I’ve had a few people ask to get a better look at the target I shot for the Deseret News article. Here it is…
www.iCarryUtah.com/target_head.jpg
www.iCarryUtah.com/target_center.jpg
I’ll be the first to admit that it wasn’t my best day at the range, but all were hits on the target. I hope you enjoy.
First, the McDonald decision came down from the Supreme Court. That was a good thing.
Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that concurred with the judgment of the Court, but which gave a very compelling argument for using the “Privileges or Immunities” clause over the Due Process clause. That was even better. His understanding is most impressive. There is a link to the decision on the main iCarryUtah.com page. I encourage all to read it.
Then I was interviewed by the Deseret News about my take on this. It really does not mean much for Utah at this point – we already have a state preemption clause prohibiting local governments from establishing gun laws, and we have no state bans. But it makes a big difference for those not living in free states.
They even sent a photographer out to take some photos of me shooting with a co-worker. Take a good look at my target – all of the shots are in the black, but a few are a little low. During a blood test for lead levels the other day, the “nurse” (butcher) went clear through the vein. I have two large bruises on my left arm, and it hurts like a son of a gun, but I still made good hits on the target with every shot – including the head shots.
I’m on the left in the green shirt in the photo…
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700043874/Court-rules-in-favor-of-gun-rights.html
Personally, I felt it was a great day.
Moments ago the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) announced that in the McDonald v Chicago case, the 2nd Amendment IS incorporated via the 14th Amendment. State and Local governments ARE now clearly subject to the 2nd Amendment.
It seems that 4 of the 5 Justices on the majority felt it is through the Due Process clause…
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Justice Thomas – however – felt it should be via the Privileges or Immunities clause…
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
That would indeed have been a stronger statement – and may yet come back to haunt this nation, in that now it looks like the P or I clause is pretty much neutered. However, this was a victory.
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed is now CLEARLY applicable to ALL levels of government. Combined with the Heller decision, the Constitution is stronger overall this morning.
I’ll write more on this later at my other blog, blog.jamesbelljr.com.
I recently saw a post on a firearms site relating to a guy looking for a pistol for his wife. She could not operate the slide on a particular firearm, and he was trying to find out what was wrong and how to overcome it. He didn’t want to consider any other option other than how to get her to operate the pistol correctly.
That’s not quite the way it works.
A few weeks ago I had a woman come into the shop looking for a Kimber 1911 for concealed carry and for home defense. She was sure that she needed a Kimber 1911. The units that come out of their Custom Shop are quite nice. I happened to have one, checked it to make sure it was unloaded, and handed it to her.
It was clear that she understood HOW to operate it, but after a few moments it also became clear that she could not physically operate it. It did not fit her hand well. It wasn’t as much of an issue of hand strength as hand size. She could not hit the slide release while maintaining a good grip on the firearm.
She really wanted a Kimber 1911, but she could not handle it in terms of operating the controls easily. While shifting her grip would allow her to do so – along with adopting more of a grip-hand “punch” rather than a support hand “pull” – she could not operate the firearm without these things.
Some people would say that this was good enough. That may be true – on the shooting range.
But there was no way she could perform a malfunction clearing drill on that firearm in any where near the required time for a “when you really need it” situation. Her natural point of aim would also not work out with that firearm. It simply did not fit her hand.
We discussed that, and I asked if she had ever considered a revolver. She said she didn’t really like them. It turned out that it wasn’t based on any first-hand experience with them, but based on things she had read and that her husband had told her about how pistols have a higher capacity, etc.
Since she really wanted a pistol, I had her try a Glock. I had her try a Springfield XD. I had her try a few other semi-automatic pistols and they all had similar issues.
I then convinced her to look at a revolver. It fit like a glove, and in the end we found a .357 revolver with an integrated laser that she loved, which fit her hand wonderfully and that she was able to hit with at distance on the shooting range.
Her husband also ended up buying a revolver before they left the store.
The moral of the story is: Find the firearm that fits your hand correctly, and that you can handle, and that is appropriate to the application. Friends recommendations and things that you read on the internet are all fine and dandy, but if the gun doesn’t fit your hand, you won’t like it, you won’t shoot well with it, and you certainly won’t be able to handle it properly when you really need it.
Find one that fits you well. You will be much happier.
I bought a copy of his book and we chatted for a bit. We discussed a few cases, and he pretty much agrees with my assessment of the Campos/Serbeck incident (he is not on the legal team for that case). Neither should have been where they were, and they missed so many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. They didn’t have to engage the way they did.
We also talked a bit about the Dell Schanze brandishing case. He was found not guilty on that one, but it looks like he lost his reckless driving case. Mitch didn’t handle that one, but did handle the brandishing case. His book has copies of the evidence and presentation. Very thorough.
It was very interesting speaking with him, and I very strongly encourage my students to keep his information handy if they are ever in a shooting situation.
I’m just starting to read his new book. I’ll keep you updated, and I’ll be publishing a full review on www.JeepGunner.com soon.
Defensive shooting is used when someone is trying to do something to you that can cause death or serious bodily harm…
SHOOT UNTIL THE PERSON STOPS TRYING TO DO WHATEVER IT WAS THAT THEY WERE DOING THAT CAUSED YOU TO HAVE TO SHOOT THEM.
If they fall to the ground dead, then they have stopped – but don’t assume they are dead. We talk about this in class.
If they run away, then the shooting accomplished the purpose.
If they are running away, there is most likely no more reason to keep shooting at them – unless there are other mitigating factors.
Call 911, and report it. Then call your attorney and say nothing until you have spoken with them.
I ran across this today. Here is a case where someone didn’t follow this advice. (The Mr. Bell in the story is not a relative of mine).
http://www.freep.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040313/Charges-in-stray-bullet-death
There are lessons to be learned here. He fired when he should not have. He blew it.
However, I do take exception to ONE aspect of the case that they are trying to make against him…
“I hope that this sends a clear message that firearms must be used with the utmost care at all times,” Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in issuing the charges.
and
Criminal defense lawyer Gail Benson said the charges against Bell are appropriate.“This is why we don’t allow vigilante justice,” Benson said. “It’s … dangerous for untrained people to start shooting at someone that far away.”
Now, read from this one…
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_2dd02134-477f-11df-aba6-001cc4c002e0.html
Keep in mind that in the second incident, it was a trained police officer that fired on a fleeing subject that had already shot at him once (and had tried but failed once). Look at these statistics from this incident…
Jessop thought he’d fired seven or eight rounds into the fleeing vehicle.
It turned out he’d fired 14.
Six of those bullets hit Davis’ vehicle, including the one that drove through the passenger and driver’s seats and into Davis’ back.
After Davis’ vehicle struck a building and came to a stop, Jessop loaded his rifle and got in his car and moved closer.
Remember…
Officer Jessop stated at the time that he thought he fired 7 or 8 times.
He actually fired 14 times.
Of those 14, 6 hit the fleeing vehicle.
That means that 8 rounds potentially hit the three-year-old down the street or the lady cooking dinner in her kitchen.
What would have happened to Officer Jessop if his rounds had done as the rounds did in the first story?
One of those 6 hit and killed the perpetrator.
That means that 5 rounds could have potentially hit a passenger, sleeping child in the back seat, etc.
While the man in the first story blew it, even a highly-trained police officer has difficulty in this situation.
Nevertheless, the man in the first story should have stopped shooting after the threat to him was ended – unless there was still a threat to someone he had a duty to protect.
We discuss this in class, and use the second incident as an example of what NOT to say after a shooting incident, and some of the things that happen in a shooting incident.
The first incident is a clear illustration of when NOT to shoot. Only until the threat ends – however that end comes about.
Yesterday, while preparing to take a Concealed Firearm Permit Class, a gentleman was looking at a small .380 pocket pistol. I showed him the benefit of having a targeting assist laser on it.
He indicated that he was not concerned with that as he felt that simply shooting back would most likely save his life – even if he didn’t hit the target.
I explained to him that he needs to hit the target since he is responsible for every projectile that leaves his firearm. His response was “at least I’ll be alive to face that responsibility”.
My response was “unless it hits the three-year old down the street or the old lady at the bus stop over there. In that situation, you might feel a little different.”
His face then clearly showed that he had not previously considered that possibility.
When you accept the personal responsibility for your own protection that comes with a Concealed Firearm Permit, there is an accompanying personal accountability that comes with it.
You are personally responsible for every projectile that leaves your firearm. You are responsible for whatever it hits, and whatever damage it does. Unless you are God, the act of pulling the trigger is a terminal act. It can’t be un-done.
You can not assume that you can simply point-shoot the target. You need to practice, train, and prepare. You should also give yourself EVERY advantage.
If you elect to carry a small pocket pistol, you need to realize what the drawbacks to them are – and how to compensate for those.
Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. You can consider that firearm to be great power to defend yourself. Make sure that you are well prepared for it, and the accompanying great accountability.
When I was asked about the Serbeck/Campos incident, the discussion turned to “What would I have done if I would have been there?”. My answer is simple.
I would not have been there.
This very unfortunate situation was the result of a whole string of bad decisions on the part of two individuals – Mr. Serbeck and Mr. Campos. In my opinion, BOTH parties seem to be at fault here.
The HOA “neighborhood watch” was asking for something bad to happen when they (two older white males including Mr. Serbeck) stop and confront two teenage females. The goal of a “neighborhood watch” is to OBSERVE and REPORT. They should not CONFRONT. They made a big mistake there, and that was the first mistake that precipitated this incident.
Had they OBSERVED the actions of the girls and REPORTED them to the police (if they did anything worthy of reporting in the first place), this would never have happened.
Instead, they decided to CONFRONT. Just being on the HOA, the “neighborhood watch”, or having a concealed firearm permit does not make you a police officer. They broke one of the first rules of the neighborhood watch program.
Mr. Campos (the father of one of the girls) was rightly concerned, but should have made sure that his daughter was safe in the house and in no immediate danger, and then called the police. The law allowing you to keep a loaded firearm in your vehicle does not make you a police officer.
He went looking for the men that confronted his daughter. That was a mistake as well, but it was not a terminal mistake. With that decision made, if he had simply remained in his vehicle and REPORTED the other vehicle to the police while OBSERVING it and REPORTING what happened, he could have avoided the problem.
He decided to CONFRONT. That was yet another mistake.
If you listen to the audio of the 911 call, Mr. Campos indicates that Mr. Serbeck drew and cocked his firearm. Mr. Serbeck, the HOA president, says that he exited his vehicle with his firearm “held upside down by the barrel”.
Now, if it was me and I was not planning on defending myself, I would not have had the firearm in my hands at all – demonstrating that I was not a threat. Exiting with the gun in hand at all was another mistake.
I also have to say that – to me – something isn’t right about what Mr. Serbeck stated.
“”Serbeck exited his vehicle with his own firearm, holding it upside down, by the barrel,” The statement reads. “He then placed the gun on the ground and kicked it away, disarming himself. [Campos] then fired two shots at Serbeck””
If someone is holding a firearm on you, you have a decision to make. Defend yourself or surrender.
If surrender is your intent, you would not want to have the firearm in your hand at all – upside down by the barrel (which makes no sense) or in any other position. You would want to keep your hands empty and clear – no threat. If that was his intent, he should have left it on the seat when he exited the vehicle.
That part of his story does not make any sense. I find it very suspicious – personally. I don’t know many people that would exit their vehicle with a firearm in that position. Something just doesn’t sound right.
The police made a big deal out of the fact that the safety was on when they found the firearm. Now, if he dropped the firearm and kicked it away – or if it fell after he was shot – it’s entirely possible that the safety lever may have moved. Knowing firearms as I do, I tend to discount what the PC Statement says about that – especially knowing that there was a live round in the chamber.
And that brings us to Mr. Serbeck being shot and paralyzed by Mr. Campos – an action that was the result of a whole series of bad decisions by BOTH involved parties.
In my opinion, NEITHER PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE THEY WERE. The “neighborhood watch” was asking for something like this by playing patrol cop, and the father was looking to catch the guys that were harassing his underage daughter and her friend.
AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL is very good advice. If the “neighborhood watch” had done what they should have, this would never have happened. If the father would have done what he should have, this would never have happened.
As for people that say that the neighborhood watch was justified – take one step backwards and a deep breath. While I can see the desire to keep their neighborhood safe, DISCRETION should make one question the wisdom of confronting anyone – especially underage girls.
Isn’t that what a lot of child predators do? Don’t we hear about things like that all the time?
How many schools have been locked down when something like this happens? Someone goes up to a kid and starts questioning them or saying things to them. The kid tells the school, and they lock it down and swarms of police descend looking for the perpetrator.
AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL. It’s good advice. Remember that a Concealed Firearm Permit is there for when…
YOU DO ALL THAT YOU CAN TO AVOID TROUBLE
and
TROUBLE COMES LOOKING FOR YOU ANYWAY.
The job of a legitimate “neighborhood watch” is to OBSERVE and REPORT. These two CONFRONTED two underage teen girls.
That was NOT smart. And I can think of a lot of parents around there that would be tempted to do the same thing her father did. It was not smart, but think it through for a minute.
The HOA president and his buddy should have known better. Their actions precipitated the incident. Now, a whole bunch of people are paying the price for a series of bad decisions that started right there.
I’m not saying any of this to exonerate Mr. Campos. He made a series of bad decisions as well. But when I listen to the 911 call and read the PC Statement, I’m left to wonder.
My best advice – use your head in such a situation. Don’t let it get out of hand. Now we have one man paralyzed and another facing a lengthy prison term due to a series of bad decisions they both made.
Don’t be there.