Gun permit-holders aren’t the problem

Sunday, October 18, 2009

To the editor:

In Friday’s edition of the paper, [there was] a letter admonishing those choosing to lawfully carry firearms. First, I respect and thank him for expressing his views. However, I disagree with them.

If he doesn’t trust someone to lawfully carry that firearm, he certainly has that right. However, implying they’re pretending to be police, etc., is false and illogical. Assuming local police will be there to protect you at all times is a dangerous assumption. FPD has excellent officers doing a tough job, but they simply can’t be everywhere at all times.

I exercise my right to carry a firearm. Like most others, I am no Rambo, or “wannabe.” However, as a former police officer, I recognize that personal safety is my responsibility. It isn’t something taken lightly. This is why I have met all state-mandated requirements to obtain my permit and routinely practice to ensure proficiency.

As one that wore a badge for nearly a decade, I never had one negative encounter with a permit-holder lawfully carrying a firearm. The person that takes the time and energy to complete training, DPS background investigations and fingerprinting statistically isn’t one to worry about. Both FBI and DOJ stats reinforce that.

I respect anyone’s choice to exercise their right to not lawfully carry firearms, but remind them respect should go both ways. You don’t have to agree with someone’s choice to respect it. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your view, doesn’t give cause to demonize them.

TIM CARTER

Bellemont

By LARRY HENDRICKS
Assistant City Editor
Wednesday, July 01, 2009

The state Court of Appeals has granted a new trial to a Valley man convicted of second-degree murder in the May 2004 shooting death of a man on a national forest trail in Coconino County.

Harold Fish gets another chance

The court decided that the jury in the trial of Harold A. Fish, 62, was not allowed to hear evidence that might have supported his claim of self defense when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. The court concluded that a jury should have heard evidence that Kuenzli acted violently when he was confronted about his dogs.

The court also concluded that the jury should have been instructed more clearly on definitions of self- defense and crimes considered “unlawful physical force” to determine if Kuenzli had been committing a crime when he approached Fish on the trail.

Lee Phillips, Fish’s Flagstaff- based appellate attorney, said, “We’re thrilled that after several years in prison that Hal Fish might finally be getting the justice he deserved.”

Fish’s wife Debbie said, “I’m not really surprised. We had very valid reasons for making the appeal.”

She continued: “We’re ecstatic we finally got the answer back and hopeful that my husband will be home soon pending the new trial. It’s been a long, hard road.”

Phillips added that Fish’s release won’t be immediate because the state will likely file an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Michael Lessler, chief deputy county attorney who prosecuted the case, said that the Coconino County Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office will review the 110 pages of opinions issued by the appellate court.

“But at this point we have made no final decisions about how we will be proceeding,” Lessler added.

Fish maintained at trial that two dogs in the care of Grant Kuenzli care rushed at him as he exited a trail off Highway 87 near Pine and Strawberry. To protect himself, Fish said he pulled a 10 mm handgun and fired a warning shot to keep the dogs away. He also said Kuenzli then rushed at him, threatening death or harm.

He shot Kuenzli three times in the chest. Two of the wounds were fatal. Kuenzli was unarmed and Fish was not injured in the incident.

The prosecution argued that Fish overreacted and took a man’s life when other options were available. Self defense was not justified, it contended, and a forensic report suggested Kuenzli was in a defensive posture when the bullets struck him.

The jury agreed and convicted Fish of second-degree murder in June 2006. Judge Mark Moran sentenced Fish to 10 years in prison

In the appellate court’s opinion, the judges ruled that Fish should have been able to present evidence to establish his credibility because the prosecution had said Kuenzli was “merely trying to retrieve his dogs,” at the time of the shooting.

Fish had told investigators the dogs had charged him, so he should have been able to present evidence of specific acts to which Kuenzli would react violently when confronted about his dogs, according to the opinion.

Additionally, the court ruled that jurors were not given clarity on what constituted “unlawful physical force.”

Fish had wanted to produce instructions to the jury that included crimes in the category of unlawful physical force, which includes endangerment, threatening or intimidating and aggravated assault.

Judge Moran did not allow the instructions to the jury.

By excluding such instructions, the jury may have been able to conclude that what Kuenzli did when he came at Fish did not constitute unlawful physical conduct, when, in actuality, it could have.

Particularly concerning to the court was that the jury had actually requested a definition of “attack” during their deliberations. The jury was instructed that all the direction they needed was in the jury instructions they had been given.

“Whether the question referred to the dogs or the victim’s alleged attack on the Defendant, this uncertainty underscores the need for the jury to have understood that the Victim may have unlawfully attacked defendant without physically touching him.”

The court continued: “Because there was evidence supporting Defendant’s self-defense claim and because the flawed jury instruction allowed the jury to disregard this evidence, we cannot say that the state met its burden to show harmless error,” wrote the court.

While Fish is undergoing the appellate process, the Legislature is working to pass a self- defense law that would apply retroactively in Fish’s case and give him a new trial.

Just days after Fish’s trial started, the Legislature passed a self-defense law that changed the burden to prove self-defense from the defendant to the prosecution.

Moran, the judge hearing the case, ruled that the law did not apply to Fish because the law had been created after Fish had been charged under the old law.

Last week, the state Senate voted to overturn Fish’s conviction by stating that the new law was specifically meant to apply to cases like Fish. The House of Representatives has yet to vote on the bill.

The Legislature has approved similar bills in the past, but Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed those efforts.

Morgan

The REAL ID is a REAL bad idea for freedom

June 15, 2009

Federal CCW reciprocity

Well, that’s a mouthful.

And it might even sound like a good idea.

If the Feds made every state honor the CCW licenses of every other state…

You could carry virtually everywhere, right?

Well, while we all desire the freedom to carry everywhere we go, and while none of us likes putting up with other states that won’t recognize our permits, this amendment is simply not what it appears to be.

Hear me out.  I know some of our supporters like this idea, and I can understand that.  But there’s more going on here than you may realize.
 

First of all, once you let federal bureaucrats control CCW permits for all 50 states, the same bureaucrats will control the content of those permits.

Understand this:  Once you’ve handed the reins over to Washington to federalize CCWs nationwide, the gun grabbers would only need to amend this one piece of code to strip the whole nation of its gun rights — because that code determines the CCW rules of all 50 states.
 

And what’s the easiest place to start with such a broadly-written bill like this?  Legislate by the least common denominator:  Do you want to see New York-style CCW in your home state?
 

And those of you with New England-style rules who enjoy carrying in schools, restaurants, and bars:  Do you want those liberties to disappear?
 

While it may not happen THIS YEAR, it will be a constant threat and a real danger every year.
 

In truth, this is exactly the opposite of what Montana did with its groundbreaking “Montana Made” legislation.  Instead of telling the feds to get out of the firearm regulation business, national reciprocity invites them in.  That’s not a good thing.
 

Second, if this bill passes, the feds will have a complete list of CCW holders for all 50 states.  How else would they make the states enforce CCWs nationwide?  Do you want the ATF to have a list of every CCW holder in America?  I know I don’t.

This amendment is a question of power and regulation — and of stripping rights from states and giving them to the feds.
 

Finally, there is the problem that insider lobbyists want to attach this amendment to a bill at the top of the homosexual lobby’s priority list — H.R. 1913, the so-called Hate Crimes bill that some critics believe will empower federal agents to regulate speech deemed to be “violent.”
 

H.R. 1913 criminalizes speech and makes your personal beliefs a federal matter.  I doubt it would pass without a good dose of political chicanery.
 

And that’s why gay rights groups are trying to buy off some pro-gun elected officials (many of whom publicly oppose H.R. 1913) with this clever amendment nonsense in a crooked ploy to pass a bad bill that wouldn’t go anywhere without their support.
 

Here’s how it works:
 

Those who want to control private speech have prostituted insider gun lobbyists to divide opposition to H.R. 1913 by hoodwinking gun owners into jumping on board.
 

Now those who would ordinarily want to protect free speech and keep the federal government from regulating thought are being pressured to support an ostensibly “pro-gun” bill…that’s not pro-gun at all.
 

And worse, those who are pushing this amendment have successfully hidden its true nature from so many pro-gun voters who are telling their Senators to vote for it.

Read Luke’s blog here to read more about this controversial move, and don’t be afraid to join the conversation by leaving a comment.

In liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

National ID and CCW in one card

Sure, this crook stole the cash drawer.  Sure he had a gun.  But as soon as he left, so did the threat.  What’s the test?: severe bodily harm or death.  Not $100-$1000.  Even if the shooter is a security guard, he’s not a cop or James Bond.  Shooting into a city street is a crime.

This one started out justifiable.  Men come in with guns drawn, you can kill them.  Then the pharmacist makes a couple of mistakes.  Sure he’s fed up with thugs robbing him.  Yep, now’s his chance to even the score.  Wait a minute.  Now he’s out the door.  Guess what happens when you chase a guy down the street with a gun, you go to jail for a long time.  Uh oh, now he seems to be retreaving his back-up gun and shooting a man he shot in the head earlier.  Five times in the chest.  OK, now call the cops and get ready to go to jail.

Woman shoots super-criminal with 12-gauge.  No argument.

Funny how little there is to say about Good Shoots.

Virginia’s permit requests, gun sales rise at record clip

Posted to: News Virginia

Utica Pledger prepares to load her weapon during the firing range portion of the concealed weapons permit class at Bob’s Gun Shop in Norfolk last week. (Thomas Slusser | Special to The Virginian-Pilot)

GUNS IN VIRGINIA:
A four-part special report
on the debate

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

The books (How to Customize Your Glock and Living with Glocks) came yesterday and I haven’t had a chance to look at them yet.  My wife wouldn’t put them down!  Of course I’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s in them because she kept reading me excerpts and showing me pictures.  She’s more convinced than ever that Glockaholism is an asset not an illness.  They’re a hit, especially the personal messages from the authors.  Thank you very much.

Tim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjTOMrLCs2c

Bart writes:

I can shoot my Glock 22 (.40 S&W) pretty good but I can shoot a 17 (9mm) much better.  Is there an advantage for having a Glock 22 for self defence or is 17 just as good?  I see your father carries .45 ACP.  Are you a bigger the better kind of guy or are you more accurate with .45?

Bart

Bart,

My father is definately a bigger-is-better kind of guy, as you pointed out.  I am more practical.  What counts in a gun fight is hits, not how big the holes are.  My father also happens to have grown up on .45 ACP and prefers it because he shoots it better.  Many, many people shoot 9mm better.  There really is no explanation for why one shoots one caliber better than another, but you must honor it.  My perspective is carry what you shoot best.  I happen to carry a Glock 23 in .40 S&W.  There is great ammo for all calibers.  Find one that shoots perfectly in your gun.  Check out some shadetree ammo comparison here.

Hope this helps,

Morgan Boatman

Tim discusses his inspiration for creating Concealed Carry Magazine: Chapter 20 in Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman

I’d like to tell you a story. I hope it will inspire you. It all started for me about four years ago. It was a sunny, yet cool, October morning. I was sitting on an airplane reading an article called The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry A Gun, by Robert Boatman. A good friend of mine had given me the article and said, “Tim, you just have to read this!” I wish you could have been there with me. I couldn’t’t believe some of the things that I was reading. This Boatman guy had written words that were going straight to what matters most to me. His words were inspiring to say the least. You see, I was a new father at the time and the responsibility of taking care of my wife and new child were weighing heavily on me.
I shifted uncomfortably in my chair as I continued to read. Boatman wrote,

“Carrying a gun is a social responsibility.”

A social responsibility? Come on. I always thought that only cops were supposed to carry guns. Heck, I grew up around guns. My Dad had me shooting is .357 Magnum when I was 10… but carrying one everyday? Now that seemed a little intense. Well, I kept on reading.

Boatman:  “A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the
security of his community is little better than the
criminal who threatens it.”

Wow. What he was saying was astounding. I had never really thought that carrying a gun was really that important. And now this guy was telling me that I am “shirking my duty” if I’m not willing to arm myself? Hold on for just one second… Could It Be True? No one had ever told me I wasn’t responsible. Could it be? Was it possible that Boatman was pulling my head out of the sand? Heck, I live in a small town with almost no crime. We sometimes forget to lock our front door! The article went on to cite many interesting statistics regarding the effects of “good guys” carrying concealed guns.

Boatman:  “Even though most people do not carry guns, the
mere possibility that an intended victim could be
armed with a handgun eliminates millions of crimes
every year” “According to the FBI, states with “shall-issue” right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.”

“Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point
Blank: Gun Violence in America found that ‘robbery
and assault victims who used a gun to resist were
less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury
than those who used any other method of self-
protection or those who did not resist at all.’”

I sat in my chair utterly dumbfounded. The harsh words from Boatman, coupled with the mind- blowing statistics, had really opened my eyes. I’d always been fond of saying, “You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.” It was pretty clear to me what side I was on.

Learn more about Living with Glocks.