Back to Basics

A wounded Vet gets thrown in jail after stopping at Walter Reed for medical treatment. The legal costs and time in jail are something you don’t want to put anyone through. Even after the charges were dropped, DC refused to return his guns. From The Washington Times:

Returning to South Carolina on June 30, 2010, Mr. Kim stopped at Walter Reed for a doctor’s appointment. Afterwards, he got lost while driving his two-door Honda Civic in downtown D.C. in the evening. He was pulled over by police. The officer said that his driver’s license had been suspended. He was unaware of this. He found out the next morning that it was wrongly suspended due to a clerical error in which North Carolina incorrectly reported to South Carolina that he didn’t pay a speeding ticket. Mr. Kim called and had this cleared up the next morning. However, because of the suspended license, the D.C. police officer called for backup, and told Mr. Kim he would have to go to the police station. Then the cops asked Mr. Kim if they could search his vehicle. The lieutenant agreed because his guns were properly locked in a case in the trunk, in compliance with federal firearm transport laws. Mr. Kim was handcuffed and told to sit on the curb during the search. He recalled that the officers inspected the collection and “were upset about the fact that I had the AR-15, which D.C. considers to be an ‘assault weapon.’” The model of rifle is illegal in the District, but not in his home state. The officers then told Mr. Kim he was in violation for the carrying firearms outside the home (in his vehicle) in the District. The nation’s capital does not acknowledge the right to bear arms, so there are no carry rights. “I told them I had been under the impression that as long as the guns were locked in the back, with the ammunition separate, that I was allowed to transport them,” Mr. Kim told me in an interview. “They said, ‘That may be true, however, since you stopped at Walter Reed, that make you in violation of the registration laws.” It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in D.C. other than the home. Mr. Kim’s attorney, Richard Gardiner, said his client was lawfully transporting the firearms, and that would have been his defense if the matter went to trial. “The mistake he made was agreeing to a search of his vehicle,” the attorney explained in an interview. “If the police ask for consent to search, the answer is ‘no.’ If they ask, ‘why not?’ The answer is, ‘no.’” . . .

A grounds keeper and his foreman were both fired.  Chevilott wanted to give the gun to the police, but they didn’t arrive so he had to give it to the police after he was done with work.  From Fox News:

A Detroit groundskeeper, who turned in a loaded handgun he found hidden in weeds while working, was fired by the Wayne County Department of Public Services, MyFoxDetroit.com reports.
John Chevilott, who is just two years shy of retirement, found the loaded snub-nosed revolver on May 3 when he and his crew were mowing a lawn in Wayne County. Chevilott secured the gun, waiting for police to drive by so he could hand it over to them. . . .
According to a Wayne County spokeswoman and the rules, employees aren’t allowed to possess a weapon on work property.
Chevilott says he didn’t bring a weapon to work. He found it on the job. . . .

My newest Fox News piece starts this way:

Media Matters’ Founder David Brock showed no shame when he was caught illegally using guns for his own personal protection. Indeed, Media Matters’ continues to lash out at others who own guns or support letting individuals use guns for the own protection, even increasing their attacks.
In April alone, Media Matters ran 32 articles attacking the NRA alone. Additional pieces have defended the Obama administration’s Fast & Furious program and dealt with other gun related topics.
Media Matters also attacked me three times over the last two weeks: I had an op-ed in the New York Daily News and an appearance on MSNBC defending Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws and The New York Times actually had the temerity to interview me and refer to me as “a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities.”
Media Matters wasn’t happy.
In total, since January 2011, they have criticized me in 25 pieces.
With headlines such as “John Lott fudges gun facts again” and “New York Times citing discredited gun researcher John Lott,” Media Matters attempts to thuggishly intimidate both people such as myself and those who talk to me (my response to their piece on the New York Times is available here). Alas, some people, including those in the media, believe Media Matters. . . . .

My research shows that such mandatory rules will make families less safe.  Accidental guns deaths involving children are very rare, when they do occur they don’t involve the child firing the gun, and the locks make it difficult for people to use the guns defensively.  The new Virginia rules are available here:

Update:  Media Matters has gotten upset with the media for the third time in eight days because of coverage that I have received.  It appeared to me that Chuck Todd was alluding to Media Matters’ attacks when he introduced me on the show, and I appreciate him having me on despite the fact that he must have known that they would attack his show also.

Interestingly, I have already dealt with many of the comments in this newest comment from Media Matters in my previous posts (here and here), but just as Media Matters won’t allow me to put up responses on their website in the comment sections, they won’t acknowledge my responses to their claims that I post on my website.  It is interested to see how fearful Media Matters is of letting their audience know that there are responses to their claims.

In any case, let’s take the new claim that they made after my appearance.

Even more astonishingly, Lott then claimed that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death.

What I will say is that no matter whose story is right, the Stand Your Ground law isn’t relevant to the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. If George Zimmerman is right and the wounds on the back of his head that he was on the ground, Trayvon Martin was on top of him beating him, there was no place for him to retreat. And so the old defense, even if you had the rule that you have to retreat as far as possible, he still would have been able to act in self-defense there. And if the other side is right that somehow George Zimmerman provoked the attack, attacked Martin to begin with, then he wouldn’t be able to rely on the Stand Your Ground law to protect him in that case either.

Lott is really burying his head in the sand on this one. The Sanford Police Department cited the “Stand Your Ground” law as the reason that Zimmerman was not initially arrested. Before he became George Zimmerman’s lawyer, attorney Mark O’Mara appeared on a Florida local news program and suggested that Zimmerman’s actions may have been legally excusable under “Stand Your Ground.” Controversy surrounding the law has even led Republican governor Rick Scott to convene a taskforce to address concerns related to the 2005 legislation.
Lott is correct that Zimmerman may unsuccessfully assert “Stand Your Ground” at trial. Or it is possible that Zimmerman will not use the defense at all. Or that he will use it and prevail. Only time will tell. But to claim that “Kill At Will” has not been “relevant” to the Trayvon Martin controversy is an act of willful blindness that serves to draw attention away from the legitimate debate surrounding the self-defense law.
Building on this point, Lott then claims that “the Stand Your Ground law doesn’t allow you to provoke an attack, doesn’t allow you to throw the first punch, it doesn’t allow you to go and shoot someone in the back.

From Salt Lake City’s ABC 4 News:

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store. Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.” Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. “There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms.” Then, before the suspect could find another victim – a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. “A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.” . . . .

Just a couple of days ago, Media Matters had another list of false claims and I responded to their list here.  Now Media Matters attacks an op-ed that I had at the New York Daily News.  After David Brock’s, the founder of Media Matters, hypocrisy in having Media Matters constantly attacking gun ownership while at the same time illegally having handguns publicly carried for his own self defense in Washington, DC, his organization continues its “do as I say, not as I do” policy.  It is too bad that in the past Media Matters has refused to let me post responses on their website.

Media Matters’ piece has a new list of claims:

1) “”Call them what you will: ‘Stand Your Ground’ or ‘Castle Doctrine’ laws.” In doing so, he is grouping together two laws that are in fact radically different – this faulty conflation is at the center of his entire argument.”

The difference between ’Stand Your Ground’ and ‘Castle Doctrine’ laws is over where they apply, not what the rule is.  Both laws remove the duty to retreat.  Castle Doctrine laws apply to attacks within ones home as well as sometimes on ones property.  Once you step off your property and onto the sidewalk Stand Your Ground laws apply.  The principle of whether one has to retreat is the core of this debate so I have a hard time understanding how these laws are “radically different.”

2) “For example, Lott later claims that ‘In states adopting Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws from 1977 to 2005, murder rates fell by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%.’ But ‘Stand Your Ground’ largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless.  But “Stand Your Ground” largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless.”  [Emphasis added.]

I didn’t say that I had studied all states that had ever adopted these laws.  I made it clear in both my research and the New York Daily News article what period of time over which the laws were adopted was studied.  Despite the spin that Media Matters puts on it, their point “largely” is completely consistent with what I did.  In addition, Media Matters is wrong about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law: the laws was enacted on October 1, 2005, which is within the 1977 to 2005 period.  A complete list of the state laws was provided in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 332).

3) “”Castle Doctrine” typically refers to the codification of centuries old common law stating that an individual owes no duty to retreat to an invader of his or her domicile.”

Media Matters misstates the common law on the duty to retreat.  In State v. Redmond, the Washington State Supreme Court pointed out: “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”  This obviously extends well beyond just inside the home.  In the same case, the court noted: “Redmond’s right to be in the Lindbergh High School parking lot is not disputed.”

4) “While Lott would like his readers to believe that “Stand Your Ground” is a mainstay of American legal tradition . . .

From the Dayton Daily News:

In the eight years since Ohio passed a concealed weapons law, county sheriffs have issued 296,588 permits to carry firearms in purses, holsters and vehicles, with more than half of those coming since President Barack Obama was elected. . . .

My piece starts this way:

Call them what you will: “Stand Your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” laws. Mayor Bloomberg and members of Congress, speaking on the House floor, go so far as to label them “shoot first” laws.

This is a gross exaggeration — a slander, in fact, against legislation designed to reform a flaw in our treatment of self-defense. Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves, sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy.

The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a “reasonable person” standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself — requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them.

Pundits who’ve had a field day ripping apart Stand Your Ground laws repeatedly fail to mention that crucial “reasonable person” standard.
The wild speculation that the laws give broad license for vigilantes to go around recklessly shooting people are a totally irresponsible caricature. Ultimately, it is judges or jurors who determine what constitutes a reasonable fear under such a law, not the person who fires the gun. . . .

From the West Virginia Greeley Gazette:

. . . The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.
Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.
Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.” . . .