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

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.

Massad Ayoob

THE VERMONT MODEL SPREADS

Saturday, February 25th, 2017

In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Governor Sununu just signed permitless concealed carry into law. That appears to make NH the fifteenth of the fifty states to allow law- abiding citizens to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public without a permit. Professor John Lott lists eleven states in addition to New Hampshire which have what he calls “‘full” constitutional carry without any notable restrictions.” Tracking roughly from east to west, they are: Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and Alaska. Dr. Lott also points out that there are three states he describes as having “‘limited’ constitutional carry – i.e., with a few restrictions or kinks included.” He lists as such Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana.

“Permitless carry” is probably the most semantically correct descriptor. I realize that “Constitutional Carry” has a ring to it, but I’ve been in enough debates that I try to avoid terms which can be interpreted in multiple ways. “Constitutional” technically means deriving from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is understood all the way back to Civics 101 that Constitutional issues are arbitrated by the Supreme Court of the United States. In SCOTUS’ two landmark cases on individual Second Amendment rights, both Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago, the majority opinions specifically said that the right to carry was still open to regulation at the lower levels of government. Thus, it could be argued that the Constitution itself really doesn’t guarantee the right to carry loaded and concealed in public without a permit.

A term I much prefer is simply Vermont Model. For most of my life and probably yours unless you’re very young, Vermont was the ONLY state that did not require a permit to carry, and merely forbade the practice to those who were convicted felons, adjudicated mentally incompetent, or had malice in their hearts. Perhaps not coincidentally, there have been many years when Vermont had the lowest rate of violent crime of all fifty states.

It is good to see the Vermont Model spreading, with more states expected to get on board. Your take on it is, as always, welcome here.

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