Tekmage's Blog

Once again NYC had gone and proven that the fools that make the laws there have no clue. The latest example that they spend too much time watching TV and not enough in the real world is a law they want that requires police to “shoot to wound”. What this means is they are required to shoot at an arm or leg when they draw their gun or they will be legally liable.  Que the victim lawsuits now. . . .


Sounds good right? If you answered yes then you don’t know anything about guns, or shooting.

First, right now a cop (or anyone trained to shoot) in a gun fight will shoot for the center of mass. They don’t do this to kill but to stop the threat. They also do this because it is the BIGGEST TARGET! Under the stress of a shoot out you will not be able to aim as well as you do at the range by a long shot. You can also look at the facts that in a shoot out most shots miss.

Now lets change the rules so you have to hit an arm or leg, you just shrunk the target by 50% or more. More shots miss. The hits don’t stop your attacker so he can still shoot you. The misses have to go someplace too – this translates into anyone or thing behind the target getting hit. More likely to have bystanders hit. . .

This is not Hollywood. You can’t shoot the gun out of the guys hand folks, not when he is moving around, and trying to shoot you with it.

All this dumb rule will do is get more dead cops and bystanders while making it safer for the bad guy. If it passes then the cops should quit and see how NYC does on it’s own. . . .

Well it looks like even in MA you can defend yourself - As noted HERE in the Globe they are not charging a store clerk who shot an armed gunman who tried to rob him.

Maybe we still do have some common sense left in MA

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

I don’t get it. . . I thought that they studied this stuff. . . try reading the Federalist Papers and see the fear the people and states had of a strong Federal government and you can see that that is exactly what they meant. They feared the power of the elected officials and wanted to insure the people kept the upper hand.

I do agree that this is a good break on the court, 5/4 means that we won’t get too sure of ourselves in this victory and will keep fighting . . . .

While the Heller case is a win for us on the Pro Bill of Rights side I think it was just enough of a win. Anti-Gun folks have been loosing all over this country. We have been successful in getting carry laws all over with only two states now holding out against CCW laws. This is a huge win for our side. Had we won by a landslide I think it would have been worse for us. As it stands now we win but we know it was close, we must keep fighting for our rights and we will do so. I think if we had won by a landslide many would have thought the fight over and would have relaxed letting the anti’s get back in the game and beat us.

Now for the fun part – they stuck down trigger locks!!! I want to see how this will effect those of us stuck in MASS. I can’t wait to hear what lawsuits this will spawn here where they charge too much for a license, they are too random on who can get one, and they are too restrictive on just about everything about guns. This should be a signal to kick things up a notch and take back our rights! Look at NH where there is only one license for Carry Concealed Weapons – to just own a gun (hand gun or rifle) and ammo and use it at home or the range all you need to be is over 18. Now that is how it should be. Simple background check to make sure you are not a criminal or otherwise restricted from gun ownership and then you buy your gun.

I am glad to hear that the NRA has started lawsuits based on this ruling all over the place, especially in CA and Chicago I think. This is what we need to push. If we can make it so costly for the gun grabbers to pass these laws and defend them (and loose) in court over it then it will start to hurt. The more it hurts the more money it costs the voters to defend these illegal laws the more likely these folks will get voted out. Vote them out so they won’t pass these expensive un-Constitutional laws and we won’t have to pay to defend them in court. . . Vote them out to save not only the Second, but all of the Bill of Rights.

This guy makes me sick. .. and you wonder why lawyers have a bad name. He is already playing the blame game for his client and it is at the statehouse where we elected him to be. Problem is he don't represent us. . . he is representing them. . . Child Rapist. . . .

I hope they throw him out next election.

Here is what he said about us trying to pass a law with some teeth:

“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”

Let me tell you what is wrong you A-hole. The fact that you would go away from the facts and crush a child to get your client off. If you have to resort to crushing a child to win - your client is guilty. If he is not, they let the facts get him off. . . . This sick bastard sounds like he is looking forward to it. Big tough guy can beat up a little kid. . . .

It is folks like you getting this scum off and back on the street to strike again that lead to the rest of us wanting mandatory sentences. If the system was not broken then we would not need them. Any folks wonder why the legal system in MA fails us. . . .