Gregory Kielma • June 18, 2023
Armed self-defense Good Read Tale a look
Pro-gun groups on the right have for years promoted the right to armed self-defense and warned of pervasive threats. Experts and critics say the recent shootings of innocent people are the consequence.
Ringing the wrong doorbell, pulling into the wrong driveway, accidentally getting in the wrong car: Mundane, everyday mistakes ended in the shootings of several young people – and the death of one of them – last month when the men on the receiving end of the errors reached for their firearms and decided to shoot.
The shootings captured public attention nationwide, breaking through the unfortunate white noise of pervasive gun violence for their brazenness and similarities. They have reignited the fight over so-called “stand your ground” laws expanding the legal protections around self-defense. And critics, too, have pointed to the incidents as the natural end result of a society flooded with firearms.
But experts and gun control advocates say the shootings are a symptom of a much broader cause: the proliferation of rhetoric on the pro-gun right and among conservatives in general about persistent, pervasive threats, danger and crime, and also of guns as the only means of personal safety against the criminals that lurk around every corner.
“For seven years, all of us here today have been engaged in an epic struggle against the corrupt forces and communist maniacs – and they’re all over the place – that are absolutely trying to destroy our country,” former President Donald Trump said this month in a speech at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting. “They want to take away your guns while throwing open the jailhouse doors and releasing bloodthirsty criminals into your communities.”
Wayne LaPierre, the embattled chief executive officer of the pro-gun organization, expressed similar sentiments.
“You don’t need the government to tell you the sky is blue, water’s wet or that you have the God-given right to self-defense,” he said.
‘This Could Happen to Anybody’
In Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, a Black teenager, rang the wrong doorbell on April 13 while trying to pick up his siblings from a friend’s house. The octogenarian homeowner inside the house shot Yarl in the head in what he said was self-defense, in an action prosecutors say had a “racial component.” Two days later in upstate New York, a car full of young people pulled into the wrong driveway while looking for another friend’s house. The homeowner shot at the car from the porch. Twenty-year-old Kaylin Gillis died. And just days after that, a man shot two teenage cheerleaders in Elgin, Texas, after one of them tried to get into his car by accident, thinking it was her ride. She realized her mistake, exited the car and tried to apologize. But the man opened fire. Yarl’s shooting made headlines in part because it highlighted issues relating to race, and public attention quickly turned to the other shootings in the days after. Though the U.S. experiences gun violence at the highest rate of any developed nation, the shootings broke through the news cycle in part because they easily inspired empathy.
Gun Control and Gun Rights Cartoons
“This could happen to anybody. I mean, there was a racial factor involved in at least one of these. But beyond that, it's just like, this could happen to me or this could happen to my kid,” says Michael Lawlor, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven and a former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. Lawlor, a Democrat, also served as the state’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy.
Focus turned, then, on Missouri’s “stand your ground” law, which is like a law of the same name that is in place in Texas. Gun rights advocates have pushed for years to enact the measures, which expand protections around the use of force when acting in self-defense. Under the law, a person has the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense anywhere they have a legal right to be, and without first retreating – in other words, using force does not have to be a last resort. The laws burst onto the public debate stage in 2012, when Florida police noted it as the reason they refused to arrest George Zimmerman, who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a Black unarmed teenager. Zimmerman was later charged and then acquitted.
New York has a similar, albeit more limited, law called the “castle doctrine” that allows for use of force by a person defending their own home – or castle, so to speak. And the passage of “stand your ground” laws has happened in concert with a focused emphasis by the pro-gun right on crime, threats, and self-defense. While promoting firearms as a tool for self-defense is not a new idea, the expansion of laws allowing for use of deadly force may contribute to a climate where gun owners are more ready to do so, says Matthew Lacombe, an associate professor of political science at Case Western University who specializes in gun politics, the NRA and political ideology.
“The NRA narrative that you might use guns for armed self-defense is not new. What is newer is liberalization of particularly state-level laws pertaining to how, when and why you can use lethal force to defend yourself,” Lacombe says.
The men who perpetrated the recent shootings will likely not be covered under such laws, Lacombe notes. But in a wider context, “it's probably the case that the general shift legally has encouraged more and more people to think about self-defense in these terms, encouraged more people to buy guns specifically for self-defense purposes, and in some ways emboldened them in terms of what they see as a reasonable use of them,” he says. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which has championed the laws, did not respond to a request for comment about the recent shootings and self-defense laws.
Politicians and advocates for more restrictive gun control laws have pointed the finger at “stand your ground” laws for such an embodiment.
“I think we now have a shoot-first, ask-later policy in this state – or at least that is what people have interpreted it to be,” Missouri state Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat, was quoted by The Kansas City Star as saying in the wake of Yarl’s shooting. Nurrenbern introduced a measure in the legislature earlier this year to limit the state’s law, but the bill went nowhere. The context around the laws, including a focus on firearms as a means for self-defense as opposed to other uses, Lacombe says, is critical for understanding what effect they may have on society.
“It's not just the laws, it's also the sort of marketing campaigns and rhetoric surrounding the laws, which I think have increasingly turned the gun-rights space into one focused on armed self-defense specifically, as opposed to other uses of guns,” Lacombe says.
Part of that context also includes a pervasive narrative pushed by pro-gun advocates and the NRA that has intertwined gun rights and core values like freedom, making expansive gun rights a core part of the conservative ideology – even identity. “Owning a gun isn't just having an object that you might use for recreation or self-defense, but it's more of a sort of symbol of who you are and what you stand for. And part of that relates to self-sufficiency,” Lacombe says of the narrative. “We think of self-sufficiency as being politically coded – you know, ‘I don't need handouts’ – but it's also in recent years come to even involve notions of protection.”
Fear and Freedom
Republicans have in recent years emphasized crime and threats in their electoral messaging around – a threat they say is posed by an “invasion” of illegal immigration, the threat posed by criminals emboldened by Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, the threat of eroding rights and norms.
“The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals and dangerous refugees that no other country wants,” Trump told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year. “If those opposing us succeed, our once-beautiful USA will be a failed country that no one will even recognize – a lawless, open-borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare.”
Trump is considered the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. His comments echo narratives threaded through many right-leaning news and commentary shows and other forms of media, as well as the electoral strategies of other candidates.
Fear is an old and effective political motivator, experts say, and that motivation was also on display at the NRA’s annual meeting earlier this month, with speeches replete with warnings about self-defense, crime and protecting freedoms from those who want to take it away by force.
“Threat is a pretty powerful motivator, so associating support for gun rights with addressing different types of threats is something that historically has worked pretty well for the NRA,” Lacombe says.
Lawlor, the criminal justice professor, and former state legislator, describes fear and threat as a “political business model” that shifts and changes in topic over the years but remains a pervasive strategy.
“In 2004, the presidential election was all about gay marriage. Right now, it’s all about drag queens. A couple of cycles ago, it was all about immigrant caravans. There is always something that can be that thing that everyone should fear,” Lawlor says. “And so, we're back to crime now. That's where we are now – that you should be scared that someone's going to steal your car or break into your house.”
Though crime rates vary by city, the violent crime rate in the U.S. overall has plummeted since the 1990s, when gang violence associated with an epidemic of crack cocaine fueled urban homicide rates. In fact, violent crime rates have been slashed by more than half – though polling shows that Americans believe the number has gone up, despite the data.
The result of threat-based rhetoric, Lawlor argues, can be what happened in Missouri – a senior citizen “who's watching Fox News all day with the volume all the way on max, has a gun, of course, to protect themselves, and he's been told that sooner or later, some Black guy is going to show and try and kill you or break into your house or whatever.”
‘There's a 16-year-old kid knocking on his door by mistake, and – boom, right? So this outcome is predictable,” he says.
5 accused antifa supporters plead guilty to terrorism offense in ICE facility shooting that wounded LEO By Jamie Stengle Associated Press DALLAS — Five people pleaded guilty Wednesday to terrorism-related charges after they were accused of supporting antifa in a July shooting that wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration detention center. The charges brought by the Justice Department followed President Donald Trump signing an order that designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Trump has blamed antifa for political violence. FBI Director Kash Patel has previously said the charges in Texas are the first time a material support to terrorism charge has targeted antifa. A police officer was injured in the July 4 shooting near Dallas outside the Prairieland Detention Center, where federal prosecutors say an antifa cell carried out an attack that included gunfire and fireworks aimed toward the facility. Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Seth Sikes, Lynette Sharp and John Thomas each entered guilty pleas to one count of providing material support to terrorists in federal court in Fort Worth. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing. Sharp’s attorney, Erin Kelley, said entering the plea was “step one in a long process” before the sentence is actually determined. Lawyers for the other four defendants either did not immediately return messages Wednesday or comment. Cases against others also charged in the shooting remain ongoing. According to court documents, one member of the group outside the facility yelled “get to the rifles” and then opened fire as officers responded, striking an Alvarado Police Department officer in the neck area. He fell to the ground but was able to return a few shots. Prosecutors say more rounds were then fired at the wounded officer and an unarmed DHS correction officer. Court documents say Gibson, Baumann and Sikes were among those who were present the night of the attack and were arrested shortly after, while Sharp and Thomas were among those who helped the accused shooter avoid arrest until July 15. Others are scheduled for arraignment in the case next month, including Zachary Evetts, whose attorney, Patrick McLain, has said he’s seen no evidence to support the government’s view of the case. “Mr. Evetts has never been a member of anything like a ‘North Texas Antifa Cell,’ and from the evidence provided to us by the government so far, there is no evidence that such an organization ever existed,” McLain said Saturday. Days after that shooting, a man with an assault rifle fired dozens of rounds at federal agents and a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen near the Mexico border, injuring a police officer. Authorities shot and killed the attacker.
Dalmin Muran DEPUTIES ARREST SACRAMENTO MAN AND SEIZE LARGE WEAPONS CACHE AFTER SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY AT LOCAL SCHOOLS, BAILS OUT HOURS LATER Last week, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Threat Management Unit, with assistance from the Sheriff’s Office Special Enforcement Detail (SED), Critical Incident Negotiations Team (CINT), and multiple other specialized tactical units, executed a search warrant on 29-year-old Dalmin Muran following an ongoing investigation into concerning and escalating behavior. The investigation was started after Muran was repeatedly observed engaging in suspicious activity at local schools in East Sacramento County, including Rosemont High School. In one instance, Muran drove his vehicle onto school grounds during nighttime hours and was seen wearing military-style clothing and night-vision optics. He complied when contacted by security, who told him he had to leave, despite insisting he should be allowed access since the schools are “public grounds.” He claimed to have prior military service during other contacts, although it was determined he never had . Muran also expressed interest in joining law enforcement. During the execution of the search warrant, Deputies recovered multiple law enforcement patches and tactical gear, including those from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. They also discovered numerous firearms that had been modified from their original California-compliant configuration. One unserialized short-barreled rifle (sometimes referred to as a “ghost gun”) was also located hidden in the attic as the warrant was being served, along with hundreds of firearm parts and components used to build or alter weapons. Deputies also found multiple smoke grenades, flash bangs, and pepper spray deployable smoke grenades within the residence, further contributing to public safety concerns and the seriousness of the investigation. Muran was booked into custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail for multiple felony charges but was released on bond hours later. Detectives are concerned that there may be unreported incidents in which Muran represented himself as law enforcement and/or attempted to enforce laws. The Sheriff’s Office urges anyone who may have had suspicious contact with Muran, particularly instances in which he represented himself as law enforcement or attempted to enforce laws, to contact the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Threat Management Unit immediately through our non-emergency line at (916) 874-5115 for follow-up. The investigation remains ongoing.
Why do policemen carry their sidearms in open holsters? Is it easy for anyone to grab them? Gregg Kielma Unknown to most people with casual familiarity with firearms, virtually all holster (especially those used by law enforcement) have a locking system, even if it isn’t easily seen. In fact, I don’t know of any police departments that doesn’t require one on holsters. Now some are much more effective than others, but almost all of them require one. For civilians, especially if carrying concealed, this system just uses tension, but even most civilians use holsters with a locking system that needs to be disengaged before drawing a firearm. The best locking systems can, with practice, be disengaged while drawing, in one smooth action. The holster above is from Safariland and uses their GLS locking system . On the right-hand side is a small protrusion which is a lock release. If you are drawing correctly, as you grab the firearm your finger should automatically hit and release it. While it takes some practice to make it completely smooth, most concealed carriers and law enforcement should already be practicing their draws at least once a week. On the other hand, if you are unfamiliar with the system (which 99% of the general public is) you’ll have no clue how to disengage the lock and will only end up pulling the wearer’s pants up an inch or two. Even if you pulled hard enough to remove the holster completely from the wearer’s pants, you still wouldn’t be able to use the firearm as all proper holsters (which is all the holsters Safariland makes) completely cover the trigger (never buy a holster that doesn’t completely cover the trigger). Many manufacturers produce similar holsters that use their own unique proprietary systems, the one below just happens to be the one I’m most familiar with.
Gregg Kielma in his GUN SHOP What is an "idiot scratch" on a firearm? Kielma says, if you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again. Let’s TAKE A LOOK at a friend and my thoughts. The 1911 is one of the most iconic handguns in the world. Dozens of manufacturers make them. You might find a cheap, used 1911 for as little as $200 if you shop. On the other hand, you could find a Cabot 1911 for around a million dollars. Regardless of how expensive it is, a 1911 is venerated within the gun community. Beloved. An “idiot scratch” is something you see most commonly on 1911s, especially those owned by inexperienced or careless gun owners. I don’t agree with calling anyone an idiot. I don’t think of myself as incompetent. I have a scratch. It just isn’t obvious. How does that happen? In my case, it was just the fact that I’ve disassembled and reassembled that thing in a lot of different scenarios, including in low light situations. I’ve probably disassembled and reassemble it literally hundreds of times for various reasons (including converting it to a .22lr pistol). Why does it happen? It has a spring in there pushing a peg forward. If not careful the spring will “pop” out and could scratch your firearm. The peg makes it slightly more difficult to get this slide stop in place. That’s what scratches your frame. People who are new, careless, or whatever sometimes sweep up to get that slide stop in place. Now remember that while you’re doing all that, you’re also holding the slide back just the right amount to get it all to line up so that the notch in the slide fits. Accidents happen. It isn't that big of a deal. I could probably buff mine out, it’s so light. I just don’t care. My 1911 is one of my least favorite guns to shoot. That’s why it sits in the safe 99% of the time when I go to the range. I’d rather be shooting my CZ 97B. I don’t care about such things and don’t judge people who have marks. They could be exceptional shooters and just… not care about cosmetics. Maybe it isn’t even their mark but rather one caused by the last owner. It doesn’t affect function. It’s just… guys giving each other the business, like “Clips” vs. “magazines.” Lol If you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again.
Do gun owners realize there is a limit on how many guns they can own at a time? Thoughts from an avid reader of the blog. What’s your thoughts on this? It is true. But we don’t like to talk about this subject much. When I was a bachelor living in an apartment, a gun safe was impractical. And closets were…packed. So I had 4 cased rifles under my bed. When I was married and had kids, the gun safe was practical. I filled it. Now that we are empty nesters and less demands on my wallet…. I asked Senior Management if I maybe could get a bigger gun safe to put a few more guns in? Senior Management went all practical and rational (I hate when that happens), “Why do you need more guns? You hardly shoot the ones you have!” So, I bought a case of ammunition instead. Keep up the good work by asking anti-gun questions. It reminds us of the haters lurking out there. Do yourself a favor, stock up on guns and ammo. I will note that I am a typical redneck American gun nut. Working in technology, have couple degrees, bit over 800 books in my Kindle. Accuracy snob. Uninterested in anything rapid fire - hit with the first shot saves both time and ammo. Served in the reserves. Ready to protect the weak from predators - except we don’t even tolerate that here in the first place. Can’t remember how to skin a deer, it’s been years. Can build a campfire. live in the woods for a weekend on canteen of water and 3 trail bars, been even longer. Can remember how to train youngsters on safe handling and excellent marksmanship, recent as last week.
More Mixed Signals From The U.S. Justice Department On Second Amendment Support We’ve reported lately how the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seems to have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude when it comes to supporting the Second Amendment. On one hand, the DOJ claims to be doing everything it can to restore Americans’ 2A rights. On the other hand, DOJ attorneys will defiantly argue in support of an obviously unconstitutional infringement. In late November, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lambasted the DOJ for trying to limit a critical Second Amendment court ruling. After a court ruled that the nationwide ban on concealed carry in post offices is unconstitutional, the DOJ filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members of SAF and its partner organizations, but only to those who were members when the complaint was originally filed and who have been identified and verified. In other words, the government wants to keep the ban intact for the rest of America’s lawful gun owners. “The critical thing to remember here is that the government is fighting tooth and nail to continue enforcing an unconstitutional law against as many people as possible,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “The DOJ’s position that it would be ‘impossible’ for it to know who was protected by the injunction without a membership list is just plain silly. If officials want to know if someone found to be carrying at a post office is a SAF member, they can simply ask.” Less than a week later, Reuters published information about a leaked DOJ plan to expand gun-rights protections with a new office in its civil rights division dedicated to enforcing the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms. The office, called the Second Amendment Rights Section, is expected to open on December 4 and will be dedicated to investigating local laws or policies that limit gun rights, something the Trump Administration has promised since its first week in office.
Michigan Governor Whitmer Surprise: Whitmer’s Anti-Gun Task Force Says Stricter Gun Laws Are The Answer To Violence Mark Chesnut “Garbage in, garbage out” is an old computer science axiom that describes how flawed, biased or poor-quality input will produce equally flawed, biased or poor-quality output. Of course, the principle doesn’t only apply to computer science. The entire gun control world often operates on this same premise. So, consider how unsurprising it truly is that a task force that Democrat Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer created to make policy recommendations to curb violence is urging state lawmakers to ban the possession of so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. According to a report at michiganadvance.com, Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, the state’s chief medical executive and the task force’s chair, said the group used a “public health” approach to addressing “gun violence” in the state. “There are a lot of issues here that have not historically been thought of as public health issues, and only when we’ve taken this really comprehensive public health approach have we been able to implement real change,” Bagdasarian told the newspaper. “Gun violence is one of those issues.” It’s easy to immediately see how much garbage went into this project, resulting in the garbage that came out. First, Whitmer tasked the group with finding an answer to the “gun violence” problem. That is, indeed, garbage.
Florida: Pro-Gun Bill Repealing Adult Age Discrimination Advances to House Vote Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13-7 to favorably report pro-gun House Bill 133, which restores the ability for young adults to lawfully purchase firearms. The bill now heads to the full House, where it is eligible for a vote when the 2026 regular session begins in January. House Bill 133, sponsored by Rep. Tyler Sirois, restores the ability for young adults to acquire firearms by lowering the minimum age requirement to purchase from 21 to 18. Since 2018, Florida has completely banned 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing a firearm of any kind, for any purpose. A young adult in violation faces stiff penalties, including up to five years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. On May 16th, the NRA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in NRA v. Glass, requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court hear its challenge to Florida’s law prohibiting adults under 21 from purchasing firearms.
Brady X Poster Gets Undies In A Bundle Over ‘Less-Than-Lethal’ Weapons Proposal Mark Chesnut When an organization goes somewhat berserk on social media, passionately stringing post after post together ostensibly to make some kind of point, you’d normally figure that topic is probably a top priority of that group. That’s why gun-ban group Brady’s recent freak out over less-than-lethal weapons is somewhat bewildering. Brady: NONSENSE Brady, formerly called Handgun Control Inc. before leaders learned that most Americans were against “controlling” handguns, has never seen a gun control scheme that it didn’t embrace. But until the recent flurry of social media activity, so-called less-than-lethal weapons didn’t seem to be on the group’s radar much. That changed big time on November 19, when whoever was handling the organization’s X (formerly Twitter) account. “While the world focused on the Epstein files, Congress took up a dangerous bill that sponsors say is to help law enforcement get greater access to ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons,” Brady posted in a typical manner critical of anything seemingly in the pro-self-defense category. “In reality, it deregulates dangerous weapons to help a billion-dollar weapons industry make more money.” That’s all well and good, but the author seemed not to be able to let the matter go, soon posting more on the topic just a few minutes later. “This bill isn’t from a well-intentioned lawmaker or a group working to prevent deadly police violence,” Brady posted. “It’s backed by the manufacturers of so-called ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons, like tasers, who have started making products that are appropriately classified as guns under the law.” Still apparently not having said enough, the Brady writer entered rant mode with yet a third post a short time later. “In their effort to skirt the regulation of their products, this bill would narrow the definition of firearm and open a new market for untraceable ghost guns, which have already led to thousands of deaths in the last decade,” Brady posted.
Extremely Troublesome Department Of Justice Brief Draws Stark Warning From GOA Mark Chesnut A bold brief, recently filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case challenging the National Firearms Act (NFA), has one gun-rights organization sounding an alarm. According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), on November 20, the DOJ, in the case Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, filed an “outrageous brief that embraces an alarmingly expansive theory of federal authority.” That assertion runs directly afoul of President Donald Trump’s promise to protect the Second Amendment for all Americans. In responding to GOA and GOF’s “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit,” the DOJ treats Congress’ removal of the historic $200 tax as a pretext to rewrite the limits of congressional power, advancing an argument that would open the door to federal regulation far beyond anything the Framers intended. “GOA and GOF condemn Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for doubling down on enforcement of an archaic and unconstitutional law while simultaneously offering legal theories that would expand federal power to historic levels,” GOA said in a news release revealing the DOJ’s actions. “This is especially striking from an administration that had promised to respect the Second Amendment and review burdensome agency rules.” As GOA further explained, the implications of the DOJ’s stance are immediate and ominous.
