• Archives

  • Topics

  • Meta

  • The Boogeyman - Working Vacation
  • Coming Home
  • Via Serica

Update

Yesterday, when I was bloviating about how all gun owners should have a lawyer who is knowledgeable about gun and self-defense laws, Freiheit called my bluff and asked where one would find such a creature.  To be honest, I didn’t have a good answer off the top of my head, but like anyone who has ever stood in front of a Soldier of the Month board, I punted:  “Sergeant Major, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will look it up and get the answer to you.”.

I reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, and got a quick response from them.

The SAF maintains a lawyer referral service.  According to the SAF person who spoke with me, they can’t promise a team of angry lawyers being readily available everywhere, but they have a lawyer or two on their list in each of the 50 states.  The number to call to speak to someone about a lawyer is 425-454-7012.

The NRA also maintains a couple of numbers that members can call for referral to an attorney.  The first one is their general membership number, which is 800-672-3888.  The other number is to their NRA-ILA Grassroots office at 800-392-8683.  NRA also offers  personal liability insurance to its members to help with the cost of attorneys and any settlements/judgements that arise from a self-defense incident.

As reader Jake pointed out in comments, the United States Concealed Carry Association also maintains a list of lawyers for their members and offers insurance for self-defense related legal costs.  I need to join USCCA for a lot of reasons, but checking that out is one of them.

That’s what I’ve been able to dig up in the past day or so.  There are probably more resources out there, but sorting the wheat from the chaff on the Internet will drive a person mad.  A quick Google search for “Louisville firearm attorney” turned up a lot of lawyers who will take cases for people who violate firearms laws, but none that I could easily tell are experienced in personal liability cases dealing with firearms.   Like Freiheit said in his comment, going to the phone book isn’t the best thing to do, even with all of the information that readily available on the web.

Reader John made a point that some homeowners policies may provide coverage in the event of a self-defense related lawsuit.  I need to get mine out and give it a good, thorough reading, and I should give a call to my agent.  It may well be that the liability portion of my policy covers me, at least to some extent, when I get sued for shooting a goblin.  Freiheit made another excellent point that having a lawyer that works directly for you, in addition to any attorney that the insurance company may hire to represent both your and their interests in a lawsuit, is probably a good idea.  If you get a lawyer who’s got experience in cases that deal with firearms and self-defense, they can be a great addition to your legal team.

What this all brings home is, like I said, we should all do our homework before we need an attorney.  Learn the laws related to firearms and self-defense in your area, including where and how you can carry concealed, what is considered by a prosecutor when deciding whether or not to bring charges, about what the laws about civil litigation and liability are like in your state.  At least get the name of an attorney that knows their way around the civil and criminal systems when it pertains to self-defense gun use, contact them to establish a relationship, and have their contact information handy in the event that the world falls in on you.

Hope all this helps. Thanks to everyone who gave such great input in comments and pointed me in the right direction to find all this out.

30 Days of Obama – Day 23

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. — 2009

 

My Take – As I’ve said before, President Obama is many things, but he is not a peacemaker.  While he may have transformed the world, he did not do it for the betterment of mankind, and he certainly didn’t do it peacefully.  The fact that the Nobel Committee gave him the award without even waiting to see what, if anything, he would accomplish while in office was nothing more than a thumb in the eye of President Bush and those who oppose President Obama.

If President Obama had any kind of humility or class, he would have refused the award on the grounds that he hadn’t earned it.  He truly does not deserve to stand among the great people who have won it, and his presence on that roll of honor brings discredit to it.

Repost – Dear Nobel Committee

This was originally posted on June 10, 2011

 

I’m writing in reference to the person you gave the Nobel Peace Prize to in 2009, President Barack Obama.  At the time, you all rationalized your decision based on the potential Mr. Obama had to make the world a better, more peaceful place.

Since that time, President Obama has:

  • Started an air campaign that interferes with an internal struggle between two armed factions in a sovereign country.
  • Continued fighting two other wars, with flare-ups in several othercountries.
  • Violated the sovereignty of a U.N. member on multiple occasions to assassinate leadership of irregular forces.
  • Sided with one side in a dispute that has previously caused a shooting war when it would have been acceptable to express neutrality on the issue.
  • Supported deputies who actively assisted in the smuggling of weapons across an international border, weapons that have been used in the murder of soldiers, law enforcement, and innocent civilians.
  • Used his governmental bodies to terrorize his own citizens in their homes over trivial administrative matters.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I agree with two of the above actions.  The others?  Well, not so much.  But that’s beside the point.

The Nobel Peace Prize used to mean that you did something to keep or create the peace.  Teddy Roosevelt got it for facilitating peace between Russia and Japan. Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi got it for working peacefully for social change in their countries.  Mother Teresa got it for her works to alleviate the suffering of the lowest of the low.  There are many other examples of people who have worked to bring peace to our world.

But President Obama is not one of them.  He has committed acts that either make the international situation worse or at best continue policies that keep the balance of terror in place.

Having brought this to your attention, I expect that you will reconsider your poor choice in 2009.  While I cannot suggest an alternative, I’m sure that somewhere in our world there is a person who deserves this recognition more than President Obama.

Tusen takk,

Daddy J. Bear
Pater Ursus

Thoughts on the Day

  • I seriously regret not having coffee this morning.
  • You know, for a while today I thought I was The Man.  During a meeting, everyone was looking to me for answers, watching me while I talked, and paying attention to what I had to say.  I thought I had them eating out of my hand.  Then I noticed I had my shirt on inside out.
  • There is a lot of satisfaction in successfully getting through a task that should take 8 hours in 3.
  • Remember a few weeks ago when I gave out candy at the zoo’s Halloween party?  Tonight we took Boo.  I tried hard to not twitch as we passed the Space Disco.
  • If you’re old enough to look down the dress of the young lady dressed up as a mermaid at the undersea adventure part of the Halloween trail, you’re probably too old to trick or treat.
  • Taking two four year old boys to the zoo for trick-or-treating is an excellent workout.
  • I’m not sure what was going on in Louisville 10 months ago, but there was a thick crop of newborn babies accompanying their older siblings tonight.
  • The little grizzly cubs at the zoo aren’t exactly little anymore.  One of them is approximately the size of a VW Beetle.
  • As much as I don’t like stealthy police cruisers, there is some joy in watching the #!@#$!@ who cut me off and sped up the shoulder pass up the nice policeman in the nondescript gray car, who was kind enough to take time out of his evening to invite the young man over to the side of the road to make sure he was OK.
  • If the weather’s nice this weekend, I’ll be finishing up the footers on Irish Woman’s porch extension and beginning digging out under where I want to build my wood rick.  If the weather isn’t so nice, I’m going to the range.  I’ll zero rifles and practice between lighting bolts if I have to.
  • The big brown truck of happiness brought me some of the parts for my AR build yesterday, along with a box full of 20 round PMAGS.  Soon the time of assemblage will begin.

Get A Lawyer

A 90-year-old man in California is being sued by the meth addict who broke into his home, tied him up, shot him, and held a gun to his head.  The homeowner is being sued because in the middle of all that, he managed to get loose, get a gun, and when his attacker shot at him, he shot back.  Both were hit, and in the ensuing physical struggle, the burglar got the homeowner’s gun away from him.  He held it to the 90-year-old man’s head, and only didn’t shoot him because the gun was empty. 

Now, the meth-head, burglar, attempted murderer is suing the homeowner.  Apparently when a 90-year-old man defends his life, he causes “great bodily injury, and other financial damage, including loss of Mr. Cutrufelli’s home, and also the dissolution of Mr. Cutrufelli’s marriage,”.

I don’t know about y’all, but let’s say that I lose my inhibitions against using drugs, breaking into nonagenarians’ homes, tieing them up, shooting them, physically attacking them, and then holding what I believe to be a loaded gun to their heads and pulling the trigger.  Hey, we all have our off days, so I’ll put this in the “Not likely, but at least remotely possible” category.  So, assuming that all of my societal norms that pertain to how I treat people two to three times my age and not breaking into people’s homes and stealing their belongings were suddenly gone, would I, after sobering up and having some time chained to a hospital bed to think about it, have the chutzpah to sue the guy I tried to kill?  I can say, with a small amount of pride, that after my life fell apart because of my actions and having a good think about what I did, that I would be so ashamed of myself that the thought of forcing a 90-year-old man to lawyer up would be unthinkable.

Of course, I was raised right.  Well, at least the attempt was made.  Let’s be honest here:  If I was to ever even consider doing what this schlemeel did, my grandmother would rise from her grave, hunt me down, and beat me within an inch of my life.  Exactly how screwed up do you have to be, both as the guy who did it and as the lawyer who filed the papers, to sue the guy who shot you back in his own home?

I’ve heard it from multiple sources, and this case should make it stick:  Get a lawyer who knows gun laws today.  You also ought to consider getting insurance against criminal and civil litigation for a defensive gun use too, because I’d be willing to bet that your homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover harm you did to someone willingly, whether or not that harm was done to defend you and yours.  Right now is the time to think about all these things, not when you’re either in jail or the hospital because some goblin decided that what is yours should be his.  Now is also the time to get laws passed that protect us from civil and criminal litigation for justifiably using violence to defend our lives and property, but that is something that you can’t do for yourself today.

I wish Mr. Leone luck and success in his countersuit.  This one seems like a slam dunk, but you never know.  The lesson I get from this is to sue the goblin before he can sue you.

 

Update – I have messages in with the NRA and SAF to see if they maintain any kind of database on 2A-friendly lawyers.  I’ll post any information I can find.

Also, it looks like The Scratching  Post beat me to the punch on this one.

30 Days of Obama – Day 22

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. — 2008

My Take – I heartily agree with the President here.  The inability of successive generations of legislators and presidents to get a handle on our spending is indeed an egregious failure of leadership.  We have been trying to have both guns and butter for so long that I am afraid that very soon we will not be able to afford either.  Whether or not the choices were good or bad is up to debate, but we are way beyond mortgaging the livelihoods of our children.

And yes, we deserve better. Hopefully we will get it very soon.

Repost – Thought for the Day

This was originally posted on July 15, 2011

 

Is President Obama the second coming of Jimmy Carter or is he closer to being the Democrat version of Richard Nixon?

Carter:

  • Economic malaise
  • Attempts to appear to be one of the people but acts as if he was to the manor born

Nixon:

An Interesting Historical Coincidence

Today is the anniversary of the ratification of the treaty that created the United Nations.  This international body was created at the end of World War II in effort to give the nations of the world somewhere to come together to work out differences peacefully.  It also had a mandate to prevent genocide and oppose aggressive war.  The UN started out with noble proclamations, such as a declaration of human rights. 
But it hasn’t stopped aggressive war, or genocide, or protected human rights.  Yes, it made a good start when the UN was used as an umbrella for forces fighting against Communist invasion on the Korean peninsula, but since then it’s been woefully ineffective in stopping those who want to take from their neighbors what they want.  As for genocide, one need only look at the graveyards of Cambodia, Sudan, Bosnia, or Rwanda to see how that went.  Even in Bosnia, where UN personnel in blue helmets dotted the landscape, and Rwanda, where UN observers were in the areas hardest hit by the genocide, the UN did next to nothing to stop the carnage.  In Bosnia, NATO finally stepped in to enforce separation between the warring factions, and in Rwanda, the slaughter pretty much burned itself out before anyone did anything to protect the innocent.   As for human rights, I don’t see the UN doing much to stop the international trade in human beings other than to cluck their tongues and make lurid Internet videos.  In a lot of cases, UN observers or peacekeepers are at least as bad as the warlords they have been charged with policing.
So what is the purpose of the UN if it doesn’t oppose aggressive war, stop genocide, or try to protect the rights of the defenseless?  To me, it has become a prestige organization for every tinpot dictator.  It is a place for those who oppose peace and freedom to have a bully pulpit to espouse their doctrine of post-colonial hate and grievance.  While turning its back on the abuses of China, Pakistan, and other “developing” worlds, it actively tries to meddle in the affairs of the United States.  What little good is done by the UN in its efforts to help refugees and to encourage health and education for children is overshadowed by the cover it gives bad actors.  Its headquarters in New York  is not much more than a money pit and debating club for criminals.
Coincidentally, today is also the anniversary of the signing of the last of the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648.  These treaties ended the 30 Years War, and were the beginning of what we consider the modern, autonomous nation state.  The sovereign of a country was guaranteed the right to choose the religion of his nation, but the rights of religious dissenters were supposed to be respected.  Other than that, it set about redressing some of the grievances that had either caused the war or sprung up during the conflict, and it set the national boundaries and forms of government for the European states.

Did the Treaty stop war in Europe?  Obviously not.  The past four centuries are soaked in blood, with each war more horrific than the last.  But it did set a precedent of the right of a nation to exist, and our own identity as a sovereign nation springs from that.  We are not a loose association of independent duchies, we are the United States, or Great Britain, or Australia.  Our rights are not based on the whim of a distant prince who has a tenuous geneological connection to our power structure. They are guaranteed with our blood, our spirit, and our stubborn refusal to allow anyone else to dictate to us what we will and will not do. 
I find it ironic that the treaty that created the idea that a nation is to be responsible for itself, without interference from an overarching imperium, would have been signed almost 300 years to the day before a treaty that created the body that is actively working to erode sovereignty of the great nations of the world.  Maybe the high potentates of the UN should attend a symposium on the Treaty of Westphalia.  It couldn’t hurt, and at least then we could say they have no excuse for not knowing what they are trying to destroy.

30 Days of Obama – Day 21

My administration has a job to do as well. That job is to get this economy back on its feet. That’s my job, and it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, “Well this is Obama’s economy.” That’s fine. GIVE IT TO ME. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. So, I welcome the job. I want the responsibility. — 2009

My Take – I think I can see the fundamental place where the President and I diverge.  You see, he, and I’ll lump the previous administration in with him on this one, think it’s the government’s place to ‘fix’ the economy.  Maybe it’s by bailing out trade unions to keep those dues paying political donors on the payroll.  Maybe it’s by picking and choosing which mega-banks get to live to see another day when the bad policies that have distorted markets for decades all come crashing down.

Either way, to me, they’re wrong.  Socializing the risks of business but privatizing the reward is just as wrong as safeguarding union jobs at the expense of bond and stock holders.

The goal of the government should be to set some broad laws about what will not be allowed to happen, then get the heck out of the way.  Good companies should be allowed to thrive, companies that aren’t well run should be allowed to either fail or find a way to adapt and survive.  Prolonging the suffering of weak companies does nothing but expand the reach of government and force all of us to suffer for the bad judgement of others.

Repost – Psalming my Way Through the Day

This was originally posted on July 16, 2012.

 

Though Obama is my president
I shall not succumb
He makes me to invest in useless green technology
He leads me into a still economy
He confiscates my earnings
He leads me in paths of socialism
for his parties sake.

Even when I walk through the gun show
or the security of the airport
I fear for the Republic
for he has people running guns and feeling up grandmothers
His czars and his staff, they vex me.

Surely debt and inflation shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the
poor, forever.