Even regular readers of The Shooter’s Log can’t read or respond to all of the comments, so we have started a new weekly feature that will recap a sampling of the most active, interesting, or on occasion, randomly selected comments from the previous weeks. Feel free to respond with your two cents at the bottom of this article or by clicking the story link and adding it directly to the discussion.
Reader Comments From Previous Weeks
The problem with this case is the timing of the police frisking and securing the weapon – prior to any knowledge that this guy was a felon.
Of course, if they had that prior knowledge, it would have been obvious that they should frisk this felon for any contraband (drugs, weapons, stolen jewelry shoved in a pocket… He lost those protections against search and seizure when he became a felon, and unless those rights were returned to him, he knows the score…it is not permitted and can likely send him right back to jail/prison.
If he had NOT been a felon, why did the police force him out and frisk him? This WOULD HAVE been a possible violation of a law-abiding citizen’s rights, but I always believe it is best to simply comply with the police officer, and then contact a lawyer as soon as possible if you believe your rights have been violated.
Let me begin by saying that my first issue and carry gun was a S&W model 19 4″. However, as a veteran handgun instructor of more than 20+ years, and a SWAT Medic for many more, the revolver is usually not my recommendation. It is much more difficult to shoot well and slower putting out multiple rounds on threat even at ranges less than 7 yards.
It is also much easier for an opponent at contact distance to tie up the action and render the gun useless by simply grabbing the cylinder and preventing it’s rotation. Gun can’t go bang. Try it!
Also, that long double action trigger makes it more difficult to keep sights lined up during trigger press.
Modern semiautomatic of reasonable caliber and a grip large enough to actually hold onto during rapid multiple shot engagement are my preferred recommendation for most new and intermediate students.
The street is changing as indicated by post incident shooting reports. We are shooting more rounds now and about 50% of the time you will be facing more than one opponent.
A five or six shot revolver just don’t cut it unless you cut your shooting teeth on one and can reload very fast while moving.
Sorry, can’t agree with the premise of the article.
Border Tactical Training Team
~THOMAS PAUL TOWNSEND
I suspect that Trump wouldn’t have selected him if he’d be for gun control. However if what you suspect, then wouldn’t you suspect the same of Trump?
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in with some exceptionally valuable points.
I particularly relate to the part in which you wrote, “It is so obvious that the only one who doesn’t see it is a lawyer or a politician.” That statement is quite profound given that we are left with no choice but to trust the “politicians” who create our laws, and “lawyers” (turned Judges) to uphold and interpret them.
But the most resounding of your statements by far was when you essentially said that the Constitution was not written to bestow or limit the Rights of citizens, but rather its only purpose was, is, and will forever be to dictate to the government the limits of their authority and power over the People.
Far too many citizens do not know this, and the government itself has made sure of that.
The scary thing about this ruling is not the decision itself, but the rationale and the language used by the court to support that decision.
From the facts reported, the court reached the right decision (the evidence was admissible), but they reached that right decision for all the wrong reasons. This seems to be a modern version of the Dred Scott Decision where the court took what was basically a simple case and used it to invent a whole new rationale which was totally unnecessary to the decision.
The evidence should have been declared admissible on the basis of the Inevitable Discovery Exception. Instead each level of the courts wandered around looking for irrelevant and unnecessary reasons to support what appear to be the personal agendas of the various judges.
Since, we know that every level of the US courts has been doing this for many years and will undoubtedly continue to do the same thing for as long as we have human beings sitting on the bench, that is why it is critical that we have Supreme Court Justices whose agendas we can live with.
Fortunately that seems more likely now than it looked a few months ago.
I’m in my early 70s and have carried my Ruger SP 101 snub 358 mag for as long as I’ve had my concealed carry permit. It is always ready to be used to defend my wife and I and those I love. If I should need a backup I also carry a S&W Bodyguard 380 ACP . Both weapons are reliable and I can count on them in a life threatening situation. I use Hornady Critical Defence ammo in both weapons. When concealment is a problem I use a S&W Airweight 38 special, but only when concealment is a problem. The Ruger SP 101 and the S&W Airweight are in IWB holsters and the Bodyguard in a inside the pocket holster. These weapons, I believe, are more than enough fire power.
So what ? The gun store guys did nothing wrong and we’re totally within their rights ! Your comments may apply in whatever liberal state you live in … but not in the lone star state of TEXAS ! We can , we do ,and we will defend our property and lives from scumbag thieves in the night
So you clowns that are supporting the criminals can quit crying, these guys were trespassing on private property in the middle of the night. There are signs posted everywhere about that. They were not patrons as we were closed. They were attempting to get into our cars and business.
Had they officially commited robbery. No. But here in Texas (who cares about your state) I am allowed to stop the crime before it starts by chasing them off or detaining them until the police arrive. I’m not going to do that with a spoon.
When we went outside to deter the secondary crime of robbery (the first being trespassing) the fleeing car opened fire. At that point, not before, I RETURNED fire. I did not miss. Seven shots all hit the car with one bouncing off and breaking a window (allegedly).
I know in your eyes I have to obey the laws of your state. Sorry, your liberal bastion of a state does affect me if I’m not there. Get over yourselves. Nothing I did was outside Texas law.
As far as the unsafe part? The front of the building is noting but windows. I can see out, they can’t see in. We had the element of surprise and knowledge of the premises.
It does not matter who owned the parking lot. I can protect my vehicle no matter whose parking lot it is in. It’s called the castle doctrine.
I know your support is for the felons in this case, but not the people that care about our nation. And not the people that care about others.
I am actually saddened and find it quite unfortunate your willingness to deprecate yourself over such falsehoods. It is neither “logic” nor “fact” that a person becomes more dangerous simply because they are armed.
The entire gun community has spent decades explaining to useful anti-gun idiots that there has never been a shred of evidence to prove a gun has ever murdered anyone on its own. In every single case it took the committed actions of an individual to make each gun go off.
I am very sorry that any time you decide to carry, that the gun itself somehow makes you into an out-of-control and dangerous maniac. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, I feel that since you are unable to control yourself – that you simply should never carry a firearm again.
I’d also highly recommend that you seek help since you don’t know how you’ll react around scissors, or even various lawn tools and kitchen appliances.
Well, dinner is grilled catfish, a cherry-smoked whole chicken, potato salad, corn on the cob, and sourdough biscuits. You better hurry.
You are correct that our military does not train our troops to run and hide till the enemy “up and leaves,” but they DO have to wait until they are fired upon FIRST. And in many cases they have to call higher authority for permission to engage! That does not make them cowards, only victims of a stupid ROE that considers the health and welfare of the enemy before our own guys – a concept that is not very different from what most of us around the US are faced with.
We both agree that the ROE are “retarded” but that is the world we live in – not so much the people from Texas, but I don’t think you want us all to move to Texas.
Remember when Col. Alan West fired his pistol to get an Iraqi to spill the beans on where an ambush was waiting for his men? There was indeed an ambush and they were able to bust it and save many American lives due to the information Col. West was able to get. BUT, he got fired and had to resign from the military and almost went to jail – for NOT following the rules.
Our military personnel are definitely heroes, but you clearly said that anybody who follows their state law by NOT engaging with criminals before calling police or waiting until their lives are in imminent danger are cowards. I was using the military as an example to illustrate that it just isn’t so. We all have ROE we have to follow, or pay the consequences.
Please keep in mind the old saying “Discretion is the better part of valor” when I say this, again:
I would rather call the police and find a good place inside my house to ambush an intruder if the police don’t show up in time than to skip the call to the police and instead go outside and shoot somebody, and then spend the rest of my useful life in prison. A lot of good that would do my family.
Previous Reader Comments of the Week Editions
Tags: Reader Comments
Trackback from your site.