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 ‘Politics’ Category

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

MORE ON WARNING SHOTS

Thursday, April 6th, 2017

A couple of entries ago, the discussion on a major police association conditionally condoning warning shots drew a lot of commentary here.

And we didn’t even get all the way into the topic.  For example, we never discussed what I call the “chaser shot,” the after-the-fact warning shot fired when the bad guy is fleeing, as if to say “and don’t come back, you so-and-so.”

Last weekend, Charles Heller at Liberty Watch Radio and I had half an hour to go into a little more depth on the matter, including some case examples and a bit of listener call-in interaction.

If you have time to listen (might want to fast forward through the intro music to save time), I’d be interested in your thoughts on what was discussed.

Massad Ayoob

WARNING SHOTS?

Thursday, March 30th, 2017
National Public Radio just did this story on the International Association of Chiefs of Police conditionally approving warning shots, which have long been verboten in American police work. Not mentioned in the article is one of IACP’s caveats, that the warning shot should be fired only in situations that would otherwise warrant deadly force.
My take on it is in the NPR story, linked here.
I’m interested in all y’all’s opinion on it, including relevant experiences.
Massad Ayoob

THE CO$T$ OF IT…

Thursday, March 23rd, 2017

Trauma care in America today is better than ever…and probably also more expensive than ever. Those who would ban civilian use of firearms like to take figures on gunshot victims, multiply by
cost of treatment, and claim that we gun owners are somehow responsible for billions of
dollars in medical care for victims of criminals and gang wars.

 
Now comes Dan Zimmerman from over at TTAG with an opposing view. Please read it here.
… and tell me what you think. I was never an economics major nor a statistician, and a lot of
you are better at analyzing this sort of thing than I am. I’d like to hear your opinions. And
congratulations to Dan Zimmerman for taking this novel look at things ͞from our perspective.͟

Massad Ayoob

THOUGHT-PROVOKING READ

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

I thought I’d share this interesting read, courtesy of regular correspondent Ted –

Comments welcome, as always.

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