Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Gun-Free Zones]]>

Pepper spray but no guns: New Mexico's most populous county offers workers a sop towards self-defense

by Leave a Comment

Albuquerque, New Mexico set a new record for homicides last year, and unfortunately things aren’t getting any better in 2022. A recent report found that violent crime has increased by 30% in Bernalillo County since 2014, while arrests and convictions are down by roughly the same amount.

Things have gotten so bad that Bernalillo County supervisors are even admitting that county employees are at risk of becoming the victim of a violent crime as they’re making their way to and from the office, but they’re proposing a fundamentally unserious solution to the public safety problem.

Bernalillo County leaders want to amend the county’s weapons policy so employees can carry pepper spray in the event they encounter trouble coming into or leaving work.

According to the proposed policy change, “The county recognizes that employees may encounter unsafe circumstances during their ingress and egress to Alvarado Square. This policy is intended to allow employees to have pepper spray while outside of work in an emergent circumstance.”

Hundreds of employees work at Alvarado Square, the Downtown headquarters the county opened a year ago to consolidate operations previously spread out in multiple facilities. The county bought the building at 415 Silver SW, formerly home to Public Service Company of New Mexico, in 2017 and has spent $72 million on the project so far. The county’s current “Workplace Violence Policy” prohibits employees from having weapons – including “any device principally designed to cause bodily injury” – on county property unless they are law enforcement personnel or have approval to carry a weapon as part of their job duties.

The proposal going before the County Commission Tuesday adds language exempting pepper spray.

“The carrying of pepper spray by employees at Alvarado Square for self-defense purposes is allowable and pepper spray will not be considered a weapon under this policy unless other parameters of this policy are violated,” the proposed new language states.

According to the proposed rule change, if adopted employees would be able to possess a single 3-ounce canister of pepper spray at work but would have to alert the county’s Risk Management team beforehand and would have to keep the pepper spray concealed while they’re at the office.

While it’s nice that the county acknowledges that its employees “may encounter unsafe circumstances” on their way to and and from work, restricting their self-defense options to the use of pepper spray instead of allowing those who possess a concealed carry license to carry on the clock (or at least until they get to the office) is a clear indication that these officials are unserious about the “unsafety” of county employees.

I get that the Democratic-dominated county board of commissioners isn’t going to scrap its gun-free policy completely, but it seems to me that if the county is truly concerned about the safety of its employees there’s another option available to them: set up lockers inside Alvarado Square where licensed concealed carry holders can secure their firearms before they get to their cubicle. That would allow them to exercise their right of self-defense while on their way to and from their job, while still designating the office space inside the county government building a “sensitive place” off-limits to firearms.

Ideally the Bernalillo County commissioners would simply drop the idea of keeping Alvarado Square a victim disarmament zone, but that’s not going to happen unless a court orders them to do so. A more realistic and pragmatic step would be to recognize the threat to personal safety that county employees face before and after they clock in, and to ensure that they have access to the most effective self-defense tool around… as well as their constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves with it. Instead, the county is scheduled to vote on a resolution that acknowledges the threat to personal safety while refusing to give employees the ability to effectively fight back against armed assailants. That’s not a good look even in the best of circumstances, but with violent crime up and arrest rates trending down the proposal is even more insulting to those county employees who want to protect themselves from the growing danger on downtown streets.

Jewish gun club looking to sue over New York's new carry laws

by Leave a Comment

At this point it’s hard to keep track of all of the new legal filings in the state of New York since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, but it sounds like there’s at least one more lawsuit on the horizon.

Tzvi Waldman, who founded the New York State Jewish Gun Club, says new restrictions on the right to carry put in place since the Bruen decision was released “flies in the face of logic,” pointing specifically to the blanket ban on concealed carry in houses of worship, which he calls “ridiculous.”

In an effort to block this legislation, Waldman said he is working with “various Second Amendment rights organizations.” He would not mention specifics, saying that it is still “in the works.”

A section on the club’s website says that it is “looking for plaintiffs who have a clean criminal and mental background to join a lawsuit.” The site also has an option to download a sign or have one mailed that says “Concealed Carry Is Welcome Here.”

“Thank you for keeping our children safe,” the sign says. “May Hashem [God] continue to watch over us.”

I don’t know if Waldman is hoping to challenge just the prohibition on carrying in places of worship or if his plans are to go after more of the new infringements on the right to bear arms that the state’s Democratic legislative majority has put in place, but I wish him well.

I do agree that private property owners have the right to ban guns from their property if they want to, but New York’s law mandates that many publicly accessible places must be gun-free zones, including churches, synagogues, and other centers of worship… even if the congregation wants armed citizens inside.

Waldman contends that by making places of business put up signs about guns, it is forcing them to declare their political identity. “People want to protect themselves,” he said. “This is not helping our political divisiveness. It’s just going to accelerate that in this country. It’s only going to cause more problems for businesses.”

Waldman added that he has “a couple thousand posters on order” and is planning to get them out to more stores.

Rabbi Aron Lankry, who heads Yeshiva Yoreh Deah in Monsey and has attended events held by Waldman’s gun club, told the New York Jewish Week he is worried about Hochul’s legislation because members of his synagogue, Ohr Chaim, volunteer as armed security for his congregation.

“A hired gun won’t be able to identify who belongs and who doesn’t,” Lankry said, referring to a security guard. “A fine gentleman who is not familiar with the rituals and customs of the synagogue, a shooter is going to walk right through him.”

Lankry added that if Hochul’s law makes it harder for private citizens to carry guns for protection in a synagogue, then her administration “will have to carry the onus and the burden of the next attack because it’s only a matter of time.”

Lankry raises one concern, but there’s also the fact that many smaller congregations and those in rural areas are going to be hard pressed to pay for hired security or even find “hired guns” willing and able to serve as security.

Interestingly, Lankry’s synagogue and yeshiva boasts its own gun range where members of the congregation can get training from certified firearms instructors like Shlomo Reichberg, a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces.

“People are very scared,” Reichberg said, adding that Monsey residents began noticeably arming themselves after a man went on a stabbing spree at a rabbi’s home on Hanukkah in December of 2019. One victim, aged 72, died of his wounds. One month after the knife attack, requests for gun permits and sales of firearms rose in heavily Jewish areas of Rockland County and bordering northern New Jersey, NorthJersey.com reported.

“There seems like there is a lot of gun ownership” among Orthodox Jews in Monsey, Reichberg said. “But I wish there were more people.”

Clearly Kathy Hochul and New York’s Democratic lawmakers don’t share Reichberg’s point of view. They’re still doing everything they can to prevent law-abiding New Yorkers from bearing arms in self-defense, and unfortunately it’s going to take more lawsuits to force them to comply with the Constitution. In the meantime, plenty of good folks are going to be placed at greater risk… especially with New York still taking a hands-off approach to dealing with violent criminals like the man who tried to attack the state’s Republican candidate for governor on Thursday.

Indiana mall shooting and the case against “gun-free zones”

by Leave a Comment

The 22-year old Indiana man who stopped a mass shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana on Sunday evening is getting a lot of praise from local law enforcement, public officials, and even the mall’s management. In fact, about the only group who’ve found fault with his actions are gun control activists.

For someone who loves to call herself “reasonable” and swears she isn’t opposed to the Second Amendment, this is an awfully unreasonable position to take, wouldn’t you say?

Watts and other anti-gun activists like Brady’s Kris Brown, who called the armed citizen in question a vigilante, have focused on the fact that Greemwood Park Mall bans weapons on its property, which means both the mass murderer and the legal gun owner were in violation of that policy.

In a way, that makes sense. What are they going to do, acknowledge that killers don’t really care if they’re intruding on a “gun-free zone,” and indeed may be specifically looking for places where they’re less likely to meet an armed response? That would undercut their message of “gun safety means don’t own a gun,” so that’s off the table. Instead, they’re left trying to defend these victim disarmament zones even though if the 22-year old in question didn’t have his gun on him the man responsible for the attack would likely have been able to continue his killing spree for several more minutes before officers arrived on scene.

Then there are those who, unbelievably are more offended by the description of the armed citizen as a “Good Samaritan” than they are pleased that he was able to stop the attack before more people were killed or wounded.

“The term, ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured and ignored,” wrote CBS4 traffic anchor Justin Kollar on Twitter Monday. “I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone… my God.”

“The Good Samaritan paid for an unknown immigrant’s health care out of pocket,” comedian John Fugelsang wrote on Twitter. “The Good Samaritan did not shoot anyone. Jesus was not a fan of killing for any reason, including self-defense. But if these ammosexuals had ever read the Bible, they couldn’t support the GOP or NRA.”

Well, there is that bit in the Bible where Jesus instructed the Apostles to get a sword, even if they have to sell their cloaks to do so (Luke 22:35-38). I don’t think Jesus was telling his most trusted followers to convert the masses at the point of a blade, but as attorney and Second Amendment scholar David Kopel pointed out in his piece “Is the Best Defense a Good Book”:

Even if we say that Jesus did not care about whether the apostles actually carried swords, bags or purses, and that Jesus was speaking purely metaphorically, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor. Moreover, stripping the passage of all literal content is inappropriate, for Jesus never spoke so cryptically when he was alone with the apostles. Parables were used only when outsiders were present.

It’s also highly amusing to me to see someone like Fugelsang snark about “ammosexuals” who’ve never read the Bible while routinely ignoring Jesus’ admonition to “love thy enemy.” As for his astonishment that the term “Good Samaritan” would be invoked when it doesn’t involve free healthcare, I’d invite him to take a look at the number of hospitals in the U.S. with “Good Samaritan” in their name that still charge for their services. Granted, I’m not on Twitter much these days, but I don’t recall Fugelsang ever complaining about that bit of biblical appropriation.

The real reason why these anti-gun activists are so intent on demonizing the actions of the armed citizen, of course, is that his deeds upend all of their talk about how we’d all be better off disarmed at all times. I’m sure they’re just as ticked off at the mall for praising him instead of threatening to press charges for criminal trespass.

“We grieve for the victims of yesterday’s horrific tragedy in Greenwood. Violence has no place in this or any other community. We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect,” a mall spokesperson said.

We should all be grateful that this 22-year old had the means and the motivation to step up when seconds counted and lives were on the line. The fact that the gun control zealots are more upset that their argument for “gun-free zones” has once again been exposed as wishful thinking (at best) tells you everything you need to know about how “reasonable” and full of “commonsense” they really are.

New York throws tantrum, creates a list of government-approved Mass Shooting Zones (MSZs)

by Leave a Comment

A quote that’s often misattributed to Albert Einstein says, “The definition of ‘insanity’ is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In their petulant tantrum against the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, which overturned the state’s corrupt, racist “may-issue” permitting scheme, New York state lawmakers finalized their list of locations where mass shooters will have free reign (archived link).

1) Houses of worship: We already have two examples of mass shooters being stopped by armed citizens lawfully carrying their guns: Sutherland Springs (in which the defender sadly was not present inside the Church) and West Freeway Church of Christ (over in 6 seconds). We also have tragic counterexamples of the Pittsburgh synagogue and the Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings where the attacker had no resistance from victims.

2) Public transportation: There’s a long history of attacks in New York’s public transit systems. Meanwhile in Israel, there’s “a quiet but steady trend of security offered by the firearm-carrying citizenry.”

3) Airports: An airport, in theory, can be a sensitive location because passengers go through security screening before proceeding toward the gates. But there have been audits showing that a shockingly high percentage of smuggled weapons don’t get detected by the TSA. Meanwhile, what happens outside the actual sensitive area? We have examples from Glasgow, Los Angeles, and Fort Lauderdale.

4) Entertainment venues: Hochul and her fellow Democrats have forgotten Aurora, CO, where a mass shooting was done at a movie theater. The movie theater was not guarded by metal detectors or any screening, and oh, it was a gun-free zone.

5) Bars & restaurants that serve alcohol: The stupidity of this category is unfathomable. Is a mass shooter going to change his plan and grab a drink when he enters a bar because alcohol is fun? What about an Italian restaurant where you get dinner with a glass of wine? Will a mass murderer will leave his weapon behind like every lawful concealed carrier who gets food there? For those who are unfamiliar with it, I recommend that you watch Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s testimony about the Luby’s massacre. Hupp left her gun in her car as the law required before entering the restaurant while the attacker obviously didn’t bother.

6) Times Square: How often have we heard of shootings in Times Square? Even under the pre-Bruen legal environment, crooks didn’t care. What’s the point of forcing lawful permit holders to leave their guns behind?

7) Polling sites: The idea behind banning guns at polling sites is to prevent voter intimidation. Most states don’t explicitly ban guns at polling sites, yet instances of armed intimidation in this day and age are unheard of. Banning guns in theory may sound great, but in the absence of armed, politically-neutral police, it’s an invitation for the very intimidation that such a ban is aimed at preventing.

8) Educational institutions: This is the most perplexing item on the list. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Umpqua Community College, Uvalde… the list is long. Meanwhile, several states have instituted Campus Carry without incident, and some states are allowing teachers to arm themselves.

9) Daycares, playgrounds & places where children gather: Again, as with educational institutions, someone intent on killing children will now target places where children gather because lawmakers are ensuring that a defender cannot bring his/her weapon there.

10) Libraries: Why would a criminal avoid a library? Because books are scary? There are examples of libraries being attacked, and also a counterexample of an attacker being confronted in a library. 

11) All government buildings: New York is pretending that the 2019 Virginia Beach Municipal Center shooting never happened. The husband of one of the victims of that attack told his wife to break the law for her own safety (she sadly didn’t), and that’s what New York wants its citizens to do.

12) Courthouses: Courthouses meet the definition of a sensitive place. They have controlled entry and scanners. Yet, shootings happened both outside and inside the secure area, and it’s unclear if the law allows guns even outside the secure area.

13) Health & medical facilities: New York City was where the 2017 Bronx-Lebanon Hospital attack happened. Just recently, there was another hospital attack in Tulsa, OK. New York lawmakers want to guarantee that the next time a medical facility is attacked, the casualty number is headline-worthy.

14) Emergency shelters, including homeless, youth, or domestic violence shelters: A permit holder is almost invariably a lawful individual. If anything, vulnerable people like domestic violence victims would be helped by having someone who can protect them. This makes no sense whatsoever.

15) Public demonstrations and rallies: This is the new frontier for the Gun Grab Lobby. The claim is that the presence of open carried guns chills free speech. I wrote about the flaws in a Ph.D. dissertation specifically on this topic.

By this time, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that gun-free zones are de facto government-approved Mass Shooting Zones (MSZs). Perhaps victims will be protected by NY lawmakers’ secular incantations of, “The power of Gun Control compels you!”