is snap photos. I am sure the Mounties would not care who took him down as long as he was no longer a threat.[/note]
It is possible that many of the leaders in law enforcement feel the same way but can’t express it because their liberal, anti gun political bosses forbid them from doing so. That to me is weakness and a failure to uphold an oath but this is how people in power often act. Though my gut tells me they agree wight heir bosses or they would not have been appointed to their positions…
In any event, the cops in DC don’t like to wait for assistance. Well here is a newsflash for them and their bosses. We the people, those who PAY your salaries don’t like to wait either. We don’t like to be at the mercy of criminals because we have been denied the right to defend ourselves.
Keep in mind, the police are a reactive force not a proactive one. The cops come AFTER a crime and take a report and try to find who did it. Cops don’t show up 2 minutes before a crime and wait to prevent it.
Why should we be denied the ability to prevent crimes (or at least minimize them) when the police can’t do so?
Why should we be denied the right to keep and bear arms that is enshrined in our Constitution?
Because liberals want to control us. As many have stated, it is not about guns it is about control.
As far as DC and its police chief go, she can do what she wants. The officers will have to deal with it and perhaps they will understand what the people who pay them are subject to each and every day.
An armed society is a polite society but liberals do not want polite, they want control. Keep in mind that an armed society is free and the disarmed are enslaved.
There would not have been slavery had the slaves owned firearms…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: control, DC, disarm, lies, police, Second Amendment, seconds count
Blame The Nut, Not The Gun
May 27, 2014 Commentary, Second Amendment
Or the knife or the car…
Elliot Rodgers stabbed people, shot people and hit people with his car. He was a nut who had real issues. One only needs to read his words to understand that he had serious mental issues and that his view of the world and of life was skewed. He murdered people, an act that is already against the law.
The liberal left is using this event to once again ratchet up the anti gun rhetoric. The liberals want more gun control and more background checks even though this nut was from one of the most anti gun (and restrictive) states in the Union. None of the laws liberals want would have stopped this guy from murdering people. He stabbed several and used his car as a weapon. Without the gun people still would have died.
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office identified the three men found dead in Rodger’s apartment as Cheng Yuan Hong, 20; George Chen, 19; and Weihan Wang, 20. Hong and Chen were his roommates, while Wang was visiting the apartment, the sheriff’s office said. The three students died from “multiple stab wounds” before the shooting rampage, the sheriff’s office said. [emphasis mine]
No one is calling for a ban on guns or more strict requirements for a driver’s license. They are focusing on the gun which was just another tool used by a mentally deranged person to murder people.
Who to blame is the first question from liberals when these things happen. The response in this case is the NRA and Republicans.
No one has stated the obvious and that is the murderer and ONLY the murderer is responsible for what happened.
The knife did not murder or injure people. The car did not murder or injure people and the gun did not murder or injure people. Rodgers did all of that and he used those items to do it.
If a person is determined to do harm there is nothing that can be done to stop him. The fact that he used a knife and a car shows that he did not need the gun to inflict pain and cause mayhem.
[note]Another case where the police knew there was an issue: “Rodger’s family contacted police after discovering social media posts about suicide and killing people, family spokesman and attorney Alan Shifman told reporters Saturday.
Six policemen showed up at Rodger’s home in Isla Vista on April 30, but they found nothing alarming. So they told Rodger[sic] to call his mother and they reassured her that he was OK, according to Astaire.” (Seems to me this might be enough to get a court order to remove any weapons until they were sure he was not unhinged ~ BD)[/note]
There will be more calls for gun control from all kinds of people who don’t really care about the victims. They care only about a political agenda and that agenda includes disarming those who had nothing to do with this (or any other) event. Liberals do not care about the victims and they actually like when these things happen. It allows them to push a false narrative to further their dream of disarming Americans.
All the shooters in these events turn out to be left wing nut jobs so perhaps we should ban liberalism and end the violence.
I pray for the victims but I will never agree that America has a gun problem.
America has a liberal problem, particularly nut job liberals.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cars, elliot rodgers, guns, knives, liberals, mentally ill, nut job, Second Amendment
Liberal Agenda and The Santa Barbara shooter
May 25, 2014 Political
Liberal arm-chair quarterbacks are tweeting that Eliot Roger – the California shooter – killed those Sorority sisters because he was ‘Jewish dirt who was a virgin and a MYSOGYNIST’ – and a Right wing nut.
If I may:
1. The Left just has to INJECT THEIR RAGING JEWISH RACISM INTO EVERY TRAGEDY EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.
Let’s just compare him to all the MUSLIM MURDERERS that operate worldwide EVERY DAMN DAY.
2. He was a SICK, MENTALLY ILL LUNATIC – politics isn’t a part of this!
3. He stabbed his Geek roommates – he didn’t just hate WOMAN, he hated EVERYONE.
Final note to all the Gun Control SICK GHOULISH LIBERAL LUNATICS who are SLOBBERING at this opportunity – he killed his roommates with a KNIFE!
LETS BAN KNIVES – RIGHT?
Guest speaker
Obama And Fighting Old Battles
Jan 29, 2014 Obamacare, Second Amendment
During the State of The Union Address last night Imperial Leader B. Hussein Obama misstated the truth, fudged figures and told outright lies. He pulled out some of the old plays in trying to appeal to Americans who can either trust Obama or what their eyes see. On the subject of Obamacare he had this to say:
I don’t expect to convince my Republican friends on the merits of this law,” he said. “But I know that the American people aren’t interested in refighting old battles… Politico
Obama wants us to believe that a new law that is just being implemented is an old battle and he wants us to believe that Americans don’t want us to fight the battle. The reality is that nearly 65% of Americans do not like the law, millions have been dropped out of perfectly good insurance, millions more have been added to Medicaid and the law is costing way more than advertised. It is also true that Obama lied about the number of people signing up and that many of those who have enrolled are the ones who had their insurance cancelled because of the law. Couple this with the fact that few of the young are signing up and it is easy to see that disaster is looming.
We can beat the Obamacare horse to death but Obama and his toadies will keep pushing it. The only way to let them know how we feel is to get rid of every politician who voted for it.
But something else was quite interesting in the Obama lie fest last night. While Obama was telling members of Congress and the American people that he is an Imperial Leader who will legislate via his pen and Executive Orders he mentioned gun control. He plans on doing what he wants via EO and against the Constitution.
Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say “we are not afraid,” and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. Guns Save Lives
If Barack Obama truly believes that Americans do not want to fight old battles then he should give up his fight to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. That battle was fought and settled a little over 222 years ago (15 December 1791) when the Second Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights (the Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights). That certainly qualifies as an old battle. A battle which was not only won but resulted in a right protected by inclusion in our Constitution which, as the alleged Constitutional Law professor should know, is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Obama wants you to believe that a four year old law that is still being implemented is old news, an old battle that Americans do not want to fight. At the same time he expects you to believe that firearms ownership is some new thing and that the battle over it must be fought. I have to believe that Obama knows better but he is a socialist and he knows that an armed society is a free society and he cannot tolerate freedom for the serfs. He can’t get away with imposing his will on us if we are able to resist the tyranny. He needs to make it as tough as possible (he would prefer total disarming) because he needs to be able to CONTROL us. Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
No Executive order and no law will stop gun related violence because people who use guns to commit violence DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. If banning something or making it harder to get worked then we would not have a problem with people using heroin in this country.
Obama makes that case himself without even realizing it. In the quote above he said that things needed to be done to stop more tragedies in movie theaters, shopping malls and schools. ALL of the places he mentioned are gun free zones. People are not allowed BY LAW to have guns there.
If gun control laws worked then no shootings would take place at these places BUT BAD GUYS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.
In fact, these kinds of laws make it easier for criminals because they know that only law abiding people will follow the law and that there will be no armed opposition. You know I am right on this and you know that Obama is wrong.
Obama’s hometown of Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and people get shot there all the time. Maryland enacted tough gun laws last year and one person a day has been shot in Baltimore since the first of the year.
Gun control does not work and we will not stand for it.
We settled that issue 222 years ago after fighting the tyranny of our overlords.
That battle is old and the issue is settled. The last thing Obama wants or needs is to start a new battle on this issue.
[note]Obama mentioned guns once in his SOTU. He mentioned them a lot in last year’s SOTU. This is an election year and Democrats do not want to be saddled with a gun control fight when they know it is a losing issue for them. Obama is not up for reelection so he can push his Executive Orders while giving Democrats cover. He is also using EOs because he can’t get Congress to agree even when it is NOT an election year.[/note]
There are far too many armed citizens who will do what Obama and most other politicians refuse to do.
PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Molon Labe
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: battles, founders, lies, Obama, obamacare, Second Amendment, sotu, tyranny