Guns and employee wellness

My employer, as most do, has an Employee wellness program. The wellness program is a voluntary program that gets you a discount on your involuntary (thanks to Obamacare) employee insurance coverage.
Some employers are now saying that, if you refuse to participate in the wellness program, you will lose your employee heath insurance. How is this legal, you ask? After all, multiple Federal laws, including the ADA and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) state that this is not legal. Well, leave that to the Federal Courts:

Not so, said a federal judge in Madison, Wisc., who ruled on Dec. 31 that employers can deny coverage without violating the ADA as long as the data gleaned from the wellness program is used for purposes of overall health coverage.

This is where guns enter the picture. The anti gun forces in this country want to have firearms added as a public health issue. Now suppose this comes about and your employer wants to use data on gun ownership to enhance your overall health coverage.

Take this one step further: say your employer wants to say that gun ownership is a health hazard, and you must give up your guns or give up your employer sponsored health insurance. You would be forced (by Obamacare in concert with your employer) to have one of three options:

1 Give up your guns
2 Pay a $2100 “tax” each year for not having insurance, plus the full cost of your healthcare
3 Pay a minimum of about $3600 a year for a basic health plan that has a $6000 deductible

Florida Open Carry bill

The proposed bill that would permit open carry in Florida is still alive.

As usual, the anti gun forces come with their main tool: Lies and misdirection. One of the things that makes me laugh is this part of the story:

Marion Hammer, long-time lobbyist for the NRA in Tallahassee, said that without open-carry, concealed-weapons permit-holders “are in danger of being arrested and prosecuted like a criminal if your gun accidentally and unintentionally becomes exposed to the sight of another person.”
“I don’t want to be arrested if my jacket blows open and somebody sees my gun and calls police,” she said.
Hammer cited anecdotal cases, but no statistical data, about people who have been arrested for inadvertent open-carry. Gaetz acknowledged there’s been a “small handful” of cases.

While earlier in the article, this was said:

Meanwhile, critics also worry that an open-carry law might be a deterrent for visitors, harm the state’s tourism economy and tarnish Florida’s image as a family-friendly destination.

Which isn’t even anecdotal, it is purely speculative.

Here is what one sheriff had to say about the proposal:

Some people want to be police officers, like George Zimmerman did. We don’t need George Zimmermans walking around with firearms exposed.

Except Zimmerman was fully in compliance with the law, as it stands to day, and as it is proposed. Open carry would not have changed this case one bit, because it had nothing to do with open carry.

Pro rights folks are required to provide mountains of actual evidence, while anti gun forces can respond unchallenged with hypothetical speculation that is based on the thinnest shred of popular tripe.

Winds of change

Recently, the theme of  training at my school has been a review of how teachers should be reacting to an active shooter. Our school resource officer was the instructor for the training. He had some interesting facts to share. For example he told us that my county, which is fairly rural, has three people living in it who have pledged their support for Isis.

He also provided a link to the FBI report (pdf warning) on active shooter incidents. It makes for interesting reading.

After the training was over, the floor was opened up for questions. The first question was asked by a math teacher, who wanted to know what the deputy thought of the proposed law that would allow teachers to carry weapons on campus. The deputy replied that he used to be opposed to citizens carrying weapons, because he feared that responding police officers might mistake an honest armed citizen with the shooter, and shoot the citizen by mistake. (The obvious hypocrisy here is stunning: so I shouldn’t be allowed to carry because of your irresponsibility?) The deputy then went on to say that he has since changed his opinion, because the evidence is mounting that armed good guys are the key to defending against armed bad guys. He said that all of the active shooter incidents that he is aware of occurred in areas where the intended targets were unarmed.

The deputy also revealed that, should the law pass, they are looking at a system where selected teachers  would be trained and certified by the sheriff’s office to carry weapons on school property. The sheriff’s department will place locked, secure cabinets at strategic locations on campus. These lockers will be opened by fingerprint locks that are keyed to the authorized teachers’ fingerprints, and will contain a handgun, spare magazines, and pale blue body armor with the word “Teacher” on the front and back. Responding deputies will be trained to look for the body armor before mistakenly blazing away at any armed people who aren’t law enforcement officers. While I have several issues with this plan, this is much better than the “only one” attitudes that law enforcement has had in the past.

In the group discussion that followed, another teacher at my table spoke up and said that this idea made her nervous, because she didn’t think that a teacher having a gun around children was a good idea, because in a shooting confrontation, this children could be hit in the crossfire. I sarcastically told her that I agreed, because after all, it would be better to have the shooter lining the children up and shooting them 20 at a time without having to worry about people shooting at him. The other teachers at the table laughed. Ridiculing these stupid ideas is, in my opinion, the best way to shut the idiots up.

Winds of change, indeed.

Truth o meter tells lies

A Florida lawmaker advocating for a law that would allow teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms claimed that school shootings happen in gun free zones, and used the shooting at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College as an example. He stated that this college was a gun free zone.

Truth o meter from Politifact called him a liar. What did they use as the basis for this lie?

The school’s student code of conduct lists the “possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms,” among other weapons and dangerous chemicals or devices, on college property or at college-sponsored events as a punishable offense. There’s a similar policy spelled out on Umpqua’s website.
The clause “without written authorization” is important.
There is a policy prohibiting guns at Umpqua Community College, as Steube said. But students are allowed to have guns on campus if they have a concealed carry permit — essentially what Steube’s HB 4001 wants to codify in Florida.

That talking point can be found all over the liberal media. So who is correct?

It turns out that the anti gun forces are stretching the truth here.

In 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System’s longstanding ban of firearms on college campuses, allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring weapons on university grounds.
The following year, the Oregon Senate considered a bill that would have again prohibited the carrying of guns onto school, college, or university grounds in the state. That legislation lost by a single vote.
The day after the vote, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education took up the issue, setting a policy that allows guns on campus, but bars them from college buildings and sporting venues. Umpqua Community College upholds this ban, making an allowance for those “expressly authorized by law or college regulations.”

This is where even Florida law stands: In Florida, a concealed weapons permit holder can have a weapon in his car on school grounds, but cannot have the weapon inside the building. When a shooter is rampaging through my school, the pistol that is in my car 200 yards away from my classroom is useless.

As usual, the anti gunners have only one tool in the tool box: lies.

In France

This article about a French Jeweler, who was being beaten at gunpoint during a robbery, is in jail for shooting the robber has a neat little factoid in it:

In a country where gun violence is rare but
armed robbery is increasingly common, the shooting – and the formal
charges of voluntary homicide – have placed the government in a
difficult position.

 So armed robbery isn’t gun violence? I thought that maybe the armed robbery was with a weapon other than a firearm, but no:

The robbery was carried out with a shotgun, he said. It wasn’t clear whether Asli and the accomplice both had firearms.

In fact, the article is filled with examples of firearm robberies. That can’t be. You see, the anti-gun crowd here in the US tells us that there is no gun crime in Europe because guns are illegal. 

Yet the sister of the 19-year-old who was killed says Turk shot him in the back and deserves prison.

“He shot a kid in the back. He’s a traitor, he’s a coward,” said Alexandra Asli, his older sister.
who was shot dead in the street outside the jewelry store, had been
convicted 14 times in juvenile court, according to Eric Bedos, the Nice

It seems that outlawing guns does indeed ensure that only outlaws will have guns.

Half an hour can last forever

Thirty minutes. That is how long the shooter in DC had to kill before police caught up with him. It was seven minutes before the first cops even entered the building. This is not a criticism of police, it’s just that they cannot be everywhere. I feel like they did what they could, and did it well. You are responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. Own a gun, and learn how to use it. Thirty minutes can be the rest of your life.

More on the Louisiana shooting

I posted yesterday about a man that shot a teen that had scaled a 5 foot tall fence to enter the shooter’s driveway, was confronted by the homeowner, and was shot. The homeowner, who was standing next to his back door, states that he told the intruder to freeze, the intruder (who has a history of burglaries and thefts) turned toward the homeowner with his hand in his waistband, and was shot. Here is a picture of the driveway:

The state has charged the homeowner with attempted second degree murder. In Louisiana, there are only four ways that the state can prove second degree murder. Two of them have to do with the sale of drugs, and don’t apply here. A third involves death as a result of a violent felony, and also doesn’t apply. The final way involves a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. In other words, they have to prove that he intended to severely injure or kill when he shot the lad.

One would think that the act of shooting someone in itself proves intent, but that is not the case. A killing can not be second degree murder if the shooter
possessed a belief that he must use deadly
force in self-defense, even if that belief turns out to be unreasonable, rather than the intentional mental state of
committing a murder. Like the Zimmerman case, prosecutors are overcharging what is clearly a manslaughter case, ar the most.

This is a common tactic for prosecutors: Overcharge, and push for a plea deal. If the person doesn’t take a plea, they must defend against the charge, and all of the lesser included charges. These two cases illustrate for me the need to do away with lesser included charges. I think that prosecutors should file the charge that the person is likely guilty of, instead of overcharging and hoping that a lesser charge sticks.

Anyway, the homeowner will likely use Louisiana’s self defense statute as a defense.

Use of force or violence in defense

A.  The use of force or violence upon
the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of
preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense
or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, provided
that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently
necessary to prevent such offense
, and that this Section shall not apply
where the force or violence results in a homicide.
B.  For the purposes of this Section,
there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling,
place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the
use of force or violence was necessary
to prevent unlawful entry
thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or
motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1)  The person against whom the force
or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly
or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of
business, or motor vehicle.
(2)  The person who used force or
violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
entry was occurring
or had occurred.
C.  A person who is not engaged in
unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to
be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as
provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet
force with force.
D.  No finder of fact shall be
permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in
determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in
defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or
violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible
offense or to prevent the unlawful entry. (emphasis added)
Note that the law states that the force must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances,
but does not explicitly limit the degree of force to non-deadly force.The law also states that a person lawfully in his residence can use force, if he holds a reasonable belief that force is required to prevent a break in, as long as two conditions are met: The person must be in the process of entering the residence, and must have reason to believe that an unlawful entry was occurring.

The presence of an unknown person immediately outside your backdoor at
2:00AM,where the intruder was required to scale a
fence, would seem to allow a reasonable
belief that an unlawful entry into the dwelling was occurring or about to occur.

Again, I think that this is a lawful shoot, but that will likely get me called a barbarian and a racist, like I was yesterday for my Zimmerman and Alexander opinions.

The rest of the story

Anti-gun forces and race baiters are trying to use the case of a black woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a “warning shot” at her reportedly abusive husband in contrast to the Zimmerman/Martin case as proof that blacks are being discriminated against under the law in Florida. Of course, the facts don’t support this, but anti-gunners and race baiters never let the facts get in the way when they are trying to score points.


Marissa Alexander was married to her (I think second) husband. The man she was married to had reportedly been abusive to a previous woman. They had been dating for approximately three years, and she claimed in September of 2009 that he had battered her. Nevertheless, they were married on May 14, 2010. Shortly thereafter, she obtained a domestic violence restraining order, and that order was in effect at the time of the shooting on August 1, 2010. In fact, she had not been living in the home since June of 2010. She was pregnant at the time of the marriage and separation, and gave birth to a baby sometime during the last half of July, 2010.

The events leading up to the shooting

On July 31, 2010, Ms. Alexander signed out of the hospital and left her newborn baby there, and arrived at the marital home, a home that she had not lived in for over two months, and where her husband lived with his two sons from a previous marriage. The husband that she was so afraid of that she sought a restraining order against. She parked her car in the garage, and entered the home. She spent the night.

The next morning, the husband arrived home with his two sons and entered through the garage to find his estranged wife there. He cooked breakfast, and they all ate. After breakfast, Ms. Alexander handed her phone to her husband, so that he could see pictures of the newborn child that was still in the hospital, and then entered the bathroom. While she was in the bathroom, her husband found evidence in the phone that she had a continuing relationship with her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander (whose last name she chose to keep) and questioned her as to the paternity of the child. A verbal argument ensued, and the husband told his sons to get dressed, and that they were leaving the home.

The shooting

Ms. Alexander went to the garage where her car was parked. She claims that she tried to leave, but that the door would not open. There is no evidence to back up the claim that the door was inoperable. She retrieved a gun from the car, and reentered the house through the kitchen, and pointed the gun at her husband, who raised his hands in surrender. She then shot at him, and struck the wall next to his head. The bullet went through the wall, and entered the ceiling of the adjacent living room.

The husband and the 2 children fled to the back yard and called 911. The woman was arrested.

The aftermath

Ms. Alexander posted bail, and was ordered as a condition of her release that she have no contact with her husband or his children. She made contact with them anyway, and tried to convince them to lie at their deposition, to protect her. The husband changed his testimony to protect her, and was caught doing so. He later admitted that he had changed his testimony to help Alexander avoid prison.

In December, Alexander drove to the new house where her husband and his two children had moved after the shooting. That was when she attacked the husband, giving him a black eye, because he would not allow her to stay the night. She was again arrested and her bond was revoked.

Hardly self defense. she deserved every one of the 20 years that she got.

Here is my source.

Here we go again

Another black choirboy who has been arrested multiple times for burglary is shot while trying to burglarize a man’s house, this time in New Orleans. He was seen by others in the neighborhood earlier in the evening, riding his bicycle with another black teen, apparently casing the neighborhood. The people were afraid to call police, because they didn’t want to be accused of racism.

The person shot was a 14 year old with a criminal history:

Marshall Coulter, who had been on medication for attention deficit
hyperactive disorder, was awaiting trial for “stealing stuff,” his
brother said.
“He would steal — he was a professional thief,
sure,” David Coulter said. “But he would never pick up a gun, not in a
million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone
aim it at a person. No way. Before he’ll ever pick up a gun, he’ll be
your friend first.

Who was caught on a security camera entering the fenced yard of a home, and leaving a second black youth on the street as a lookout.
Here is a picture of the “sweet, innocent, 14 year old boy” that was shot:

People, locking their doors and afraid to go outside because criminals own our neighborhoods and our streets. If you go outside, and are confronted by a person not of your race, you have to take a chance and let them rob you while praying that they are not armed and won’t decide to kill you. If you decide to defend yourself, the government will take everything from you and from your family. They will destroy you.

I predict a coming backlash against minorities, and a coming race war.

EDITED TO ADD: Here is a link to another article on the shooting.

Foolish opinion of armed citizens

Many anti gun people claim that there is no way that an armed citizen could resist the modern US military, armed with fighter jets, machine guns, and armored vehicles. Of course, they are right. It would be foolish for a solitary gun owner to “take on a platoon of Marines.” However, to think that this is how it would go down is to be ignorant of history.

In 1776, the British Army was large, well equipped, and had not been beaten on the field of battle in generations. The Colonists were a guerrilla force of lightly armed farmers and shop keepers. How, then did this group of shopkeepers win a war when they were so outmatched?

They changed the rules. At the time, the rules of war were such that shooting officers was deliberately avoided when firing weapons. The theory of the say was that the men were savages, and the officers were gentlemanly enough to prevent a greater slaughter by keeping the men under control. The targeting of officers was just not done. The colonist militia men hid from incoming fire, and deliberately targeted the officers.

On top of that, Washington raised a navy of privateers (legalized pirates) that raided incoming British supplies.

Thus, by attacking the British where they were weak, and avoiding them where they were strong, they managed to hand the British army and navy a stunning defeat, and win their independence in the process.

This is the question that any citizen militia that is trying to win freedom against a larger, better equipped force must answer: Where is the enemy the weakest, and where are our strengths?

The citizen militia’s strength lies in the fact  that the government cannot possibly know who they all are, and will have problems rounding them up. The government in this case will attempt to identify and cull the ringleaders. The militia would be foolish indeed to muster on the battlefield and open themselves up to attack by the larger, well equipped force.

Instead, the wise militia commander will attack weak points: Leaders, the factory workers where equipment is made, electric distribution that powers factories, the political masters, and other soft targets. This accomplishes a few objectives:
– It causes the larger force to devote a portion of their own military forces to security operations, and cuts the size of operational forces.
– Attrition of supplies. If the factory that makes the oil filter that your armored vehicles’ engines require is burned down, the tanks become stationary pill boxes.
– Demoralizes the leadership. If you are a despotic ruler, and you and your cabinet are facing possible attacks, you tend to be a bit more circumspect when moving forces around.

History is full of examples of one motivated individual changing the course of a nation, armed only with a personal weapon. To think that technology makes this impossible is to be foolishly arrogant.