A Dallas business owner seems to have accidentally shot a police officer who was investigating a possible robbery.

A Dallas police officer investigating a burglary report was shot and wounded by a business owner early Wednesday near Baylor University Medical Center.

The officer, identified as John Berka, was bandaged at the head and right arm as he was rushed into the emergency room just before 6:30 a.m.

Berka’s facial injuries from a shotgun blast were described as non-life-threatening.

Police said the officer was on the roof of a business in the 4000 block of Elm Street responding to a burglary call. According to the report, the perpetrator was attempting to steal an air conditioning unit.

Investigators said the owner of the business was on the ground and apparently opened fire on the officer when he peered over the edge of the roof.

“The person who was involved that shot the shotgun is talking with the officers now, and is coooperating with the officers,” said police spokeswoman Lt. Jan Easterling.

Police seem to believe it was all an accident; they didn’t arrest the man who fired the shot, but they are filing an aggravated assault on a police officer charge. It will go to a jury, where a group of citizens will decide if the case should be dropped or go to trial.

Neighbor Vanessa Pollack said the business owner who fired the shot deeply regrets what happened.

“He just feels really bad for the officer and the family,” Pollack said. “Of course, if he had known it was the officer, he definitely would not have shot.”

This is a perfect example of why target identification is so important.  If you don’t know what you’re shooting at, you’ve got no business shooting.  It’s fortunate that the officer will recover.  This could have had a much worse outcome. 

One side-effect of moving to Expression Engine from Movable Type is that comments were reopened for all of the old entries which had previously been closed.  So far, this hasn’t been too much of a problem, as EE is more resistant to spam than MT.  I’ve only gotten one spam so far, and that appeared to have been done manually. 

Anyhow, the reason I bring this up is that on Friday someone commented on a posting from January 5th of last year about the Ft. Worth Zoo posting 30.06 signs.  Someone calling himself “guy” left the following comment, which I will present in its original format (i.e. I haven’t fixed any of the numerous mispellings or other errors):

This is in the general safty of everyone weather it be animals, workers, or guest of the zoo. What if they did let a licensed gun carrier(with a gun) into the but this one guy/girl was a little disturbed by an attitude that a worker gave them for breaking a rule of the zoo, and they decided to pull a gun on them. Not to say they shoot anyone but that is still assult with a deadly weapon. It’s not that the person as a whole is not welcome, but the weapon. And whos to say that someone else that is visiting the zoo does’nt steel the gun and then rob’s the place. I’m not trying to convince you to go back to the. i hate it myself! But i just think your a little to dramatic about it. Kind of like mothers getting pissed off about a woman on a TV show dropping her towel to a guy and you dont even see anything!

I’ve heard all of these things before, but it’s starting to get a bit insulting to be told that I’m a violent homicidal maniac just waiting to explode.  Anyhow, I tried to remain calm, and responded thusly:

Guy,

All of your points with regards to concealed carry are incorrect.  But let me address them one-by-one in case you haven’t yet had the benefit of knowing how these things really work.

First, CHL holders are the most law-abiding segment of society you will be able to find.  We’re not going to “go off” on someone just because of some perceived slight or a bad attitude.  Carrying a weapon for your protection is an awesome responsibility and it’s one we take very seriously.  A weapon is not something to be pulled out at the slightest provocation or during an argument.  But don’t just take my word for it.  See if you can find one real incident where a CHL holder (or CCW, depending on the state) has shot someone or pulled a weapon based on an argument or slight.  The people most likely to exhibit the behavior you’re afraid of are gang-banger types, who will carry their guns in the zoo regardless of the signs.

Second, concealed means concealed.  No one can steal what they don’t know you have.  Further, the idea that someone will take your gun and use it on you is a tired old canard of the gun-confiscation movement.  I won’t deny that it can happen.  In fact, there are a couple of interesting documented cases where the criminal had his gun taken… But in any event, it’s a matter of mindset.  If you pull a gun you must be prepared to use it.  That’s an issue that each carrier must be prepared to deal with before making the decision to carry.  In any event, it’s not something that happens often enough to make policy on (in fact, I don’t know of any concealed-carry holders who have had this happen).

Finally, let’s take a look at the “general safety” argument.  A 30.06 sign has the force of a criminal trespass charge behind it, but that’s about all.  But being law-abiding sorts, CHL holders abide by these signs wherever they are legally posted.  I must point out to you, though, that criminals don’t give a rat’s ass about these signs.  So what you’ve effectively done is create a zone where your most law-abiding and safe citizens are legally prevented from carrying a weapon while criminals still have free reign.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the “safety” in this.

Finally, I don’t consider it “dramatic” to research and make comments on a policy I consider ill-advised and unsafe and to take action based on that policy to ensure the safety of myself and those around me (namely to avoid gun-free criminal empowerment zones).

Unfortunately, he left an invalid email address in the comments, so I couldn’t reply directly.  Anyhow, I thought this one deserved a front page answer for posterity.

It looks like I’m going to have to find a new shooting range for a while.

A fire in the gun range at Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World caused about $125,000 worth of damage over the weekend, but no injuries were reported, a fire official said Tuesday.

The store’s sprinkler system extinguished the flames before firefighters arrived, said Grapevine fire investigator Roger Stewart.

A Grapevine man using a black powder pistol accidentally ignited the blaze about 6 p.m. Saturday at the store, 2501 Bass Pro Drive.

“Generally, black powder is not allowed on the range, but an employee allowed the man to use it,” Stewart said.

The man was firing the weapon when burning material fell from the pistol and rolled off the range, igniting the fire, according to fire reports.

The blaze destroyed shooting equipment, the range and several aisles, Stewart said.

As I noted in Cinomed’s post, I’ve been afraid of something like this for a while.  Lots of unburned powder accumulates on the floors in that range, which I would always notice when sweeping up my brass.  They had the same thing happen in the rifle tube a couple of years ago. 

Update:  Sources tell me that the black powder shooter in question finagled his way into the range by telling the range officer that he was only going to test some percussion caps since they had supposedly sold him the wrong ones before and he wanted to make sure these new caps were the right ones.  Once inside he lit off a full charge instead of just using the caps as promised.  I sure hope he’s happy that he got to shoot his precious black powder pistol on the range by talking his way around the rules, since now the rest of us have to suffer for his “victory.”

There’s an interesting thread on The High Road concerning how to deal with a “Loss Prevention” person who demands to search you as you’re leaving a store.  Of particular interest to me is how one would deal with this in Texas while carrying. 

I’m not talking about setting off the scanner or cases where they want to verify a receipt against the contents of a cart or bag.  I’m interested in the full-on case where they suspect you’ve taken something and want to try to detain and search you.  In relation to that, I was curious as to the level of force they’re allowed to use (i.e. can they lay hands on you?). 

A lot of misunderstandings in the thread came from the fact that the law differs from state to state.  In some states they are not allowed to do much of anything.  In others they retailer (or employees) can take fairly drastic measures to detain a shoplifter.

Searching the Texas statutes led me to the following from the Civil Practice & Remedies Code

§ 124.001.  DETENTION.  A person who reasonably believes
that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is
privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a
reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.

The question then becomes what constitutes detaining a person in a “reasonable manner” and for a “reasonable time.”  Further, in their investigation of the ownership of the property, how far can they go in performing a search? 

The big problem I see here is that if someone is legally carrying a concealed weapon, then that person absolutely could not allow any kind of search of his person such that anyone else could access the weapon.  Further, even announcing to them that you’re carrying could potentially violate the concealment requirement of the law.  So you’re faced with a situation where you cannot allow a search and you can’t explain why.

My thought is that I would ask why I was being detained and explain to them that I will not allow myself to be searched by anyone other than a sworn peace officer and that they need to call the police right away or allow me to leave.  Further, if anyone places a hand on me I’ll ask if that person is a peace officer.  If not I will inform them that they may be facing criminal assault charges and the potential of a civil lawsuit, since I’m willing to wait for the police, which seems perfectly reasonable.  I just won’t be going anywhere (i.e. the “back room”) or allowing them to search until the police arrive. 

But frankly, I’m going to make a huge stink with the management about the incident when it’s over, because I don’t steal and they would have no reason to try to detain me.  Heck, it bugs me when I see people eating a grape in a grocery store if they haven’t paid for it yet.

Let’s just hope I never have to find out how this would work out.  My biggest fear in that situation would be some Rambo-wannabe who won’t listen or can’t be arsed to deviate from the script even if I’m being calm and rational.  But if it comes down to it, I can’t allow myself to be handcuffed or otherwise put in a position of having my carry piece found and taken by anyone other than a peace officer. 

Is it just me, or does this product scream that its wearer is carrying a gun?  I’ve always been weary of so-called concealment vests, but one with the NRA logo on it seems a bit indiscreet.

I received a letter from TSRA over the weekend.  As is typical, it was soliciting donations, but it was interesting in that it gave the 2005 legislative priorities for TSRA.  One thing in Texas law that’s always bugged me is that there is no provision for vehicle carry.  TSRA aims to correct this problem during this session by introducing a measure extending the definition of “private property” from your home to your vehicle.  We saw a move in this direction during the last session with a new law that made motor homes private property so they would be exempt from the general restrictions on carrying handguns “on or about your person.” 

Some other items of interest (verbatim from the letter):

• Extend the length of a CHL renewal from 4 years to 5—and keep the fee the same.
• Expand access to “Non-resident” CHLs, so frequent visitor (from states without CHL reciprocity with Texas) can legally carry while traveling in Texas.
• Reduce the CHL “replacement fee” from $25 to $10.  And expand the payment options.
• Make the fact that you have a CHL confidential and private—not a matter of public record.
• Extend the CHL renewal period (now one year) for active deployed military personnel.
• Eliminate CHL range requirements for military personnel with similar official training.
• Stop cities from practicing the hostile annexation of hunting lands—which limits our hunting areas
• Monitoring of a hot issue that may become law: halting the discharge of firearms in riverbeds.

That last one has me a bit puzzled.  Below the highlighted text it says the following:

Large ranchers want to stop anyone from shooting in a riverbed—below the line of vegetation.  If this hotbed issue becomes law, it would drastically curtail the freedoms we enjoy for duck and fowl hunting.

I’m not sure I understand this one.  Couldn’t a rancher who wanted to stop someone from shooting just post their land as off-limits to hunters?  Or is there something special about a riverbed?  For that matter, why would just “large ranchers” push for this?

One other issue I wish they’d take up would be to modify the way court “premises” are handled with regards to CHLs.  When the law was changed to prevent cities from posting public property with 30.06 signs, the wording about how courts are handled was also changed.  Unfortunately, it ended up placing the entire building off-limits, even if the court inhabits only a small section of the building.  The law needs to be changed to specify that only the court offices themselves are off limits to prevent cities and counties from arbitrarily and maliciously placing court small or temporary courts in buildings that otherwise wouldn’t have them.  Further, I’d like to see a requirement for a secure storage area at all such locations.

The February issue of Reason magazine arrived today (the new issue is not online, unfortunately).  On the cover was a blurb titled “Humanizing gun nuts.”  It is for a review of the book Shooters (Myths And Realities of America’s Gun Cultures) by Abigail A. Kohn.  Of particular interest were some quotes from the book’s preface.  I’d had this book sitting on my bookshelf for a while, intending to “get around to it” one of these days.  This prompted me to get started.

But for your edification I thought I’d share with you this excerpt from the preface which highlights the extreme anti gun and anti gun owner bias in the academic world. 

When I began my research into gun enthusiasm and gun ownership in the mid-1990s, I learned that a number of my academic colleagues held very similar views.  One colleague said (trying to sound positive) that I was commiting a real social service by researching “such disgusting people.”  Another informed me that because neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the Ku Klux Klan all obviously loved their guns, until I recognized that the phenomenon of gun enthusiasm was intrinsically racist, I was an apologist for racist violence.  A third colleague told me frequently that she found gun owners utterly repellant, and she was surprised (and more than a little suspicious) that I didn’t find them repellant as well.  She insisted that until I recognized and acknowledged the ugliness and inherent pathology of gun enthusiasm, my research was disrepectful to victims of gun violence.

The bigotry of the above statements is breathtaking.  If anyone wonders why gun owners regard academics with barely concealed contempt, perhaps this will help their understanding.  It’s also a good reason not to trust anything they have to say.

I’m trying to withhold judgment on the book, but I’m only a few pages into it and I already find myself yelling at the author.  Despite her attempts to delve into the world of shooters, she doesn’t seem to get very far.  Or perhaps I’m just more sensitive to anti gun bias, since I’m somewhere to the right of the NRA when it comes to gun rights.  I often find it laughable when I see someone decry the “hard line” position of the NRA, since I tend to think of them as wimps most of the time.

And that may be the key to the problem I have with the author.  She speaks of the issues being “complex” and dismisses as “ideologues” those who see them as “black and white.”  From my perspective, there are simply certain areas of life that aren’t up for popular vote or subject to the will of the majority.  The right to keep and bear arms is one of those things.  As long as people talk about a national “dialogue” on guns, then that signals to me that they don’t get it.  I usually regard this as a backdoor path to more gun control, which we’ve had quite enough of in this country, thank you very much.

It appears that the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is pushing a Petition for Rulemaking to the Department of Interior that would finally force them to at least consider the issue of allowing permit holders to carry firearms in national parks. 

From their home page:

VCDL has a Petition for Rule Making (PRM) ready to present to the Department of the Interior. The PRM will force the Department of The Interior (DOI) to consider allowing permit holders to carry in National Parks. They will have to hold a public comment period and we will advise when that happens so that you can let them know how law-abiding gun owners feel about this important issue.

For now we need as many national and state organizations to sign on to it as possible. We are NOT looking for individuals to be a petitioner, but individuals should contact their state and national organizations to encourage them to sign on to the PRM ASAP.

National and state gun organizations: Print out the entire petition so you can read it and fill in the last page. You can then either fax the last page to me at (804) 739-8376 or you can mail the last page to me at:

Philip Van Cleave
VCDL
5509 West Bay Court
Midlothian, VA 23112-2506

I will be sending this in around February 1st, 2005, so please get the signed pages to me as soon as possible.

Thanks!

At present it is illegal by federal rule to carry a firearm in a national park, even if the park is in a state where you would otherwise be allowed to do so by state law.  As I wrote previously I’d like to see the federal government obey state laws in this regard, rather than ignore the rights of the citizens.

The latest news on reciprocity agreements is good for Texas residents who have CHLs and will be travelling to Colorado.  Governor Perry signed a proclamation recognizing Colorado permits as valid in Texas.  By Colorado law this automatically makes Texas CHLs valid in Colorado.

I guess I don’t need that non-resident New Hampshire permit anymore.  I obtained it specifically for the purpose of use in Colorado, since it seemed to be taking practically forever for Texas to get around to negotiating reciprocity with Colorado.

The NRA-ILA news item above also mentions that Texas will now honor New Mexico permits.  It needs to be stated that New Mexico does not recognize Texas CHLs and cannot do so without changes to New Mexico law.  However, New Mexico does have a provision for vehicle carry, which is better than nothing while traversing the northeastern corner of the state while getting from Texas to Colorado.

As usual, once the “authorities” get their paws on your guns, it’s really difficult to get them back.

Leroy Carmichael wants his guns back.

Arlington police seized a cache of weapons—including a sawed-off shotgun and a machine gun that are registered with the federal government—from Carmichael’s home in October after a report that he was suicidal.

A psychiatric evaluation found nothing wrong with the 72-year-old former police officer. And no charges were filed against him.

Now the city wants him to sign a waiver releasing them from responsibility if they return his guns to him.  Mr. Carmichael has refused, quite rightly stating that he shouldn’t have to sign any kind of waiver to get his property back.

Here’s the part that raised my blood pressure, though.

Assistant City Attorney Kathleen Weisskopf said that police have the legal right to seize weapons if officers believe that their owner is a threat.

“They can seize those weapons pending the outcome of a criminal case,” she said. “But in this situation, we are not filing any criminal charges, so the law is a little gray.  (emphasis added)”

Weisskopf said that property issues are typically resolved through a court hearing or after a criminal case is disposed.

It seems to me that there is no “issue” here.  The damn city stole this man’s guns and needs to return them to him.  They’re rightfully his property and there is absolutely no legal reason for them to hold them.  But when it comes to guns, some kind of freaky magical spell comes over these people and they have to make it difficult to get your legal property back from them. 

If I was him, I’d consider filing charges against every city official and police officer involved for theft if they didn’t return my guns ASAP.  I’m not sure who would take such a complaint, though (“Officer, arrest yourself!”).

Did I mention that in their solicitous concern for Mr. Carmichael’s welfare that the ever-so-diligent Arlington police missed one?

Carmichael says that he still has a .45-caliber handgun that police overlooked when they searched his home.

“I’ve had it all this time, and I’ve never shot myself or anyone else,” he said.

“There was nothing wrong with me, and I shouldn’t have to sign a waiver to get my property back.”