The CNN Spin on DC versus Heller

From time to time, I like to highlight what "the other side" is saying about the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights.  And this CNN video is about as "other side" as it gets when it comes to gun rights and the attitudes expressed by those who are ignorant about the reason for gun rights or just hate guns that much.

Although this video is from almost 7 years ago, it highlights what gun owners are up against when it comes to the interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.  Leave it to CNN to inject their own interpretation into the wording and interpretation of the 2008 Supreme Court DC versus Heller ruling and even the wording of the Second Amendment itself.  It always seems that those who don't understand the Second Amendment or who have a blatant agenda to severely limit or even do away with gun ownership in this country, twist words and meaning to suit that agenda.

This Writer's Opinion: The Founding Fathers made it clear in their language when they wrote the Second Amendment that the citizenry had an absolutely individual right (and responsibility) to keep and bear arms.  The "militia" clause simply meant that all able-bodied citizens make up the militia, and "well regulated" simply means that these same citizens should be well trained in the use of firearms.  And according to several constitutional and second amendment scholars and lawyers, the founders agreed to this very opinion.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, as many today will often claim.  The Second Amendment is all about an individual right to self-defense, whether that defense is from a criminal or a tyrannical government entity.

The same opinions expressed by CNN in this video are still being expressed today.  It is important for all of us to be sure that we are aware of what is being said by both sides of the argument, and then being able to articulate facts and truth.  Stay active in Second Amendment issues.  Attend rallies, gun rights events, city council meetings, and town hall events with your representatives.  Don't be afraid to question them on their stances and express your opinions.  But most important of all, VOTE!  Supporting and electing good Second Amendment friendly candidates is crucial to our ability to maintain our rights and our heritage.

And in Other News...

SCOTUS Contemplating Case Regarding Unconstitutional Bans...:

I always get excitedly optimistic but at the same time a little worried when the Supreme Court decides to take up a gun rights case.  Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I lean more on the optimistic side in hopes that SCOTUS will again maintain the opinion that not only is the Second Amendment an individual right but also rule that it is a right that protects firearms and firearm accessories in common use, as the framers intended.  But these rulings can go either way, which will influence the way that states and municipalities make or modify their laws.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed in hopes that SCOTUS rules correctly on this matter.

You can find out more information about the Worman versus Healey case that is discussed in this video.  Click on the various "Main Document" links there to read the Amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed by the various organizations for this case.  You can also stay up on Second Amendment news and get some great gear reviews by subscribing to The Guns and Gadgets Channel.

Training

Trigger Finger Isolation Drill:

This week's drill is another good one from The Tactical Rifleman Channel.  Trigger finger placement has a huge influence on where the shots land.  Too far across the trigger, or too shallow, and your trigger finger could possibly throw your point-of-aim/point-of-impact relationship off and your shots will not go where they were intended.  As they show in the video, this drill is done very close to the target into a 1-inch by 1-inch square.  As you can see in the video, a slight error at this distance will be greatly magnified at farther distances.

This drill can be done in a dry fire environment using the LASR App software, but then should be done in the range under live fire to get a feel for actual recoil and trigger press from the pistol that you are carrying with or shooting in competition.  My competition pistol and my daily carry pistol are two different guns, so I practice this drill with both. Practice putting your trigger finger at different positions to find the best spot.  Once you have found the ideal trigger finger placement, practice over and over until you build up good muscle memory.

The link for the target used in this drill is here:  https://instructorzee.com/targets-%26-stuff.  This target can be programmed into the LASR App software as well so that you can see how the various trigger finger placements affect the actual point of impact on the target.  Then when you think you have found your proper trigger finger placement, go to the range and practice under live fire to confirm.



Shameless Commercial Plug:

For more information about the LASR App Training System that you can use to set up this drill in a dry fire environment, see my LASR App page and receive a discount when using my discount code.

To receive a 10% discount on Live Fire Drill Cards, a shooter's training log and some great training ideas visit Burnett LFDC!

Notable Self Defense Court Cases

There are a couple of court cases that everyone needs to be aware of when it comes to our right to self defense.  Many who want gun control keep telling us that the police and the government will protect us.  But by way of a couple of Supreme Court decisions, the police have no obligation to protect us as individuals.  See these two cases below, and you will see that we are the ones who are responsible for our own protection.  Even if the police do eventually show up, it won't be to stop the attack.  It will be to investigate the crime, take statements from witnesses, and unfortunately, call someone to remove the dead victim's bodies.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

  

545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

Restraining order and police inaction

During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, since Ms. Gonzales, from time to time, did allow her husband to take the children at various hours, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival, and he died afterwards.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause

Warren v. District of Columbia:

 (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Incident

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Decision

By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.