What happens when someone walks up to a coffee shop’s window, presents a weapon, and demands money? If you’re this Coeur D’Alene, Idaho woman when you can’t talk him out of it you present your own gun.

This is yet another example of how a “good guy with a gun” (or a “good gal” in this case) was able to stop a crime in progress just because she was ready and able to defend herself. Not a shot was fired. No one got hurt. The “bad guy” in question was arrested shortly thereafter.

See the video at: http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2010/02/21/ignatius-piazza-heres-to-the-coffee-girl/#video.

Can anyone cite a city, state, or federal ordinance that limits the number of rounds of ammunition someone can own at any given time?

Neither could we, but that didn’t stop a 32 year old Haverhill, Massachusetts from being arrested after police found 10,000 rounds of ammo in his car and later confiscated an additional 20,000 rounds from his home.

Haverhill told police he intended to use the ammo (in .32, 9mm, and .22 calibers) for target practice. According to sources, police say that’s “unrealistic”.

Ironically, people around the country have been seen stockpiling ammunition which others have said (combined Obama’s ongoing war efforts) have led to a nation-wide shortage on ammunition.

This arrest brings up several points of concern, the two we’d like to underscore are:

• In legal terms, how much ammunition is “too much” ammunition?
• Why are police enforcing a law limiting the quantity of ammunition? A law that we haven’t found to exist.

Sources:

• http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_135220825.html?keyword=topstory
• http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/05/23/man-about-to-become-us-citizen-arrested-for-having-too-much-ammo/

In this ten minute audio clip, former President Ronal Reagan offers his opinion about and explains what a “Public Option” on a government funded healthcare plan really means.

Everyone should hear this.

UPDATE: Google has approved both “questionable” ads! Wahoo! Now all three ads are running across Google’s ad network. Let us know if you come across our ads in your travels!

Google doesn’t like “Guns” or “Weapons”, or, rather, Google doesn’t allow people to advertise “Guns” or “Weapons” on their ad network. That’s fine, and it’s one of the reasons we offer advertisements and sponsorships on our site.

One thing we don’t like is that Google blanket reject ads with the word “gun” or “weapon” in them. We’ve submitted two ads for their approval that have been denied, of course we’ve appealed them and they’re “Under Review”, but only time will tell if these ads (which more accurately describe our site) will be approved or not.

We’ll let you know if the two outstanding ads are approved or denied.

Today is a momentous day for us here at SittingDuckPolicy.com! For the first time ever, we’ve actually gone and spent some money on advertising!

We’re hoping this will help bring people who are looking for the following keywords to our site.

Let us know if you see our ads in your travels on the interwebs!

• self defense
• gun self defense
• self defense tips
• self defense tactics
• self defense weapons
• victim
• Self-defense
• self defense guns
• Disarmed
• gun control self defense
• Sitting Duck
• weapon self defense
• pistol self defense
• gun self defense statistics
• Gun Free Zone
• killing spree
• defenseless victim
• unarmed victim

Here are some examples of what our ads might look like when you’re using Google to search for related items.

In yet another example of how Gun Control Gun Rights Infringement policies don’t work. Ironically, instances of late have proven that they may have the opposite affect: places that are under rules, laws, or policies which imply “no guns allowed” disarm the law-abiding citizen and ensure that only those who disregard the law carry guns (or knives, or bombs, or axe, or whatever other tool).

Let’s play a little logic game

Let’s say for whatever reason you’re an angry person and want to carry out some violent act against another person.

• There is a law that says you cannot assault another person, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot kill another person, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot carry a gun into a school, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot buy a gun without jumping through a whole bunch of hoops (to keep guns out the hands of people like you), but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot carry your gun into a particular state or city without getting a permit, but permits are hard to get, so you disregard that.

Why do we need all the additional laws? Shouldn’t the first law suffice? The one that says it’s illegal to assault another person? Why do we need all the others? Aren’t they covered under the first law?

Well sure, but criminals don’t obey that law, so we need to pass another law. The criminals will obey that law, surely! But they don’t, that’s why they’re criminals!

What about this scenario

You’re a bad guy in the middle of assaulting someone. You’ve got a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other.

Your target has a weapon as well. In order to realize your goal you must first disarm your target, otherwise you risk being injured yourself, and being unable to carry out your crime.

Disarming your target isn’t something you want to do, you might get hurt or killed in the process. But there you are, faced with a target that refuses to be a “victim” and now you have to deal with it.

It would be a much safer place for you to carry out your crimes of violence if your targets couldn’t effectively fight back. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had an accomplice? Someone that would disarm your target before you got there?

But who could this accomplice be? In cases like this it could be the school board or the school administration. Maybe it’s the city/county/state that have passed a law that disarms the law-abiding.

Wait a minute… don’t we have laws that make it a crime for helping a bad guy commit his crimes? Does that mean the school board or legislature should be charged as accomplices? Oh? Why not? They created the policy that disarmed the targets, turning them into defenseless targets. Sounds like they helped the bad guy out to me.

Here’s another thought experiment

Let’s say you’re a bad guy, and you want to hurt people, for whatever reason, it’s not important.

You were really mad at some school principal. Two schools sit right next to each other. You aren’t sure in which school the principal works, but you’re so angry/frustrated at principals in general, you don’t really care.

The two schools are identical, same layout, same number of students, same number of faculty.

The only difference: on one school there are signs on every door that say “No Weapons Allows” and has a picture of a gun with a “no” sign through it; the other school has a sign that says “all faculty members are armed”.

Which of the two schools do you go into to carry out your violence?

You’d pick the place where you were less likely to have someone stop you from carrying out your plans, right? So do criminals.

Someplace with a “no guns” policy tells would-be criminals that beyond that sign they’ll find a “defenseless victim zone”.

If we truly want to reduce massacres wouldn’t we want to train and arm as many law-abiding people as we can, then incentivize them to carry their self-defense weapons with them in as many places as possible?

Unless Gun Control Gun Rights Infringement Laws aren’t really concerned about reducing crime at all.

Related Articles:

• http://www.freep.com/article/20091110/NEWS07/91110026/1398/CNN–Gunman-puts-N.Y.-school-on-lockdown

Reportedly, two students at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth, Texas have filed a lawsuit against the college after being forbidden from wearing empty holsters on campus as part of a national protest.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was formed by a University of North Texas student in reaction to the 2007 shootings on the unarmed Virginia Tech campus.

To illustrate the feeling of vulnerability to campus crime, members and supporters wear their “holster-sans-weapon”.

Angela Robinson, the attorney for the college made the following statement:

“Of course [the college] will be opposing the request to allow empty holsters on campus. The college believes it has policies to protect the constitutional rights of students on campus, but also has to worry about the safety of students.” [emphasis added]

What’s that? An empty holster somehow poses a “safety issue” for the students?

“I can’t really get into what potentially might be evidence, but you can use your imagination as to the danger of empty holsters on campus, with the partial covering of it, or who knows if it’s empty.” [emphasis added]

Yes, we can see the dangers of empty holsters on campus. We feel there are more dangers with felons, rapists, and violent criminals on campus.

Any individual or organization that restricts how or when one can defend themself, we feel, is taking upon the responsibility for their individual protection and assumes full liability for any and all damages received by their failing to provide said protection.

Related articles

• http://www.texastribune.org/blogs/post/2009/nov/05/tarrant-county-college-sued-banning-empty-holster-protest/
• http://www.concealedcampus.org/
• http://www.texastribune.org/topics/campus-carry/
• http://www.thefire.org/public/pdfs/131692335995d92a7e4e1c931152bd59.pdf

If you’re anything like us here at Sitting Duck Policy, you feel a bit upset when you come across a location that has posted a “No Guns” sign.

You feel that this not only infringes upon your Right to self-defense, but also advertises to criminals that beyond that sign is a “safe working environment” free from “potentially hazardous conditions” which could end up getting them hurt (or killed) during the commission of their crime.

You don’t like this sort of “Defenseless Victim” zone the property-owner has created by posting their signage, but how do you go about telling them, in the hopes this policy will be removed (or preferably reversed)?

Tim Oliver over at Learn to Carry has created some free cards that help you do just that! Simply download to your computer, and print on any heavy-stock paper that you want (or take the .pdf to your local Kinko’s or UPS Store and have them print and cut a few sheets for you).

Recently we ran an article detailing our recommendations on how to conduct yourself during a traffic stop while armed. Ironically, one of our writers, Joe Levi, ran into just such a situation only days after the story was run. The following is his account in his words (used with permission).

It’s been years since I was last pulled over, but having a brother and a next-door-neighbor in law enforcement has kept me close to the their community. Although I respect the man behind the badge, I also respect the fact that “anything I say or do will be used against me”.

I left work shortly after dark and was “lit up” by a police officer. I pulled to the side of the road, put the car in “park” and cut the headlights.

I rolled down my window and place my hands on the top of the steering wheel while I waited for the LEO to come up to my window.

When he got to my window he did something I’ve never seen a LEO do before: he introduced himself by name and department: “Hi there. I’m Officer Smith from Clearfield Police Department.”

“Good evening, I’m Joe Levi, Syracuse, Utah.” Now, if I were on foot, that’s all the identifying information that I’d be provided to give, but since I was driving a vehicle at the time, I was prepared for the next question. It didn’t come, well, not right away.

“It looks like you’ve got a headlight out on the passenger side. Were you aware of that?”

“I didn’t know it was out, but it’s been acting up, so I’m not surprised,” I replied

“Yeah, it’s was out when you drove past me, that’s why I stopped you. Can I see your driver’s license?”

“Sure thing, it’s in my front pocket.” In my experience, LEO’s like to know what you’re doing so there are no surprises. Telling him that my wallet was in my front pocket, then digging my wallet out of my front pocket reassured him that I’m one of the good guys. I removed my driver’s license AND my Utah Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP), place the wallet on the dash in front of me, and handed him BOTH forms of ID, then returned my hands to the top of the steering wheel.

He looked at both (CFP was on top of the driver’s license) and said “Oh, okay. Are you carrying this evening?”

With my hands still on the top of the steering wheel I replied “Yessir. Right hip.”

“Thank you for letting me know. I’m also going to need your registration and proof of insurance.” He didn’t miss a beat, didn’t make a big deal over the fact that I had a loaded firearm on my hip.

“No problem, they’re in the glove box.” I paused before reaching for the glove box, then reached over with one hand, opened the glove box and removed the envelope that I keep that information, then handed him the requested papers.

“Great. I’m going to go back and run this, sit tight.”

“Yessir.”

A couple minutes later he came back, handed my my papers, permit, and license. “I’ve entered this stop into the computer as a warning with a note that I’ve advised you that your headlamp is out and that I requested that you have it serviced. I’m not going to cite you for anything and you won’t be getting any paperwork, just make sure you get that light looked at as soon as you can. Have a good evening.”

“Will do. Thank you.” He returned to his car. I re-filed my paperwork in the glove box, put my cards back in my wallet, turned the headlamps back on (both came on, ironically), signaled to my left, put the car in drive, waited for traffic, and drove the rest of the way home.

The total traffic stop was no more than 5-7 minutes and was the easiest, most hassle-free stop I’ve ever been involved with.

Mutual respect goes a long way, and I truly felt this officer respected me.

Disclaimer

Again, we remind you, we are not lawyers; we are not providing any type of legal and/or professional advice. As with anything you read/watch/hear, you should verify your facts and make sure the information applies to you. Consult legal council when and where appropriate.

When should you draw?

The question of when you should draw your sidearm should be something that you have already answered to your own satisfaction. It should be something that you have trained for. It should be something that you build into your Color Code responses so that it’s not a question of if, but when, and it’s not your decision, it’s the decision of the bad guy. His actions should dictate your pre-programmed response.

The answer to this question is both simple, and complex.

All of our laws are based on the presumption of what a “reasonable person” would do in that circumstance.

Simply put, draw your sidearm when a “reasonable person” would be in fear for their life or receiving serious bodily harm. (In many areas this extends to the life and well-being of another person.)

If you draw your firearm the bad guy has just crossed the Condition Orange line and you are now in Condition Red. At this point a “reasonable person” would feel fear for their life (fear receiving serious bodily harm), and would be justified in stopping that threat by the use of deadly force.

Put another way, as a civilian, you should not draw your sidearm unless you are justified in (and prepared to) kill the bad guy, if need be. Of course, killing someone is not your intent, but it may be the inevitable outcome of the encounter.

Put yet another way, as a civilian, if you’re not justified in pulling the trigger, you’re probably not justified in drawing your sidearm either.

Real-world scenarios

1. Your feel that your life is in danger:

1. someone is actively trying to kill you
2. someone is points a gun at you (even if it turns out it’s a BB gun or an air-soft gun, if a “reasonable person” would think it’s a “real” gun)
3. someone is enraged, has a weapon, is coming towards you, screaming he’s going to kill you

1. someone with a weapon (baseball bat, brick, bare hands) is actively beating you
2. someone is enraged, has a weapon, is coming towards you, screaming he’s going to hurt you or “teach you a lesson”

Real-world example

NCJones, a member of the USA Carry Forums recounts the following story.

I was at a friends pizza joint once about 11:30 PM waiting on my order and four thugs in baggy pants and gangster look walked in and just stood around (SW Houston).

The guy asked if he could help them and they said no.

At the time I was carrying a 1911 in a shoulder holster. I had my arms crossed with my hand inside the jacket. Hand on the grip and unsnapped just in case it turned ugly.

The pizza guy was a friend and noticed that I didn’t take my order and leave and that my hand was inside my coat. He thanked me for hanging around until they left.

In this example, NCJones elevated to Condition Orange when the four “suspicious individuals” came in. He prepared to enter Condition Red, setting his “mental triggers” (if one of the suspects did X, Y, or Z he’d draw and shoot). He prepared himself mentally and physically, and luckily, didn’t have to enter Condition Red.