old Grump
10-10-2010, 02:02 PM
October 8th, 2010 9:50 am PT file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.jpg (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman)
Dave Workman (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman)
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman)
Pacific Northwest gun rights activists should feel better this morning because they are not the only firearms owners plagued by boneheads working from the same gun prohibitionist playbook.
The debate right now in Pennsylvania over expansion of the so-called “Castle Doctrine” (a common misnomer because what they are really talking about is the principle of Standing Your Ground, which is widely recognized here in the Evergreen State and even upheld by a series of State Supreme Court rulings), and opponents have trotted out the usual arguments.
An editorial (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101008_Inquirer_Editorial__Misfire.html) in the Philadelphia Inquirer hysterically blasted the expansion of “gun owners’ rights to blast away at anyone if they feel threatened outside their home or even in their car.” Nonsense. What Keystone State lawmakers are considering is relief for citizens from the current “duty to retreat” philosophy that requires citizens to literally show their backs to criminals who might shoot them there as they try to run away. Alan Gottlieb and this writer discussed the insanity of such a legal doctrine in America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. (http://www.amazon.com/America-Fights-Back-Self-defense-Violent/dp/0936783508/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot be held legally responsible if they fail to protect particular individuals; they are obliged only to do their best to protect everyone. Given that reality, and considering lengthy response times -- especially in rural areas with no police departments -- individual citizens should not be asked to forfeit their inherent right of self defense to officers of the law who cannot protect them.”—Dr. Richard Saccone
One Pennsylvania district attorney, identified as Edward Marsico – who should probably stay on his side of the Mississippi River while spouting such claptrap – argued that “Someone can claim self-defense if they shoot someone who looks at them the wrong way.” The author of the Inquirer’s editorial should stay there with Marsico for writing this: “The House changes to the so-called castle doctrine mean that armed individuals will have an absolute right to defend themselves beyond their home. Just imagine how that might escalate road-rage incidents into deadly confrontations, with shooters then claiming self-defense. Even a front-porch encounter between an armed homeowner and a persistent door-to-door solicitor could see lead fly.”
This is the same simplistic reasoning that has surfaced repeatedly in past arguments against a rational self-defense philosophy that recognizes a person’s inherent natural right to self-preservation.
Why politicians and editorial writers continually refer to this as “Castle Doctrine” legislation escapes us here in the West, because the right of people to stand their ground (rather than be shot in the back while retreating) and fight back does not end at the front porch. People must be allowed to defend themselves if attacked in any place where they have a right to be. That includes shopping malls, grocery stores and parking lots, restaurants and public buildings, city and county parks, national parks and national forests; anywhere they may suddenly find themselves in harm’s way.
An FBI survey of convicted burglars found that 100 percent would not break into a home they knew was occupied by a gun owner. Let the word go out that if you enter another person's home unlawfully in Pennsylvania you place your life in peril. That alone would deter many criminals.—Dr. Richard Saccone
At least one man in Pennsylvania, Dr. Richard Saccone, who teaches political science and international relations at St. Vincent College’s Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics and Government, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10280/1093170-109.stm?cmpid=news.xml), understands this. Writing in that newspaper, Dr. Saccone observed, “But law-abiding citizens are not crazed killers; they have a history of acting responsibly and should not be placed at a disadvantage in order to protect the life of a criminal who means to do them harm.”
Washingtonians – including those who don’t own firearms – reap something of a residual benefit from the fact that we’re not in the same fix as Pennsylvanians. Just the potential that a homeowner might be armed stands as a deterrent, though it is not always foolproof.
And that brings us around to Thursday night’s unpleasantness over on the Key Peninsula between Tacoma and Gig Harbor. The attempted marijuana rip-off that turned into a pitched gun battle, leaving one man dead and at least two others wounded, will provide plenty of fodder for all kinds of advocates, from the pot legalization lobby to the gun prohibition crowd.
Twenty-three states have recently strengthened their castle laws and a number of others have long had strong ones. States with "stand-your-ground" laws boast the lowest crime rates.—Dr. Richard Saccone
Pierce County Sheriffs’ deputies suggest there may be other wounded participants because of all the shell casings recovered. Take a lesson from hunters and start looking for blood trails.
Thursday’s incident is reminiscent of the gun battle earlier this year at the home of medical marijuana activist Steve Sarich, who traded shots with some home invaders bent on ripping him off. We wrote about that case here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/this-may-be-why-they-call-the-stuff-dope), here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/more-about-the-medical-marijuana-shootout) and here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/kirkland-shoot-out-aftermath-proves-medical-marijuana-dilemma-requires-legislative-fix). Sarich was attacked by people who wanted something and were willing to seal and maybe kill (one of them had a shotgun) to get it.
There are lots of people who will steal and kill, and not just at homes where marijuana is being grown. Home invasion robbers pick their victims for all kinds of reasons. Ideally, lawmakers in Pennsylvania have come to appreciate that as much as State Supreme Court justices and legislators here in Washington did some time ago.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/study-the-castle-doctrine-debate-pa-it-has-a-familiar-ring?cid=examiner-email
You would think with all the years this debate has been going on the anti-gunners could come up with something more original than neighbors shooting a pesky solicitor or blood on the streets wild west style. They really need a new script writer.
Dave Workman (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman)
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman)
Pacific Northwest gun rights activists should feel better this morning because they are not the only firearms owners plagued by boneheads working from the same gun prohibitionist playbook.
The debate right now in Pennsylvania over expansion of the so-called “Castle Doctrine” (a common misnomer because what they are really talking about is the principle of Standing Your Ground, which is widely recognized here in the Evergreen State and even upheld by a series of State Supreme Court rulings), and opponents have trotted out the usual arguments.
An editorial (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101008_Inquirer_Editorial__Misfire.html) in the Philadelphia Inquirer hysterically blasted the expansion of “gun owners’ rights to blast away at anyone if they feel threatened outside their home or even in their car.” Nonsense. What Keystone State lawmakers are considering is relief for citizens from the current “duty to retreat” philosophy that requires citizens to literally show their backs to criminals who might shoot them there as they try to run away. Alan Gottlieb and this writer discussed the insanity of such a legal doctrine in America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. (http://www.amazon.com/America-Fights-Back-Self-defense-Violent/dp/0936783508/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot be held legally responsible if they fail to protect particular individuals; they are obliged only to do their best to protect everyone. Given that reality, and considering lengthy response times -- especially in rural areas with no police departments -- individual citizens should not be asked to forfeit their inherent right of self defense to officers of the law who cannot protect them.”—Dr. Richard Saccone
One Pennsylvania district attorney, identified as Edward Marsico – who should probably stay on his side of the Mississippi River while spouting such claptrap – argued that “Someone can claim self-defense if they shoot someone who looks at them the wrong way.” The author of the Inquirer’s editorial should stay there with Marsico for writing this: “The House changes to the so-called castle doctrine mean that armed individuals will have an absolute right to defend themselves beyond their home. Just imagine how that might escalate road-rage incidents into deadly confrontations, with shooters then claiming self-defense. Even a front-porch encounter between an armed homeowner and a persistent door-to-door solicitor could see lead fly.”
This is the same simplistic reasoning that has surfaced repeatedly in past arguments against a rational self-defense philosophy that recognizes a person’s inherent natural right to self-preservation.
Why politicians and editorial writers continually refer to this as “Castle Doctrine” legislation escapes us here in the West, because the right of people to stand their ground (rather than be shot in the back while retreating) and fight back does not end at the front porch. People must be allowed to defend themselves if attacked in any place where they have a right to be. That includes shopping malls, grocery stores and parking lots, restaurants and public buildings, city and county parks, national parks and national forests; anywhere they may suddenly find themselves in harm’s way.
An FBI survey of convicted burglars found that 100 percent would not break into a home they knew was occupied by a gun owner. Let the word go out that if you enter another person's home unlawfully in Pennsylvania you place your life in peril. That alone would deter many criminals.—Dr. Richard Saccone
At least one man in Pennsylvania, Dr. Richard Saccone, who teaches political science and international relations at St. Vincent College’s Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics and Government, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10280/1093170-109.stm?cmpid=news.xml), understands this. Writing in that newspaper, Dr. Saccone observed, “But law-abiding citizens are not crazed killers; they have a history of acting responsibly and should not be placed at a disadvantage in order to protect the life of a criminal who means to do them harm.”
Washingtonians – including those who don’t own firearms – reap something of a residual benefit from the fact that we’re not in the same fix as Pennsylvanians. Just the potential that a homeowner might be armed stands as a deterrent, though it is not always foolproof.
And that brings us around to Thursday night’s unpleasantness over on the Key Peninsula between Tacoma and Gig Harbor. The attempted marijuana rip-off that turned into a pitched gun battle, leaving one man dead and at least two others wounded, will provide plenty of fodder for all kinds of advocates, from the pot legalization lobby to the gun prohibition crowd.
Twenty-three states have recently strengthened their castle laws and a number of others have long had strong ones. States with "stand-your-ground" laws boast the lowest crime rates.—Dr. Richard Saccone
Pierce County Sheriffs’ deputies suggest there may be other wounded participants because of all the shell casings recovered. Take a lesson from hunters and start looking for blood trails.
Thursday’s incident is reminiscent of the gun battle earlier this year at the home of medical marijuana activist Steve Sarich, who traded shots with some home invaders bent on ripping him off. We wrote about that case here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/this-may-be-why-they-call-the-stuff-dope), here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/more-about-the-medical-marijuana-shootout) and here (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/kirkland-shoot-out-aftermath-proves-medical-marijuana-dilemma-requires-legislative-fix). Sarich was attacked by people who wanted something and were willing to seal and maybe kill (one of them had a shotgun) to get it.
There are lots of people who will steal and kill, and not just at homes where marijuana is being grown. Home invasion robbers pick their victims for all kinds of reasons. Ideally, lawmakers in Pennsylvania have come to appreciate that as much as State Supreme Court justices and legislators here in Washington did some time ago.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/study-the-castle-doctrine-debate-pa-it-has-a-familiar-ring?cid=examiner-email
You would think with all the years this debate has been going on the anti-gunners could come up with something more original than neighbors shooting a pesky solicitor or blood on the streets wild west style. They really need a new script writer.