Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Guns

Middle School Student Suspended From School For Liking This Picture On Instagram

with one comment

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
May 8, 2017

Social media. It can be a great tool for reconnecting with old friends and long lost family members. For one middle school student, however, it became a nightmare.

Edgewood Middle School student Zachary Bowlin of Trenton, Ohio was suspended for 10 days after ‘liking’ a photo of a gun on Instagram.

The notice Bowlin’s parents received explained why their son was being suspended: “The reason for the intended suspension is as follows: Liking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence.”

The best part? It was an airsoft gun. 

“I liked it, scrolling down Instagram at night about 7, 8 o’clock I liked it,” Zachary FOX 19“The next morning they called me down [to the office] patted me down and checked me for weapons.”

“I was livid, I mean, I’m sitting here thinking ‘you just suspended him for ten days for liking a picture of a gun on a social media site,” father Marty Bowlin recounted. “He never shared, he never commented, he never made a threatening post… anything on the site, just liked it.”

The school dropped the suspension but sent an email to parents recounting the situation:

Yesterday evening school officials were made aware to an alleged threat of a student bringing a gun to school. We act on any potential threat to student safety swiftly and with the utmost importance. This morning, the alleged threat was addressed and we can assure you that all students at Edgewood Middle School are safe and school will continue as normal. Thank you.

Seriously? A threat of bringing a gun to school? What if *gasp* the student went to the gun range with his parents? Does that make him the next school shooter?

I understand wanting to protect students from any potential threat, especially the threat of a shooter on campus but this is just overkill.

Of course, the Superintendent doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with the school administration’s actions. This is the statement FOX 19 was provided with:

“Concerning the recent social media posting of a gun with the caption “Ready”, and the liking of this post by another student, the policy at Edgewood City Schools reads as follows:

The Board has a “zero tolerance” of violent, disruptive, harassing, intimidating, bullying, or any other inappropriate behavior by its students.

Furthermore, the policy states:

Students are also subject to discipline as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct that occurs off school property when the misbehavior adversely affects the educational process.

As the Superintendent of the Edgewood City Schools, I assure you that any social media threat will be taken serious including those who “like” the post when it potentially endangers the health and safety of students or adversely affects the educational process.”

Watch FOX 19‘s coverage of the incident:

“Shoot to Wound” vs. “Shoot to Stop” vs. “Shoot to Kill.”

with 2 comments

By Andrew Branca
Bearing Arms
February 15, 2014

[It seems that every time we post a story on a defensive gun use here, we have people claim in the comments that they are going to keep shooting at any person that feel justified in firing upon until that person is dead,  on the theory that if the person is dead, that then can’t sue them in civil court. I asked Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, about this “conventional wisdom.” This is how he responded. –ed.]

The issue you raise is a common one, but fortunately not a complicated one.  It’s simply the self-defense law element of proportionality–a person is allowed to use only as much force as is necessary to neutralize the threat, and no more than that.  Proportionality has both an intensity and a temporal (or time) dimension.

In terms of intensity, one can meet a non-deadly attack only using non-deadly means, and a deadly force attack with deadly means (also, of course, non-deadly means).

In terms of time, one can use force only for as long as the threat remains imminent (that is, until it is neutralized).  If it takes 5 shots to do that, but 6 are fired, that 6th round is excessive force and does not qualify for justification as self-defense.  The first 5, you may be all good. The 6th gets you a murder conviction.

In this context, whether the threat has been neutralized is based on the reasonable perceptions of the defender.  Nevertheless, if the defender did or should have reasonably known the threat was neutralized, the legal justification for the continued use of force is gone, and every additional quantum of force thereafter is unlawful.

In the scenario you describe, where the defender keeps shooting NOT to neutralize the threat but merely to (supposedly) avoid civil liability, every unnecessary shot they fire into the neutralized-attacker sets them up for a murder or attempted murder conviction. (In any case, how are they to know if their attacker’s death frees them of civil liability? Not if he has any surviving family, it doesn’t.)

On the issue of shooting to wound, that gains you absolutely nothing in terms of mitigating either criminal or civil liability.  If you put a bullet in someone, you’ve shot them, deadly force, period.  Shoot them in the leg or shoot them in the chest, from a legal liability perspective it’s all the same (the only variance is whether they die or not, obviously the consequences are more severe if they die, but a gunshot to the thigh can accomplish that quite as effectively as one to the chest).

Further, if you are foolish enough to state out loud that you only shot to wound, it opens the door to the State arguing that you lacked the good faith subjective fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify your use of deadly force. After all, if you’d feared imminent death, you’d have shot to neutralize the threat decisively, not just make him more angry with a pistol-caliber bullet wound to an extremity.  If there was no genuine fear of death or grave bodily harm, your use of deadly force was not lawful self-defense, and off to jail you go.

The whole “never say you were shooting to stop, only shooting to kill” is not exactly untrue (and it IS better to phrase it that way), but it’s a bit of an overblown concern.  If someone is trying to imminently kill you, the law says you are allowed to kill them first if (and only if) necessary to defend yourself from their deadly attack. That’s the law, it’s permitted, justified even.  Merely having said “I shot to kill in order to save my life” is not going to lose you self-defense.

Of course, what we want to avoid is the “he only killed him because he wanted to, not because he had to,” line.  But in most cases of genuine self-defense, that’s not a very effective attack.  If it’s a concern in a case I was involved on I’d just bring in a defensive force expert and have him testify to the “coincidence” that the most effective way to stop also has the unfortunate consequence of being the most likely to cause death–but it’s exactly how every bailiff in the court room, every cop in the city, county, state, country, was trained.

Any questions?

Good Guy With a Gun Heralded a Hero by Arlington Police, Patrons

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
May 4, 2017

Police in Arlington, TX are praising the swift action of a concealed carry permit holder who stepped up to eliminate a threat in a local restaurant Wednesday night.

Authorities say the gunman walked into Zona Caliente, in the 6500 block of South Cooper Street, about 6:15 p.m. and fatally shot 37-year-old Cesar Perez of Duncanville, the bar’s manager, Arlington police spokesman Christopher Cook said.

Authorities later found two loaded guns and two knives on Jones, Cook said.

“We do believe he had the capacity to do much greater harm,” Cook said.

Witnesses told police the gunman entered the establishment and immediately began yelling incoherently at patrons.

“People didn’t know who he was yelling at,” Cook said.

Those same witnesses saw Perez trying to have a conversation with the man to calm him down before he was shot and killed.

That’s when a patron with a concealed carry permit told his wife to get down as he drew his weapon and eliminated the gunman, preventing further loss of life.

“After he was struck once, the suspect started shooting at the front door,” Cook told the Arlington Voice. “We know people were trying to escape, but we’re not sure if he was just trying to harm others.”

Cook said the customer, who was dining with his wife, “prevented further loss of life.”

The customer, who has not been identified, was carrying a handgun under the Texas concealed handgun license program, Cook later confirmed.

“We’re treating the good guy as sort of a hero,” Cook said.

In a statement, Arlington PD said: “This customer was armed with a handgun and engaged the shooter by firing his weapon towards the suspect, striking him. The suspect was pronounced deceased at the scene. It is too early to determine a motive or whether the suspect knew the employee.”

FBI Report NICS Checks on April Gun Sales Contradict MSM’s Claims

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
May 5, 2017

Much to the mainstream media’s chagrin, the FBI’s report on the number of NICS checks conducted on gun sales in April contradicts their claim that the firearms industry is experiencing a “Trump slump” in 2017.

An impressive 2,045,564 background checks were conducted last month, extending 2017’s increase in gun sales nationally. In fact, the report shows April 2017 held the second biggest number of FBI background checks for the month ever.

Following the release of the FBI’s report, the NSSF released the following:

The April 2017 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is an increase of 0.04 percent compared to the April 2016 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,111,205. For comparison, the unadjusted April 2017 FBI NICS figure of 2,037,180 reflects a 4.6 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,135,909 in April 2016.


According to the FBI report, April numbers were higher by only 100,000 in 2016 leading up to the presidential election in November, squashing the media’s assertion that gun sales have slowed since voters rejected anti-gun candidate Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.

“As we noted previously, sales are come off the peak of 2016 which was a record year for sales but the valley floor is higher,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “There are more gun owners today – many of them first time buyers – than ever before. While the number guns in the hands of law abiding Americans has never been higher we continue to see crime and accidents are at record lows.”

Gun sales may be staying strong in part due to an increase in constitutional carry laws passing, in increase in concealed carry permit applications, and the steady influx in women and African-Americans embracing their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Rant of the Week: New York Times – Make My Day

with one comment

By David Lombardo
Bearing Arms
April 28, 2017

Go ahead, New York Times, make my day! If only that would really happen but the truth is The Times Editorial staff is principally composed of dogmatic, effete, progressive liberal, anti-gun ideologues. The Times editorial staff is self-righteous to the point they hold John Q. Public’s opinion in contempt. You think I’m making this up?

Liz Spayd captured the Times editorial board’s demagoguery in a November 10, 2016 New York Times article. Spayd, who had left her editor and correspondent job the previous July, related to Michael Cieply, the article’s author, about when she joined the Times and her surprise at its editorial perspective.

Spayd is quoted as saying, “The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: ‘We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

So much for the concept of a Fourth Estate keeping John Q. informed and safe from the potential of a government out of control. The Times’ position on gun control is a classic example of the “setting the agenda for the country” philosophy. It is the tail wagging the dog; facts be damned. The Times is committed to an America devoid of firearms for any purpose at all. No hunting, no recreational shooting, no home protection, no concealed carry and God forbid, certainly no ability to stand up to an oppressive government. They leave no stone unturned when it comes to discrediting guns, gun owners and anything that promotes them.

In “The N.R.A. Says, Go Ahead, Make My Fantasy,” an April 24th Times article, the author takes aim at the NRA’s National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia. The writer, Francis X. Clines, doesn’t try to hide his disdain for the museum’s support for the Second Amendment. Clines commented on a life size poster figure of John Wayne holding a Winchester carbine and ready to take on the bad guys.

“He was about to deliver blazing fantasies of triumphant gunfire that would leave them dead in the dust. It’s no wonder modern Florida legislators could not resist protecting actual shooters who draw and fire like John Wayne as guilt-free, “stand-your-ground” defenders,” he wrote, and “Why is there no stream of gripping films about the thousands of troubled Americans with easy access to guns who can lethally act out their darkest grievances on family and society day after day?”

Really? Well, why hasn’t there been a New York Times article that points out two-thirds of the nation’s homicides occur in five percent of the 3,143 counties and county-equivalents? Where is the New York Times article explaining that those counties are concentrated around major cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and New York; cities that have long-standing Democratic rule?

An April 25th Washington Times article citing a Crime Prevention Research Center study put today’s violence in perspective. In it, John Lott, the author of the study, said, “You have over half the murders in the United States taking place in two percent of the counties.”

Lott uses the term “counties” loosely because violent crime can be in a given neighborhood and even a specific street within a county. David Weisburd, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University, said “Those results shouldn’t be entirely surprising, as other factors like poverty and human activity are also concentrated.”

Additionally, Weisburd noted that in his studies of larger cities, about one percent of the streets produce 25 percent of the crime and about 5 percent of the streets produce 50 percent of the crime. “It’s almost exactly the same concentration in New York, Tel Aviv, Cincinnati and Sacramento,” he said, which brings me to the point.

The bulk of the mainstream press, with the New York Times as its standard-bearer target firearms as the single most significant factor in aggravated assault offenses. According to the Department of Justice 2015 Crime in the U.S. report, the fact is violent crime doesn’t primarily involve firearms. Of the aggravated assault offenses reported in 2015, firearms were used in 24.2%. Over 75 percent of aggravated assaults involved personal weapons such as hands, fists, feet, etc (26.3%), knives and other cutting instruments (18.1%) and all other types of weapons (31.4%).

Finally, an October 2015 study reported in Preventive Medicine, found criminals obtain most of their guns through their social network and personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or even theft. “This agrees with other, broader studies of incarcerated felons,” it reports.

I’d like to see some New York Times articles reporting these facts. Go ahead New York Times, make my day.

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Rally Against NRA Fizzles In Atlanta

leave a comment »

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
April 29, 2017


Michale Bloomberg’s purchased gun control groups Mom’s Demand Action and Everytown promised to “confront” the National Rifle Association in Atlanta (GA) during the NRA’s Annual Meetings and Exhibits.

It was a less than impressive event.


According to an officer providing security at the event, Mom’s Demand and Everytown brought just 75-100 people to Woodruff Park to “confront” the NRA, at a venue 7/10ths of a mile away from the Annual Meetings.


The twinned gun control groups appear to have attempted to pad their numbers by handing out tee shirts to the many homeless people inhabiting the park, though most of them seemed indifferent.


This is the fourth year in a row that Bloomberg’s gun control groups have failed to draw a sizable crowd. In contrast, the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meetings are expected to draw as many as 80,000 attendees to their pro-liberty event.

CMPD Officer Who Shot Keith Lamont Scott Cleared Of All Wrong-Doing

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
April 21, 2017

The CMPD officer who fatally shot armed felon Keith Scott in Charlotte last fall when Scott refused to drop the stolen pistol in his hand has been completely exonerated.

Officer Brentley Vinson was justified in killing Scott during a confrontation outside a University City apartment complex Sept. 20, says a letter the department sent to Scott’s widow.

Police have said officers spotted Scott, 43, in a SUV with marijuana and a gun. Vinson told investigators he shot because he feared for his life and the lives of other officers on the scene.

Following Scott’s death, riots and street demonstrations roiled Charlotte, prompted dozens of arrests and pushed Gov. Pat McCrory to declare a state of emergency. Mecklenburg County District Attorney Andrew Murray previously ruled that the shooting was legally justified and that Vinson would not face criminal charges.

But protesters and some law enforcement experts question whether CMPD unnecessarily resorted to deadly force against a person with a traumatic brain injury that made it difficult for him to follow directions. They also argue that Scott was sitting alone in the SUV and did not appear to pose a threat to anyone before police approached him.

As a result of CMPD’s internal findings, Vinson won’t face termination, suspension or other severe discipline stemming from the shooting.


Officer Vinson fired to protect his fellow officers after  Scott refused to drop his weapon after repeated warnings. He violated no laws, not policies in a justifiable use of deadly force.

Perhaps I’m being a bit to critical and logical for some, but if I had a family member with a traumatic brain injury that reduced his cognitive function, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t let him or her wander around with a gun in public. This would go double if he was a convicted felon with a history of violent criminal complaints against him even prior to the injury.

After “Berkeley Beat-Down,” Antifa Wants Combat Training, Guns

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
April 20, 2017

After suffering what can only be described as a complete route after attacking a march of Trump supporters in Berkeley (CA) this past weekend, violent left wing “Antifa” (self-proclaimed anti-fascists) radical are preparing for war.

Last week Trump supporters and leftist social justice warriors met on the political field of battle in Berkeley, California. Words were exchanged, as were punches. And while an alt-right leader was punched in the face, by all accounts even the social justice warriors admit that they got a major beat-down.

This prompted a reddit discussion among the left’s tolerant resistance movement, with many asking how they can more effectively go to war against anyone who disagrees with their social, political, and economic views.

The anti-Trump protesters at the rally were ill-prepared for what they came to Berkeley to confront and now they are trying to figure out ways to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

In short, as predicted, they are turning to militancy and mob action by mobilizing individuals and groups to attend combat training seminars, acquiring better equipment like baseball bats and helmets, and of course, if things really go bad… guns.

The comment thread is interesting, especially the following exchanges.




A friend in the firearms industry who tracks both the far left and the far right compares the violent protests and counter-protests we’ve been seeing since the middle of the 2016 election cycle to two junior varsity teams slugging it out; poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly organized, and generally clueless fisticuffs from activists who have a great deal of anger and enthusiasm, but not much in the way of skill.

He predicted more than four months ago that the “junior varsity” wasn’t going to remain on the proverbial field much longer, and that it was only a matter of time before both the alt-right and alt-left begin arming themselves with real weapons, start seeking out combatives training, and start organizing in a more effective and militaristic manner for armed combat against their opposition.

Once the “varsity” comes out to play with edged weapons, firearms, and military tactics, these clashes are going to have the potential to turn incredibly violent, very quickly. It is not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where one side or the other starts losing one of these skirmishes, and then opens fire. If both sides are armed, and begin firing, we could be looking at a scenario where we’re no longer seeing bloody noses and watering eyes, but fatalities and serious injuries.

Missouri School of Journalism prof: NRA more dangerous than the Islamic State

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
April 21, 2017

How asinine is American academia today? It just keeps getting worse. What expanse of territory does the NRA control? How many people has the NRA beheaded and brutalized there? What calls has the NRA issued to its followers and other sympathetic people to murder civilians in the U.S. and other countries? Where are the sex slaves that the NRA has captured from among feminist gun control advocates?

A blinkered Leftist propagandist such as George Kennedy should not be allowed anywhere near a university classroom. Instead, however, the Missouri School of Journalism will probably bring him back and make him head of the department.

“MO School of Journalism Prof: NRA More Dangerous Than Islamic State,” by AWR Hawkins, Breitbart, April 20, 2017:

Missouri School of Journalism professor emeritus George Kennedy suggests the National Rifle Association (NRA) is more dangerous than Islamic State.

Writing in the Missourian, Kennedy observed:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a terrorist organization founded in 1999, headquartered in Syria and feared around the world. The NRA was founded in 1891, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and is feared by politicians across America.

To be fair, the NRA was actually founded in 1871, but Kennedy continued:

What makes the Islamic State so feared it its willingness to kill in pursuit of its goal of creating a fundamentalist caliphate.

What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.

Notice how Kennedy went from incorrect information–the wrong founding date for the NRA–to unsubstantiated claims that the NRA wants to allow “possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.” In reality, the NRA fights for the enforcement of the law and the prosecution of firearm-wielding criminals with a fervor equaled only by its defense of law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. Kennedy’s language muddies the water and misses the point.

Kennedy then claims the number of Americans killed by ISIS jihadists since 9/11 is nine. That is not a typo, he actually links to a Euronews source and claims only nine Americans have been killed by ISIS jihadists since the terror attacks on NYC in 2001.

Where were Kennedy and the Euronews when an attacker claiming allegiance to ISIS attacked Orlando Pulse and killed 49 people on June 12, 2016? That gunman literally used a 911 call to announce his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. And the Orlando Pulse attack is not the only one that could be mentioned to disprove Kennedy and his Euronews source.

Kennedy’s purpose is claiming “only nine” Americans killed by terrorists was really to set up his second point, that “11,737 Americans” are murdered each year with guns. This figure is actually close to the truth. The average number of firearm-related homicides hovers around 10,500 to 11,500 annually. Many of these homicides occur in gang-riddled cities like Chicago and Baltimore. For example, there were nearly 800 homicides in Chicago in 2016 and over 300 in Baltimore. So a tenth of our nation’s homicides occurred in two Democrat-controlled cities, both of which look to gun control as the solution for the failure of gun control….

Sweet Video of ‘Daddy’s Little Sharp Shooter’ Goes Viral

leave a comment »

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
April 17, 2017

A video posted by Viral Hog is, well – going viral, and so are the responses to the unique family fun featured in it.

“I was practicing drawing from holster and dry fire drills and she decided to join in,” the dad said of the video.

As he was practicing in their family home, this hands-on daddy thought taking a video of the adorable (and educational) bonding experience he and his daughter were enjoying would be cute. And it really is…



Melody Lauer of Ballistic Radio and director of training for Citizens Defense Research said she hopes the video will begin a conversation on why guns should be introduced to children at a young age and kids need to be properly educated.

“To people who don’t understand firearms, seeing a video of a child seemingly ‘playing’ with a gun can be alarming, and if done negligently or carelessly, it can be devastating,” Lauer said. “What they are not seeing in this video, however, is the care with which the father is going through to positively educate that child on the tenets of safe firearms handling. Her gun is a inert training aid. He instructs her on where she should and should not point it. He also models this good behavior for her by being consistent in his own handling in the video.”

Lauer, who teaches a Contextual Handgun Course for Armed Parents/Guardians, went on to say, “Studies have shown us that early education and positive exposure to firearms reduces the risk of firearms-related accidents in children. If this family is going to have a gun in their home—as clearly they do—this father is doing is the most responsible thing for his child by educating her and modeling positive gun handling for her.”

But leave it to the internet to take a touching moment and lose their minds over it:

Ben Wiskin Give the kid 18 years and he’ll be murdering black folks while wearing a badge and carrying handcuffs

Philip Malone Who the fuck does this, oh wait americans.. no wonder you have gun massacres in elementary

Gareth Hughes Another dickless ammosexual who feels the need to introduce an infant A FUCKING INFANT to weapons…..

Linda Bale Dad would be in so much trouble if this was mine.

Russell Deller Exhibiting complete stupidity. When we were kids we played cowboys and soldiers and watched cowboys and soldiers in movies and on tv along with detective shows never realizing how it would have an effect on human behavior in the future. Play serves good purposes but safe play should consider mental as well as physical side effects.

michael cook3 You have a better chance of being killed by an armed toddler, than being killed terrorist in the US.
Jennifer Sands Teaching a baby to play with a gun, please make sure your real ones are locked up tight
Thankfully, the outpouring of praise and a flood of similar memories are washing over the ignorant gun control rhetoric:
Jennifer Bowling When I was a kid there was two things in this world you knew not to touch one was the gun in the hallway and the pie on the counter
Erica Gandy Paddock Hey teach them young. I started talking to my son about guns when he was about 3. I think seeing them and learning about them and what they do takes away the mystery. Therefore they don’t go poking around looking for them and at them. He knows what to do here at home or at a friends home when they ask or talk about looking at guns.
Bronwen Cromwell Taught right from a young age takes the intrigue out of firearms.
Carl McClaflin Outstanding teaching firearm safety and proper handling.
Andre Hede My 2 year old does almost the same thing.
Mike Rupe Teaching the handling of firearms safety cannot start too early. Good job Dad.
Tim Doubrava gives a whole new meaning to having a loaded diaper………
What say you? Is this the most adorable father/daughter bonding video or is this dad being irresponsible?
%d bloggers like this: