A Subtle Attack On Gun Shows In Virginia: ...The rationale for the
exemption for private sales stands up when it's applied to keep from
complicating the lives and choices of individual gun owners. Why should
Uncle Al have to worry about getting a background check on his next-door
neighbor, a fellow gun collector, in order to sell him that extra
handgun? But the exemption has earned its nickname - the Gun Show
Loophole - when that one-on-one transaction leaves the neighborhood and
takes up a sales booth in a big arena. Now it's more like a commercial
transaction - but with no questions asked... Hampton requires promoters
who want to sponsor gun shows at its facilities to bring in only
licensed dealers. And to make things simple, the State Police are on
hand to do instant background checks. The beauty of the city's approach
is that it addressed the loophole without needing the permission of the
General Assembly. The legislature has rejected bills to close the
loophole, and will probably do it again. So Hampton used its leverage as
the owner of the exhibition space to make rules for the companies that
would use it. (In Arizona, gun shows were specifically pre-empted from
local regulation after the City of Tucson attempted to mandate
background checks for private-party transactions conducted or
originating at gun shows held on city property.)
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_gunshow_edit_1029oct29,0,4625776.story
---
It Spreads From California: Wildlife advocates say a new California law
barring hunters from using lead ammunition in the California condor's
range should prompt Arizona to issue its own ban. Four groups that asked
the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for a ban earlier this year are
pressing for a response now that California's law is on the books.
"We're certainly looking at Arizona now," said Jeff Miller, with the
Center for Biological Diversity. "It's the next step in our campaign."
(It's unclear what defines a "wildlife advocate." Bans on hunting tend
to harm wildlife populations.)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1028condors1028.html
---
Oops, Wrong House: Arthur Williams is 75 years old and blind, but still
managed to shoot an intruder who broke into his southeast Gainesville
home early Friday. Cevaughn Curtis Jr., 28, of Gainesville allegedly
forced his way into Williams' home before being shot in the
neck...Williams said he keeps a .32-caliber revolver to protect himself.
After warning the intruder, Williams shot in the man's direction. "I can
hear - I backed up and I shot him," he said. "I knew I hit him when he
fell." (It would be interesting to know if Mr. Williams had any prior
training in point shooting, which was taught in some military and
paramilitary environments in WWII and in law enforcement for several
years later.)
http://gainesvillesun.com/article/20071027/NEWS/710270315/1002/NEWS
---
South African Commentary On American "Shoot First" Laws: As South Africa
empowers its criminals by failing to renew the firearm licenses of its
law-abiding citizens, one news source looks at American castle-doctrine
laws. It errs in parroting the claim that this legal doctrine originated
in with 2005 legislation in Florida - California, for one, had
castle-doctrine provisions in its penal and civil codes years earlier.
Many states, whether by statute or case law, had stand-your-ground
doctrines before 2005.)
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=nw20071027150122106C145258
---
From John Farnam:
24 Oct 07
Birdshot for defense? This is from an LEO, and one of our instructors,
in WY:
"One occasionally hears the suggestion that birdshot, from a shotgun, is
an effective home-defense load. The argument is that is won't penetrate
excessively, that it is 'effective' at close range, ad nauseam.
I'm currently involved in a murder investigation that has convinced me,
beyond all doubt, that the use of birdshot as a defense load is a poor
idea indeed!
Our perpetrator, in a high state of intoxication, decided to settle an
old score with the victim. After informing the victim of his
intentions, he armed himself with an old, Winchester M97 and charged the
tube with WW, full-power, 9-pellet, 00 buckshot. Meanwhile, the victim
locked himself in his auto-repair shop, and, anticipating the
confrontation, also armed himself with, of all things, another
Winchester M97, but he charged his tube with low-brass, #6 birdshot.
The evidence suggests that the victim didn't know much about guns in
general, shotguns in particular, and virtually nothing about shotgun
ammunition. He obviously thought 'ammunition is ammunition.'
The lethal confrontation took place in the repair shop, with the two
combatants separated by less than two meters.
The perpetrator opened festivities by using his shotgun to blow the lock
off a locked door. It took two rounds of buckshot. The lock was
demolished, and the door blown open.
There was a refrigerator just inside the door, and the victim was a few
feet away, on the other side. As the perpetrator advanced, the victim
fired one round at him. His aim was poor, and most of the lead shot
hit (and failed to penetrate) the refrigerator door. A few struck the
perpetrator in the face, destroying his right eye.
The startled perpetrator pulled his head back but immediately rolled
back out from behind the refrigerator and fired a single shot. All nine
pellets of 00 buckshot struck the victim in the center of his torso.
The victim probably suffered a fatal injury, falling where he was hit.
The perpetrator then walked over to the victim, who was laying on his
back, and fired a second shot into his face from only a few inches.
The victim's head was blown to pieces. When we found the body, he was,
long since, DRT!
Our perpetrator then walked out the shop, got in his truck, and drove
nearly one hundred miles to the small, ranching community where he
lived. Only when his eye injury was pointed out to him, as well as the
fact that his shirt and trousers were soaked in blood (mostly his own),
did he grudgingly concede that he might need medical attention. Hours
later, we arrested him at the hospital where he sought aid. He is now
on trial for murder and will most likely spend the rest of his life,
with only one eye, in prison.
Just another local idiot who had too much liquid courage!"
Comment: When it is your intention to defend yourself successfully,
particularly against evil and determined individuals, you're well
advised to use a weapon and load that will end the fight quickly and
decisively. And, and you better be an adequate marksman too, as you'll
likely not get a second chance!
It's an age-old lesson that this victim learned the hard way.
Unhappily, he didn't live long enough to put his new-found knowledge to
work!
/John
(While I agree that birdshot is not a wise choice for self-defense, I
feel that it's important to sort out the factors in the argument
properly. Those who advocate its use do so out of concern that stray
pellets not penetrate multiple layers of sheetrock, harming unseen
innocent parties downrange. Failure to penetrate a refrigerator door
might be seen as bolstering that argument. Birdshot pellets, like
buckshot pellets, tend to stay together for approximately one yard past
the muzzle, after which the shot column normally begins to open up. In
that first yard or so, either shot column will do substantial damage.
However, a long gun is a risky weapon to use at such close range as it
provides an assailant a lot of leverage for deflection and disarming. In
this case, it's unclear how many "a few feet" is but it would appear to
have been less than two meters [less than seven feet]; had the shot been
properly aimed, the central part of the pattern may have created a more
impressive effect than the peripheral portion that flew past the
refrigerator door. Perhaps the most important points are (a) that
shotguns do require aiming and (b) that unaimed shots and stray pellets,
not the use of effective ammo, are the true sources of concern for
innocent parties downrange. Personally, I prefer a .223 carbine, which
only launches one projectile at a time. As an aside, with training, I do
consider point shooting, within appropriate ranges for one's skill, to
be aimed.)
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
