Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

Bookstore
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

More
 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Archive for the ‘Firearm Owner’s Civil Rights’ Category

Massad Ayoob

REPORT FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES

Sunday, August 13th, 2017

I recently had the pleasure of teaching another class in New Jersey (or, as some of my colleagues in the gun owners’ civil rights movement elsewhere might put it, behind enemy lines.)  There are few places left in America where the gun laws are more Draconian than they are in the Garden State.

The class had been arranged by my usual host in that state, Anthony Colandro, a tireless fighter for gun owners’ rights.

NJ is a classic example of why egalitarian “shall issue” permitting is so important, and why more than a dozen states now have followed the Vermont Model in which no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun concealed for protection in public.  New Jersey is one of the relatively few remaining states which requires the applicant to show that they customarily carry large amounts of cash, negotiable securities, etc., or have already been attacked or received serious death threats, to have any hope of getting the permit.  This “may issue” policy has, predictably, resulted in a situation where practically speaking, only the rich and influential are likely to get the permit to protect themselves and their families in public.

Not surprisingly, NJ does not recognize carry permits from any other state.  Moreover, the lucky few who do have permits to carry there are forbidden to load with hollow point ammunition, though the state attorney general’s office has supposedly approved expanding bullets with nose caps (Hornady Critical Defense, Federal Expanding Full Metal Jacket, Cor-Bon Pow’rBall). Yet another reason to hope for the passage of national reciprocity.

There are a few bright spots. Governor Chris Christie seems to have given up on BS gun control theories and has repeatedly granted relief to innocent people who were licensed to carry and got jammed up because they didn’t realize that, unlike their marriage licenses and drivers’ licenses, their licenses to carry were not recognized in New Jersey.

Fortunately, gun owners’ groups like NJSAFE continue to be voices of reason, with positive activism as manifested here.

As I told my students there, “Pennsylvania accepts refugees!”  That said, though, I admire the determination of those who have decided to stay in New Jersey and fight for their civil rights.  Their mission is a righteous one.

The beautiful South Jersey Shooting Club

The beautiful South Jersey Shooting Club

Massad Ayoob

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

I love good news.

The District of Columbia was recently found to be out of line in requiring special reasons to fear crime as suitable grounds for issuing a concealed carry permit.  Read the decision here.

Civil rights advocates will recall when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Heller v. District of Columbia, that DC was out of line in prohibiting its residents from owning handguns for self-defense. Thus began a long and fascinating chain of litigation; I expect you’re all familiar with that, and I won’t bore you by recounting it here.

As I and others predicted, DC put up enough red tape to constitute a concertina wire to keep its citizens from carrying guns to protect themselves. One element of that was the District’s requirement for the applicant for a carry permit to show that they had already been violently attacked, or at least, were more likely than the average person to suffer such a thing.

The states break down into “may issue” (translation: we can give you a permit if we feel like it) and “shall issue” (we have to give you the permit or show just cause why not, just cause being that we have sound reason to believe you’re a criminal, you’re nuts, or you otherwise would be even more of a danger to society if you were armed.)

Logic cringes at the thought.  You have to have already been attacked by someone trying to unlawfully kill you, before you can have a permit to protect yourself from that? Um, duh, how do you survive that first attempt long enough to apply for the permit in hopes of warding it off the second time?

Those who know me, know that for decades I’ve pointed out the fact that the defensive firearm is a direct analog to a fire extinguisher.  Each of those items is an emergency safety/rescue tool, whose purpose is to allow the ordinary citizen who becomes the first responder to ward off death or great bodily harm until the designated public safety professionals can get there to help. The gun doesn’t make you a cop and doesn’t mean you don’t need cops.  The fire extinguisher doesn’t make you a trained firefighter and doesn’t mean you no longer need firefighters.  “Emergency safety/rescue tool…first responder…the one there on the ground when the conflagration breaks out, and the one right now positioned to be the best candidate to stop something horrible from happening.”

Duh.

How would the American public react if they were told they could only have a fire extinguisher in their home or car if they had already gone through the horror of a full-blown house fire?  That’s what the Bloombergs of the world are asking for when they demand “special reason” to carry a firearm in self-defense.  Just a different type of life-threatening danger, is all.  But with one stark and important difference:  No fire ever stopped by itself because the victim picked up an extinguisher, but a HUGE number of violent attacks are broken off by the criminal as soon as he realizes he has met armed resistance, without a shot being fired.

Thanks to Alan Gura, the rock star of pro-armed-citizen litigation these days…and to the Second Amendment Foundation, which hired him to bring this case to its currently successful conclusion.

And, by the way, thanks again to all here who voted for a President who put one more pro-gun, pro-self defense Justice on the Supreme Court.

I’ve been on the Board of Trustees of the Second Amendment Foundation for many years. I’ve been proud of that.  I’ve never been prouder than now.

Massad Ayoob

SCOTUS DENIES CERT IN PERUTA

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

Well, damn.

We’d all had hopes that the current Supreme Court of the United States would review and overturn the Peruta decision, in which the Ninth Circuit had upheld the right of California authorities to issue concealed carry permits at will, rather than the growing modern norm of “shall issue.”  I for one was surprised when SCOTUS denied cert.  The brilliant dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf.  A tip of the hat to TN_Man, a regular commenter on this blog, who was the first to post it here.

Dave Workman is an old friend and a keen observer and analyst of 2A issues.  His take on the matter is here: http://libertyparkpress.com/disfavored-right-scotus-denies-california-carry-case/.

Another long-time fighter for gun owners’ civil rights, David Hardy, weighs in here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2017/06/thoughts_on_the_16.php.

There is no more outspoken advocate for 2A rights than David Codrea, who comments here: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/scotus-keeps-door-open-on-travel-ban-slams-it-in-faces-of-gun-carriers/#axzz4lCAyagBU.

My own take?  In too many jurisdictions, “may issue” – still the California standard – has become a synonym for “We’ll grant you the permit if you’re white, male, rich and politically connected.”  In Northern California, several elected sheriffs have gone with a de facto Shall Issue policy, and as has happened everywhere else, predictions of blood running in the streets have been proven wrong.

Under “may issue,” there are generally two standards commonly cited for granting the permit.  One is “the applicant carries large amounts of money or other valuables and is at higher risk for armed robbery.”  That’s certainly a good reason, but a tenet of American law is that life is of much greater value than “mere property” including cash.  The reason we are allowed to use deadly force against armed robbers is the accompanying threat to the victim’s life, not the cash in their pocket or bank deposit bag.  We live in a world where people are robbed and murdered for their running shoes, for God’s sake.

The other most commonly cited reason for granting the permit in May Issue states is credible death threats to the applicant.  Waiting for the death threat misses entirely the point of carrying a defensive firearm.  You don’t wait to buy a fire extinguisher for your car until the first wisps of smoke drift up from under the dashboard; it’s too late.  In the same vein, waiting to apply for a permit to carry a gun to protect yourself and your loved one is likely to leave you unarmed and helpless when the danger first strikes.

Shall Issue, now the prevailing norm, should be the universal norm, and there are good reasons why more than a dozen states now have gone a step farther and dispensed with the permit, allowing permitless carry (a/k/a Constitutional Carry) for all law-abiding citizens.

It is sad that SCOTUS turned down this opportunity to rectify this very real public safety concern.

Massad Ayoob

ANOTHER NEW BOOK

Monday, May 15th, 2017

The Evil Princess reminds me that there’s another new book out this week, my own latest.  I think of it as my “Tom Sawyer whitewashing the fence” book.  Teaching at venues like the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the annual Rangemaster Tactical Conference, I’ve been able to get to know – and pick the brains of – the best and the brightest of subject matter experts in the world of threat management.  Thanks to those folks, the new book coming out this week is a most useful compendium, if I do say so myself.  Here’s what the publishers, the Gun Digest folks, have to say about it:

 

Straight Talk on Armed Defense

 

Acquiring a defensive firearm and a concealed carry permit is only one very small part of the armed lifestyle equation. Straight Talk on Armed Defense equips you with the knowledge to responsibly defend yourself and those you love.

 

This volume gathers the advice of Massad Ayoob and 11 other highly respected armed-defense authorities to deliver decades of information from one convenient source. You will come away with a solid grasp on how to avoid becoming a victim, the mental make up of assailants, the psychological preparation for self-defense, the legal details of using deadly force, post-incident trauma management and much, much more.

  • John Hearne takes us “inside the defender’s head” and reveals the most effective route to train and prepare for self-defense incidents.
  • Dr. Anthony Semone discusses post-shooting trauma and necessary steps to develop resilience and symptom reduction following a deadly force event.
  • Dr. Alexis Artwohl explains why understanding how the mind operates is critical to surviving an attack and the legal and emotional challenges that follow.
  • Dr. William Aprill describes “the face of the enemy” to help us understand violence and those who traffic in it.
  • Craig “Southnarc” Douglas details the conditions present during the typical criminal assault and how to incorporate those conditions into your training.
  • Massad Ayoob discusses power, responsibility and the armed lifestyle.
  • Tom Givens underscores the importance of finding relevant training, through case studies of his own students involved in armed encounters.
  • “Spencer Blue,” active robbery/homicide detective, reveals patterns that emerged during his investigations and describes the differences in tactics of citizens who won versus those who lost.
  • Ron Borsch presents dozens of actual cases of armed and unarmed citizens single-handedly stopping mass murders in progress.
  • Harvey Hedden provides insight and advice on lawfully armed citizens and interactions with law enforcement.
  • Jim Fleming, Esq. describes the criminal trial process and how it plays out in a “righteous use of deadly force in self-defense” case.
  • Marty Hayes, JD, provides the critical questions that must be asked to choose a reliable post-self-defense incident support provider.

——————————————————————————————————

EDITED TO ADD: Should be available jUNE 8 from Amazon, BUT AVAILABLE NOW FROM http://www.gundigeststore.com/straight-talk-on-armed-defense-r3599 .

Massad Ayoob

NRAAM DAY TWO

Saturday, April 29th, 2017

I noticed the “collector’s corner” here was much smaller than it has been at past NRA Annual Meetings.  That’s just sad…

Almost a mile from the annual meeting, Shannon Watts held her annual anti-NRA protest, claiming some 300 attendees.  Those there way it was way less, and I can tell you for a fact that a lot of the folks there were NRA people.  Some came for a lark, some to see if Ms. Watts and her guest speakers had anything of substance for a change this year (she didn’t), or both.  Some pro-gun stalwarts with cat-ate-the-canary grins can be seen on Facebook, posing with their Moms Demand Action tee shirts.  It’s an inside joke: the Demanding Moms were so desperate to make their ranks look more substantial than they were, they handed out the free shirts to passers-by, hence the inside joke the gun people are celebrating in those pictures.

Looked kinda like this. http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2017/04/29/a-letter-to-florida-senators-from-a-constituent/

 

 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.