iCarryUtah – Firearms and Utah Concealed Carry

I have been hearing a lot of talk about folks wanting those bullet-proof backpacks for their children, or finding other defensive systems for their children that attend public schools.

I’m not really going to go into any specific brands, but I noticed one parent commenting that they got some level IIA clipboards for their child.

Would something like that have helped in the situation in Connecticut?  IF the shooter did indeed use a .223 rifle, the answer is no.

You see, there are multiple types of body armor panels, and differing thicknesses/flexibility within those.  The higher the level of protection, the more the expense.  Getting armor in a higher level that is more flexible is more expensive.

A few years ago I wrote an article about body armor as a type of informational primer.  You can find that article at…

http://www.jeepgunner.com/bodarmor.htm

I’d recommend that you take some time to read it, it covers the types of rounds that each level can be expected to stop.  However, none of the concealable, flexible types of armor will stop a rifle round.  .223, .308, .30-06, and others will run right through them.

The odds of needing such a product are low.  I’d recommend that you study up and determine if the product you are looking at will really make a difference based on what you are paying for it, and how your child understands to employ it if necessary.

If the school lets them have their backpack at their desk, that’s one thing.  If they require them to hang them all up along the wall, they might not even have the time to get to it – if it might make any difference at all.

James Bell Jr.

The most common rallying cry among those that are seeking to destroy the Constitution is based on talking about “needs”.  They say no one “needs” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The basic question becomes, who are they to define “needs”?

They justify that by talking about “feelings”.  They feel that their position is morally superior.  Since they feel that (without any objective proof), it somehow gives them the right – in their minds only – to define “needs”.

Thankfully, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) do not talk about needs.  They deal in RIGHTS, powers, and authority.  And among the RIGHTS that are granted the protection of the Bill of Rights are the RIGHT to freedom of speech (which they use and hold dear) and the RIGHT to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (which they don’t care about).

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about NEEDS, but in our nations founding documents is a statement about “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” – which are called “certain unalienable Rights”.  Theis means that they can not be trashed by man.

Now, in my pursuit of happiness, I have a great many magazines for my firearms with capacities of 13, 17, 20, 30, 33, and even 50 or more rounds of ammunition.    My personal home defense firearm is DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER with a capacity of 50 rounds of ammunition.  Why should I have my happiness and the intended function of my defensive arms reduced by a lawmaker, especially when I have done nothing wrong?

Don’t we, as a nation, believe in punishing people that do bad things, not people that do good things?

I don’t attempt to define the needs of any Senator, as long as what they do does not interfere with any of my rights – especially those which are afforded the protections of the Bill of Rights.  If the Senator from California feels the need for armed security or to carry a concealed firearm of her own, that’s fine with me.  I’m sure that those providing her security use firearms that function as intended by their manufacturers – including holding the amount of ammunition intended by their manufacturer.

When people start talking about “feelings” as a way to justify “needs” in relation to legislation, you can be certain that no good will come of the effort.  It’s the first step in attempting to trample upon the rights of others.

I saw this on a site this morning, I have to get on this bandwagon…

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is such a problem in the US, I suggest we Highly regulate the ownership of cameras. Here is my proposal:

Anyone who wishes to buy a still camera must first get fingerprinted, and have a thorough background check / mental health screening done, in order to prove the person is not a known sex offender. You must also prove “good cause” and give proper reasons why you NEED a camera. Simply stating that photography is your hobby is not a good enough reason to warrant a permit to purchase or carry a still camera.

Video cameras are another issue. Did you know that video cameras can take up to 30 photos EVERY SECOND?? In order to own one of these, you must first submit to a full mental health screening, and your local law enforcement authority must approve of you before you are allowed to own one. You must also give “proper cause” as to why you need such a camera. It must pertain to your job in most cases, and be an absolute necessity for your employment.

High capacity memory cards are particularly dangerous, and should be banned all together. They can take, and store, literally THOUSANDS of photos of naked children. Who would need so many photos anyway? If limiting the capacity of memory cards to say, 10 photos, saves just 1 child from being illicitly photographed, it is worth it.

Now teachers and day care providers…They should not be allowed to own a camera, or a camera phone, even in their homes, let alone being able to carry one on their person while at school. Schools are simply too sensitive of an area to risk a possible sex offender / child pornographer having a camera around so many children. Schools should be NO CAMERA ZONES. Period.

Concealable cameras, such as camera phones, should also be banned, as they can get into sensitive areas undetected, and take illicit photos of children all too easily.

Please, we need to have an open discussion regarding the regulation of cameras, video cameras, and high capacity memory cards. It is the only way to prevent our children from being victims.

Some of you will say we can’t do this because cameras are covered under the 1st Amendment.  But it doesn’t say anything about HDTV digital still and video cameras, which can be used to take as many as 60 images every second AND transmit those images across the internet in real time.

No, it’s time to open up this discussion.  For the children.

Do you get it now?

As I watched “Meet The Press” this morning, Dianne Feinstein (D from California) announced that she will be introducing (with other House co-authors) a new Assault Weapons Ban.  She mentioned “magazines, drums, clips and strips” with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and said “”It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively” of assault weapons” and magazines.

Dick Durbin (D from IL) also called for one on “Fox News Sunday”.

One of the common threads they mentioned was “no one needs these things”.

Let’s put aside the whole fact that the Bill of Rights was intended to be inviolate.  Let’s put aside the fact that the 2nd Amendment – a part of that document – contains the enhanced protection of stating that it “shall not be infringed”.  Let’s put aside the notes in the Federalist Papers and other documents (written  as commentaries at the time) that the 2nd Amendment is intended to cover arms in use by military forces, and let’s put aside the fact that the rifles used in these shootings are NOT fully-automatic assault rifles”.

Let’s also put aside the fact that Connecticut already has an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, and that – reportedly – the firearms used were in full compliance with that ban.

No, let’s not.  If an AWB didn’t prevent this latest incident, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD A FEDERAL ONE DO ANY MORE?

First, the ban being suggested by the Senator from CA would prevent you from passing any covered items on to your children.  When you die, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.  They won’t inherit your firearms, someone in the government will, or they will destroy them.

They justify this by saying “no one NEEDS these things”.

Well, let’s look at what other people need, and weight them on the basis of safety…

Cigarettes.  They cause cancer and increase health care costs.  No one NEEDS cigarettes.  Banned.

Alcohol.  It causes DUI’s, right?  It’s addictive.  No one NEEDS alcohol.  Banned.

ATV’s.  No one NEEDS to be able to drive off-road, and failing to use them responsibly could hurt the environment.  Banned.

Central Air Conditioning in homes.  No one NEEDS central air.  You can use a window unit in the room you are in and cool just that.  It takes less energy.  Banned.

Televisions larger than 32″.  Larger units take more energy and required more natural resources to produce.  Banned.

Hardcopy books.  Everyone has computers, you can read what you need to online.  We can’t afford to lose any trees, and were are not banning your ability to read, we are just banning the wasteful hardcopy book.  Banned.

Any car larger than a smart car.  Big cars will kill anyone riding in a smart car.  Smart cars are fuel efficient.  No one NEEDS anything larger than a smart car.  Banned.

Wait, you say that your kids won’t all fit in a smart car?

mmmm

You don’t NEED all of those kids.  Limits on kids.

In the real world, you take a chance every time you get on the road.  You trust that the other drivers on the road will drive responsibility.  You have the FREEDOM to drive a smart car or an F350.  Of course, you know that if an F350 plows into you, you will die.  It’s a risk you take.

You walk on the sidewalk and through crosswalks.  You take chances, FREEDOMS, every minute of every day.

The want to call this proposed AWB a “common sense” measure.  Well, you can use the vague idea of “common sense” to justify anything, even the things I posted above.

Living in a free society, we accept that there are risks.  We know that sometimes, bad things will happen in a free society.  You have the freedom to prepare for those, and do what you can to mitigate them and the damage they could do.

Don’t be so eager to  take away freedoms that others exercise, even if you don’t elect to exercise them.  You never know when your favorite freedoms will be targeted.

In a future entry I’ll note WHY those “high-capacity” magazines are a good thing, and should not be limited.

James Bell Jr – iCarryUtah.com

Yesterday in Connecticut, an individual killed his mother at her home, took her car to the school where she may have worked, and killed 6 adults and 20 children, and then killed himself.

According to reports, the firearms he used were owned and registered to his mother.  He used two handguns in the attack (a Glock and a Sig, both reported to be 9mm but unconfirmed at this time) and a .223 rifle was left in the trunk of the car and not used in the attack.

Within minutes there were calls to ban guns, ban magazines, ban ammunition – many of them invoking the familiar “do it for the children”.  Even Barak Obama said that we have to do something.

In the opinion sections of newspapers across the country, there were calls for everything from the immediate disarmament of all Americans to the taxation of ammunition at extraordinary rates, to doing nothing at all.

However, you know that politicians won’t let a good crisis go to waste.  They WILL want to do something.  As they do with other issues, they will conveniently ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the historical commentaries about them in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, and the common-sense reading of them), and they will call for what they define as “common-sense gun laws” “for the children”.

Sadly, if you look at what happened, the individual involved was in violation of so many existing gun-related and other laws, that piling on more would clearly not have helped.

If you look at how the people inside the school reacted, there are stories of locking kids in closets, huddling fearfully in corners, and basically “locking the door and hoping they don’t have blasters”.  Why is it that these were the best responses that they could manage there?

Because the adults in that school – as in so many others around the country – are prohibited from having firearms to defend themselves and the students.

You see, the “other side” feels that eliminating guns will solve the problem.  They don’t look at the alternative – allowing people EVERYWHERE the opportunity to DEFEND THEMSELVES.  That’s simply unthinkable, inconceivable to them.

In Israel, schools sometimes have a retired soldier working as a security officer.  But in addition to that, some of the school administrators are armed.  They accept that they may have to defend themselves, and they are prepared and willing to do so.  Why can’t people here also accept that?

Some of them feel that we are “too civilized” for this, that the “old west” is gone.  If you take off your rose-colored binders, you will see that we are not too civilized for that, and that there is still a need – and always will be a need – for people to be willing to accept the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their safety, and be willing, trained, and prepared to defend themselves.

You will never get rid of firearms in our society.  To try to do so is in direct violation of the Constitution, and also ignores the reality that criminals will also have some form of arms.  Let’s imagine for a moment that you could.  Once you “eliminate” guns, you will then soon be forced to confront the reality of the dangers of swords and knives (which both Australia and England are facing now) and even rocks.  There will still be violence, and those willing to employ aggression in their efforts.

The other side of the equation is where the equalizer is – allow ALL the ability to defend themselves.  In Utah, teachers can (and many do) carry concealed firearms.  School administrators can carry concealed firearms.  Any adult that is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm can get a permit to do so.  That permit requires training, and even that basic training along with the presence of a firearm for defense can save lives.

In Connecticut they are apparently prohibited from doing so in schools.  Their hands are tied, and they are forced to cower in closets and corners rather than being able to defend themsevles.

Is concealed carry an absolute guarantee of safety?  Of course not, but it does provide a chance that you don’t have without a firearm to defend yourself.

In the coming days we will hear yet more calls for all manner of “common-sense” gun control laws “for the children”.  Sadly, none of these will do anything except disarm or limit law-abiding Americans, and will still allow criminals the opportunities and abilities they have now.

Let’s do what we can to promote the real equalizer – unrestricted concealed carry everywhere.  At least then, if trouble does come looking for you and you can’t avoid it, you have the ability to stand and defend yourself.

James Bell Jr. – iCarryUtah.com

I have been following the situation in Oregon since the shooting at the Clackamas Town Center a few days ago.  I knew there would be calls for “gun control”, and sure enough one of their state legislators is proposing a ban on “high-capacity” magazines – which they are defining as holding more than 10 rounds.

I was also reading the comments section of the Oregonian.  Some of the arguments in various letters to the editor are frightening in their lack of understanding of the Constitution, and their lack of common sense.

One such letter at http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting_1.html#incart_river_opinion has the following comment…

“If gun owners want to practice shooting their semiautomatic rifles, they should be able to go to a legitimate target shooting range, purchase enough ammunition to shoot at appropriate targets, and leave the shooting range with an empty rifle and no ammunition. “

So much for understanding the intent behind the 2nd Amendment.  If this person drinks alcohol or smokes, I’d recommend allowing alcohol sales and consumtion ONLY in bars (no alcohol at home, grocery stores, eating establishments, etc) and the same for tobacco sales and use outside of tobacco bars.  But, they can take the empty bottles and butts home when they are done.

Another comment I found interesting was this one from http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2012/12/letters_coming_to_terms_with_t.html#incart_river_opinion, which I will answer here…

“I ask someone who is a gun advocate to explain why an average citizen should have the right to own an AR-15 or any assault weapon. Don’t explain it as a Second Amendment right, because I don’t object to you owning a handgun for protection or the typical hunting rifle. And please don’t insult my intelligence by using the worn-out argument that “guns don’t kill people; people do.” Had the shooter walked into the mall without that AR-15 the loved ones of Forsyth and Yuille might not be heartbroken this week.

Please explain it in a way that makes all of us feel that your right to specifically own an assault weapon outweighs the lives of Forsyth and Yuille. “

First, an AR-15 is NOT an “assault weapon”.  The term “assault weapon” applies to fully-automatic firearms.  AR-15’s, Ruger Mini 14’s, FN FS-2000’s, Ruger 10/22’s,  Marlin Model 60’s, and hosts of other semi-automatic firearms all operate the same way.  They fire ONE round every time you pull the trigger.

Secondly, it was not HIS.  He stole it from another individual that had apparently purchased and used it legally.

Now, the person asking the question above says not to argue on the basis of the 2nd Amendment because ” I don’t object to you owning a handgun for protection or the typical hunting rifle”. That is a flawed argument, as it assumes that the 2nd Amendment is about personal protection with handguns and hunting.

There is a set of documents out there called the Federalist Papers, and another set called the Anti-Federalist Papers. In these are commentaries, written at the time, by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – of which the 2nd Amendment is a part.

In these documents, they make it clear that the entirety of the Bill of Rights was assumed to be something that would not be infringed upon. Yet they gave the 2nd Amendment the additional protection of stipulating that it shall not be infringed upon.  It is also clear that ALL purposes for owning firearms were protected – up to and including the ability to fight the government if it were ever to be required again, as they were forced to do.

If that’s the case, equally  capable arms to those posessed by the government were obviously included. I won’t get into the whole “nuclear and tanks” arguments, but try reading those documents. They will be very enlightening to helping you understand the reasons WHY things were done in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now, you also attempt to throw out the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” truth.

How do you feel about cars? Are you in favor or banning them too? More people are killed by cars than by guns. Have you also called for a ban on cars? Or perhaps you’d be in favor of everyone having to own a smart car, and prohibiting anything larger that is clearly more dangerous?

How do you feel about swimming pools? Should we limit their depth?

If you don’t want me to insult your intelligence, then please employ it equally in all aspects of life.

Had the shooter walked into the mall without that AR-15 the loved ones of Forsyth and Yuille might not be heartbroken this week.

How many rounds of ammunition did he have?   How many shots did he fire?  How many people were injured or killed?

Any hunting rifle could have done the same thing.  Any Ruger 10/22 could have done the same thing.  Any handgun could have done the same thing.   What he was carrying DID NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  He elected to take those actions.  He could have done so with ANY firearm.  He could have done so with a sword.  He could have done a lot more with a car into a group of pedestrians.

But, let’s look at something else along with your last comment…

 Please explain it in a way that makes all of us feel that your right to specifically own an assault weapon outweighs the lives of Forsyth and Yuille.

Again, it wasn’t an “assault weapon”.  But even so, In Oregon, you do have the ability to obtain a Concealed Firearm Permit.  You say that you don’t object to handguns for personal defense.  Well, in Oregon you can get a permit to carry a loaded handgun on your person for your defense.  Why didn’t Forsyth and Yuille have concealed handguns to defend themselves with?  Why didn’t any of the others there?

If THEY had elected to take responsibility for their own safety, they might have had a chance to defend themselves.

You see, in a free society, bad things can and do happen.  That’s part of the risk you take living your life in a free society.  That’s why the 2nd Amendment (and the law) covers being able to carry a firearm to defend yourself.  You are free to take responsibility for your safety and have the ability to defend yourself.  No, it’s not a guarantee of safety, but it does give you a fighting chance.

You may elect to buy a smart car and drive it on the freeway next to F350 pickups and 18-wheelers.  You trust that the others on the road obey the laws and are responsibile.  Yet you know that not everyone obeys the law, and you know that not everyone is responsible.  You know that some people drink and drive (against the law), but you take that risk in stepping into your car or even walking on the sidewalk.  Even though others have trucks that you won’t survive against in a crash, you still get on the road with them and allow them the freedom to drive what they want, and trust that they will obey the laws.

It’s the same with guns.  You can not care about freedom and say “Well, I don’t want others to have guns that scare me”.  They did that in England and Australia.  Now they are looking at banning swords and putting restrictions on what sizes of kitchen knives you can buy.

You are either for freedom, or against it.  You either accept the risks of living life in a free society, or you go where there is less freedom and a greater “feeling” of security.  But even in those places, that feeling is just that.  A feeling.  If someone with ill intent decides to act, it will happen anyway.

James Bell Jr. – iCarryUtah.com

Yesterday at the Clackamas Town Center mall in Oregon a shooter killed two, injured one, and then apparently took his own life.  I lived in Oregon for many years, and I spent a bit of time at that mall over those years.  I know the area around the food court where the shootings took place.

At this time LE has not released the identity of the shooter or the deceased individuals, nor have they released any details on what he was wearing or what firearm was used.  Reports make it sound like an AR-15 (semi-automatic), and that he may have been wearing a “tactical” vest with magazine pouches.

The problem is that you have lots of “witnesses”, but how many of them are trained or have any real experience?  We will have to wait for those details to be formally released.

What I want to cover is the immediate, first-hand reports from people that were in the mall.  There are some lessons that you can learn from what they reported.

Most of the following details come from the following reports from the Oregonian news paper at these URL’s…

 http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/john_canzano_clackamas_town_ce.html#incart_river_default#incart_maj-story-1

http://www.oregonlive.com/milwaukie/index.ssf/2012/12/masked_gunman_unleasheas_fusil.html#incart_maj-story-1

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting_5.html#incart_river_default#incart_maj-story-1

From the first report that had something worthy of note…

“Fourteen-year-old Hannah Baggs looked directly at the Clackamas Town Center gunman just moments before he entered the mall and opened fire.

“He was, like, 10 feet away from us, wearing a white mask and carrying something heavy with both hands,” said Hannah, a freshman at LaSalle High School. “He went running into the store. I was scared, but I didn’t tell my mom because I didn’t want to get her upset.”

Even though she’s only 14, this young woman saw something that made her feel alarmed.  Where she failed was to act on that feeling.  If you see something that isn’t right, that’s out of place for where you are, or that just makes you feel uneasy, you need to act on that feeling and “get out of Dodge”.  She should have told her mother about it, and got out right then.  Instead, they waited for the shooting to start.  They did make it out, and they did the right thing – went to their car as fast as possible and got out of the area before the police responded.

You may be asking why that last part is important?  If you read my Blog, you will find an entry detailing what I would have done if I was at Trolley Square (a mall in Utah where a shooting happened a few years ago).  In that article, I explained that I would NOT have engaged the shooter unless he came between me and my family, or if he came between us and safety (which I defined as getting out of the mall, to our car, and away from the site as fast as possible – before the police have a chance to respond).  You do NOT want to be there when the police arrive, especially if you are carrying a concealed firearm.  You can read that entry below for more details on what can go wrong.

That part aside, what happens to the “witnesses”?

In the Trolley Square case, they were held for quite a while in the cold, wet weather.  Some families were marched out with their hands in the air.  This happened again in the case in Oregon.  YOU do not want to be there.  They already have enough information on what happened, you being there and keeping your family in the cold, wet weather for an extended time will not help.

In this case, there are several reports of this…

 “Hours after the shooting started, Armstrong was still waiting outside the mall to get to her car.”

“Immediately after the shooting, police officers began locking down the massive mall and blocking exits. While four SWAT teams conducted a store-by-store search of the 1.4 million square-foot mall, air traffic above the mall was restricted so helicopter ambulances could land.”

The mall’s theaters, full of theater-goers unaware of the chaos outside, were escorted to safety.

At same time, several TriMet buses were called to take witnesses away for orderly interviews by police. Regular bus service was suspended on TriMet’s 28, 29, 30, 31, 71, 72, 79, 152, 155 and 156 lines. “

You do NOT want to get separated from your family and taken away by the police in a bus to be interviewed.

In such a situation, IMMEDIATELY get yourself and your family out of the mall via the nearest safe route, get to your car, and get out of Dodge before the police respond.

However, keep in mind that even though YOU may have a plan and a goal, others may actively work to thwart your plan even if only inadvertently.

“Pavlenko took a breath and found her strength. She grabbed her cellphone and ran for the nearest exit, where a crush of confused food court workers had gathered, crying and asking what had happened.

Pavlenko ran out the door and downstairs without her purse or car keys, her work T-shirt offering little protection from the rain.

That’s when her boss, Katrina Onishchenko, the owner of the five-month-old business, spotted her across the parking lot. She tried to reach her, but could not get through the maze of police cars and crime scene tape. ”

and

“Shoppers, employees and witnesses ran for the parking lots. Stores were locked down. Cell phone circuits became overloaded. Interstate 205 and neighboring streets backed up with traffic. ”

“Susie Santos, 39, of Oregon City was trapped in Payless while shopping. The employees locked the shoppers in.”

and

“A staff worker at Panera Bread Co. was standing by the front door, not letting people in or out, Garcia said.”

Part of good situational awareness is knowing the overall layout around you.  Be aware of the locations of emergency exits, and keep your head on a swivel.  While store policy may be to lock the store down – that may not be the best thing to do given the tactical situation.  While they may be well meaning (or may be acting as minimum-wage automatons), you may have to work around employees if you can see the situation going badly.

Reports said that mall security ordered all of the gates between store entrances and the mall closed – but those gates won’t stop bullets.  They may also trap the shooter in with you.  You may need to be very dynamic in getting your family out of there, so be looking for options.

And if you are wondering – in this situation using the fire exit IS acceptable.

I’ll post more later, but I wanted to get these first thoughts out there.  The best time for education is while the incident is fresh in our minds.

James Bell Jr – iCarryUtah.com