People problems

I have to be proud of my local Missouri state Representative Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) and Representative Mike Kelly (R-Lamar). They are proposing a bill to allow teachers and school administrators with a Concealed Carry permit to carry in school.

Mo. Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Allow Teachers to Carry Weapons in Schools

Posted on: 10:29 pm, December 19, 2012, by and

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Less than a week after a gunman shot and killed 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school, lawmakers filed a bill in the Missouri House that would allow teachers and school administrators with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns on the job.

The bill was filed on Tuesday by two Republican state representatives – Mike Kelly and Rick Brattin, who says it was drafted more than seven months ago, long before the tragedy in Connecticut. He does however say that last Friday’s shooting is a perfect example of why a law like this is needed.

Twenty of those shot on Friday were young children, while the others, teachers and administrators, some whom law enforcement say died while trying to shield their students from the rapid gunfire being aimed their way.

“These domestic terrorist, they absolutely, they thrive on seeking out the innocent and the easiest targets available and that unfortunately happens to be our schools,” said Brattin, who says the need to protect our children in schools is greater than ever. “We entrust our teachers to get them out of a burning building, you know, get them into the basement if there’s a tornado, to shape and mold their minds and educate them throughout their whole career. But the thought of the most educated people in our workforce you know not having the know how with the proper training to protect our kids in an event like this, I go kind of blank on that.”

“We shouldn’t be afraid of the gun. It’s not there to scare and fear-monger. It’s there to save their lives if need be,” Brattin said.

This is not a new concept. I related an incident from my childhood earlier this week where an armed school Principal defended himself and a student against three adults, one who was armed with a knife. I knew of a number of teachers when I was in school who habitually carried weapons. With the except of that one incident, I know of no occasion where any other teacher had to use or even draw his weapon.  But the potential to quickly end violence was there—and known. It is time to revert to our past when simple solutions worked and worked well. Let us not be lead by hoplophobic liberals.


Instead of focusing on firearms, why don’t we work towards allowing the state to hospitalize those with mental issues likely to harm themselves and others? A bill was proposed in Connecticut that would have allowed for the involuntary hospitalization of Lanza, the shooter. The bill was killed. By whom?  The ACLU.

ACLU Killed Connecticut Forcible Institutionalization Law That Might Have Prevented Killings

December 15, 2012 By

While we’re having that whole conversation about wadding up the Bill of Rights and throwing it into the trash, why don’t we have a brief conversation about what might have actually prevented the shooting by dealing with the mental illness of the shooter.

Let’s talk ACLU instead of NRA.

Connecticut is one of only SIX states in the U.S. that doesn’t have a type of “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law (sometimes referred to as “involuntary outpatient treatment”). There’s no one standard for these types of laws, but (roughly speaking) these are laws that allow for people with mental illness to be forcibly treated BEFORE they commit a serious crime.

Whereas previous legal standards held that the mentally ill cannot be institutionalized or medicated until they harm someone or themselves, or until they express an immediate intent to do so, AOT laws (again, roughly speaking) allow for preventative institutionalization or forced medication

AOT laws vary state-by-state, and often bear the name of a person murdered by an untreated mentally ill person (“Kendra’s Law” in New York, “Laura’s Law” in California, etc.).

Earlier this year, Connecticut considered passing an AOT law (and a weak one, at that), and it failed, due to protests from “civil liberties” groups.

But thankfully the ACLU won and over two dozen children were murdered. And there will be of course no cries that the ACLU, rather than the NRA, should be held accountable for a dangerous lunatic being on the loose.

Let’s put the blame where it belongs—not the NRA and firearms but with liberal groups like the ACLU who believe that the dangerously mentally ill belong on the streets and that we should have no defense against them.

So you’re thinking about Concealed Carry… Part IV

Today’s discussion will be about weapons. Most people who first consider CCW think of this first. Like most endeavors in life, choosing a weapon should not be a, “Ohh! Shiny!” moment.

If you read any of the CCW magazines and websites, you’ll think you need, for CCW, a primary pistol, the biggest caliber you can handle the better, a backup pistol, 2-3 reloads for each, a lock-blade knife, multi-tool, tactical boots, tactical pants and shirt plus a cover garment like a vest. I admit there are some CCW carriers who go to that extreme. The remaining 99.99% do not.

For this article, I will use this definition for handguns:  the term “Pistol” will refer to auto-loading handguns like the Glock, Sig, S&W and others that use a magazine in the butt of the pistol to store cartridges. A “Revolver” is…well a revolver. It has a revolving cylinder containing five to nine cartridges.

One CCW carrier I know, a woman who works in KC and a widow, carries a small .22LR pistol. The pistol is scarcely larger than the palm of her hand. She’s comfortable with it, and practices with it. From sunup to sundown, that .22 is always on her person or within reach.

Sig P220I know another woman CCW carrier who carries, on occasion, a Sig P220, a .45acp pistol on her waist in an OWB holster. The physical size of your chosen weapon is what you are comfortable carrying.

Some men like to carry a full-size 1911. Others will carry a .32 or .380 slightly larger than the Bobcat above. There is no rule that says men carry large pistols, women small ones.  Carry the size of pistol that is comfortable for you. When you need to defend your life, a .22lr is better than no weapon at all.

A revolver can be a good choice.  They’ve been around since before the Civil War. They are sturdy, well designed and have few problems, like Failure to Feed, or Failure to Eject, that can occur with pistols. On the whole, if you concern is reliability, will it go Bang! when you pull the trigger, then a revolver should be at the top of your list.

S&W M442A revolver can be large or small. Small ones, like this small .38Spl by Smith&Wesson, can be easily carried in a pocket or purse. S&W M13 with IWB Holster and speedloaderOr, it can be a bit larger like this .357Mag.

It is not unusual for an old revolver to be laying around the house…a leftover from prior generations or an inheritance. These, too, can be a suitable choice for a defensive weapon. I would suggest you have the revolver checked by a competent gunsmith. While there are few moving parts in a revolver, wear can cause some problems that would make the revolver unsafe to shoot.  Ammunition can be an issue too.  There were millions of revolvers sold in the .38S&W caliber. That cartridge is NOT the .38Spl cartridge common today.  The .38S&W shorter than the .38Spl and is harder to find. On the other hand, I have seen some on the shelf at Cabelas.

Now to pistols. There are many choices available for CCW. All, from reputable manufacturers, are good choices. There are some, like Jennings and the like, that are made of pot-metal. Many of these cheap pistols have been found to be unsafe.  If you limit your search to the reputable brands, like Ruger, S&W, SIG, Glock, Beretta, Colt, Kahr and many others, you should have no problems finding a pistol that fits uou and is safe.

Some shooters have a problem with pistols. Revolvers operate by muscle power. The strength of the trigger finger is used to move the cylinder and cock the hammer. When the cylinder (with a fresh cartridge) is aligned with the barrel and the hammer is fully cocked and released, the revolver will fire.

The pistol is different. The principal of operation for a pistol is inertia and momentum. Initially, the pistol’s slide is retracted. When released, it strips a cartridge off the magazine and chambers it.  A “Failure to Feed” is a condition when the cartridge is not fully chambered. It sits cocked in the chamber and causes a jam.

When the cartridge is fired, the recoil causes the slide to retract. While the slide is moving backwards, the empty cartridge, the brass, is extracted from the chamber and ejected. If, for some reason the cartridge is not fully extracted and/or not ejected, the condition is called a “Failure to Extract”. This, too, will cause a jam.

I said that pistols operate by inertia. There is a shooting (or really a shooter-caused) condition known as “limp-wristing” that can cause either or both of the failure conditions above. A pistol requires a solid grip to operate. A loose grip, allowing the pistol to move excessively when fired, reduces the momentum of the slide that is required for the pistol to extract the fired cartridge.

I’ve been appalled watching gun handling on TV. A common stance is to hold the pistol at eye level (correctly) with both elbows bent (incorrectly) and the pistol position about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the face.  Unless the shooter has very strong arms, this position will, sooner or later, cause a jam, most likely a failure to eject. Why? Because the cocked elbow stance allows too much movement of the pistol robbing the slide of the momentum it requires to fully move to the rear, eject the cartridge and strip a replacement off the magazine. Limp-wristing is an object lesson in physics.

The down side of pistols is that some women don’t have the strength to handle a pistol in the larger, 9mm and up, calibers.  In older women, my wife for example, some don’t have the grip strength to fully retract the slide for the initial chambering of a cartridge.

For this reason, I strongly suggest women try out several different weapons, pistols and revolvers, before making a choice for a personal weapon.  What is suitable for one may not be suitable for another. If you visit a gun store and the clerk directs you to some “lady’s” pistols or pink ones, leave. That clerk is ignorant about shooting and gun handling.

Instead, visit a shooting range that has a variety of rental weapons available, or ask a friend who has a variety of handguns to take you to the range to allow you to sample a number of different handguns.  It is permissible for you to buy or replace any ammo expended during that range trip.

I would also suggest you attend one of a number of NRA training sessions on safety and gun handling. You can acquire more knowledge and practice that will help you choose your personal weapon.

This is the last of four articles concerning CCW for the new or non-shooter. I am not an “expert” nor do I pretend to be one. I hope these articles have provided some answers to questions and discussed issues that will help you if you decide to continue towards a CCW permit. If you have any questions, you can send me an e-mail. My address is available here on this website.

So you’re thinking about Concealed Carry… Part III

Today’s discussion about concealed carry is accessories…holsters. Men will think that covers belt holsters and maybe magazine/speed-loader holders. For this discussion that is correct…for men.  For women, it’s a bit more involved.  Why? Because women are…curvy. Curvy that is usually opposite from men.

Before we go further, why are holsters needed? Why can’t we, like movie gangsters from the 1930’s, just drop a pistol in a suit or coat pocket and go about our business?

A number of reasons. One, pistols are heavy. A pistol in a suit or jacket pocket will sag. It will be obvious you have something heavy in that pocket. In many cases the outline of the pistol will also be obvious. The holster will distribute the weight of the pistol and allow you to be comfortable when you carry for an extended time.

Second, the purpose of the holster is not just a place to hang a pistol. The holster is a safety device. It allows you to carry a weapon and to keep objects…and fingers…away from the trigger. Holsters are designed to cover the trigger on purpose.

There are some old holsters from the early 20th Century that did not cover the trigger.  DON’T USE THEM! I had a high-school friend who used one while hunting. Something snagged the trigger when he was walking through a thicket and the pistol fired. The bullet went into his leg, through his knee and on out.  His leg had to be amputated at the knee.

Finally, the holster provides a stable platform if you need to draw quickly. A floppy holster is useless and could make you fumble if you need to draw quickly to defend you life. That is not the time to be fumbling with a holster.

The common holster attaches to a belt and the holster and pistol is in easy reach at the waist. With a few exceptions, holsters are designed for men. The holster is designed to tuck the pistol or revolver close to the body.  Works great for men. For women, curvy women, that same pistol means the butt digs into the woman’s ribs. I would suggest any women readers check out Kathy Jackson’s website on holsters. There are some options available for women, like carrying pistols in purses, that aren’t suitable for most men.

Getting back to holsters…there are a wide variety. The most common are the OWB (Outside the Waist-Band,) the IWB (Inside the Waist-Band,) the Shoulder Holster and the pocket holster.  Each can be a solution in most circumstances. Few, if any, are suitable in all circumstances. The usual result is that most CCW carriers have a number of holsters that are used during different parts of the year. What would be suitable in the Fall, Winter, and Spring when jackets and outer wear are worn, the OWB or IWB holster is common. Those same holsters, in the summer when shorts and t-shirts are common, aren’t as suitable.












There are still more holster options.  You must remember that you will still need some cover garment even if it is nothing more than a baggy t-shirt. The purpose of the pocket holster is to break the outline of the pistol, cover the trigger for safety and to reduce the accumulation of dirt and lint from inside the pistol.

I know some CCW carriers who carry small pistols or revolvers in a pocket without a pocket holster. They believe that it is more important to be able to draw quickly than to conceal the outlines of the pistol. The problem with that theory is: 1) the trigger is exposed. When you reach for the pistol, you could accidentally hit the trigger. 2) dirt and pocket lint can get into the pistol causing a jam when you need the pistol most.

The lesson of all this is NEVER CARRY A WEAPON WITHOUT A HOLSTER.  Holsters are cheap compared to have an unintended discharge of your pistol. There could be legal consequences if you do have an unintended discharge.

The bottom line concerning holsters: Don’t be cheap. A good, well-designed, well-made holster can save your life. Most of my holsters are custom-made by a friend in Washington state. He charges $100 and up for one of his holsters and each one is hand-crafted and designed to fit your specific weapon. I’ve had him made holsters for new pistols when there were no commercial (GALCO) holsters available. A good holster is worth the money you spend.

I would strongly suggest the women to read Kathy Walker’s commentary on holsters before they go shopping.

Tomorrow’s discussion is about weapons

So you’re thinking about Concealed Carry… Part II

Or, why does it have to be pink!?  That was directed to the ladies but it has an overtone applicable to both men and women.

You can scan websites that cater to female shooters. Invariably, you’ll see something in pink. The assumption is that colorful accoutrements attack women. If you believe that, you must be a democrat to swallow such drivel.  What escapes these vendors is that when selecting weapons and accessories for concealed carry, the primary feature is…concealability.  You do not want colors or textures that attracts the eye.

For concealed carry, black is good.

Why? Because subdued colors and finishes are less visible in case a gust of wind blows your outer garment momentarily revealing your weapon. Or, if you are a women with a weapon in your purse, that weapon won’t be obvious then you open the purse to extract your wallet or whatever.  The point is to enhance and maintain concealability.

Some states have prohibitions against “branding.” Branding is allowing your weapon to be perceptible, such as the outline of the weapon, even though it is concealed.  Missouri, fortunately, has no such prohibition.

Case in point about branding.  I was at a local Wally World and met a friend. I knew he had a concealed carry permit. We have a number of discussion about the subject, weapons, holsters, and a number of other items.  He carried a 9mm pistol in the small of his back—under a polo shirt in this case.  It was warm outside and he had just entered.  His shirt stuck to his back—and to his pistol.  It was perfectly outlined. There was no question whether he was carrying. He was. It was obvious to all.  I told him he was branding and he pulled his shirt away from his back. Issue resolved.

In some states he could have been ticketed for branding. Some states could have also charged him with “intimidation” for displaying a weapon.  Like I said, we’re fortunate that Missouri has no such prohibitions.

Pistols come in a number of colors and finishes.  There are Pros and Cons for all.  Many prefer stainless steel because stainless steel is resistant to corrosion from sweat. In summer when you are carrying in a holster covered by a shirt or outer cover, your pistol is often nestled next to your skin. Sweat is a real enemy to continued operation of your weapon.  A corroded weapon may not work when you need it.  It’s like having a flat and discovering your spare is flat as well.  You can walk away from the flat. You may be carried away if your pistol jams or fails to fire if you need it.


The picture above is similar to one of my carry pistols. It has a stainless steel finish and a 3.5″ barrel. The edges have been rounded to enhance comfort and concealability. It is also shiny and heavy.  After a full day, my belt is digging into my hip, my pants are sagging and I have to constantly hitch up my belt. The shininess does make it more visible in low-light conditions. Visibility is not our friend. 

On the other hand, it is a .45acp and a very effective weapon.  I owned and used .45s for a long time. It is my favorite caliber and easier to handle than many others.  It just fits me.

That “fitting” is very important. If your pistol doesn’t feel comfortable, you are less likely to practice with it and then lose proficiency.  Being comfortable with your weapon can be the difference in surviving an encounter or…not.

Black anodized stainless steel is another option. I have two pistols with this finish, one a revolver, one an autoloader.  This finish has all the benefits of stainless steel and is also black and thus enhancing concealability.

The image above is a Smith&Wesson 9mm.  It is small and specifically designed for concealability.  The slide is black anodized stainless steel. The frame is polymer…plastic as it’s commonly described. Physically, it is the same size as my .45 above but, due to the polymer frame, much lighter.

Unlike my .45, there is no safety with this Smith&Wesson.  Or, more correctly, the safety is keeping your finger off the trigger. Consequently, do not carry this pistol without using a holster.

However, if you ladies insist on a pistol with a fashion statement, here is a finish you make consider.

Yes, that is a pink pistol. There are pink rifles as well. I would remind you that the purpose of a concealable pistol is for it to be…subdued and less visible.

There are many weapons available on the used market that are blued.  Bluing was intended to be more rust and corrosion resistant than earlier finishes.  And, to a point, there are.  But such finishes must be cleaned after every use. Even fingerprints had mar the finish and lead to rust.  That said, I like them and one of my favorite carry pistols has the original blue finish.  I wipe it down after every use with a Breakfree wipe and then another wipe down with Remington gun oil. I found this rare pistol at a gun show and jumped on it.

This  pistol was designed for concealed carry. It has a rounded butt, a 2 1/2″ barrel and a bobbed hammer to prevent snagging. It’s also a .357mag if I need some extra penetration. Usually, I just load this with 158gr, lead semi-wad cutter hollow-points in .38Spl +P. Older 38s were a bit under powered. Modern loads, the +P, have improved the performance of 38s to make them comparable with modern 9mm cartridges.  A good .38Spl is still a good concealed carry weapon and can be much cheaper than buying a new pistol. It you are on a budget, it is something to consider. Blued pistols are still good alternatives for a concealable weapon.

Tomorrow’s post will discuss holsters and accessories.

So you’re thinking about Concealed Carry… Part I

I have heard some folks say that the Aurora, CO, shootings have made them consider getting a concealed carry permit.  It’s a pertinent question. Many people, probably the majority across the country, never think about self-defense until something like this occurs.  It’s just human nature, unfortunately.

Probably 90% of the people who say they’re thinking about concealed carry won’t. It’s just talk and by the end of the next workday, they will have forgotten about the subject and fallen back into their old rut.

This column is for that other 10%.

If you are serious about concealed carry there are a number of tasks to be done.  The first and most important is not about the process of acquiring a permit, nor about which weapon would be best for you, nor about which is best, a revolver or auto-loader, nor about how to conceal a weapon once you have acquired it and the permit.  No, the first and foremost question is this: could you actually shoot and possibly kill someone in defense of yourself or your family.

Most men would probably say, “Yes,” without much thought. For men, it’s almost an automatic response whether it is true or not. For women, the answer is frequently the opposite. Women have been taught, it’s almost a cultural dictum, that women are the nurturers of the family while the men are the supporters and protectors.

Both sides of that dictum are false. Woman can be just as protective of their family as men. Why is the dictum false? Because people just don’t think about the issue—that they may have to actually kill another person—a living breathing person, to take everything they have and everything they will ever have, until it is standing before them when they have seconds or less to make a decision.

At that point, hesitation probably means being severely injured or killed.  That last second is NOT the time to be thinking about whether you can shoot or kill someone.  That time should be used to judge the situation, draw your weapon and putting rounds into the place where they will do the most good for your defense. Those last few seconds should be an automatic reaction.

This question, can I really shoot, is one you must answer, after long deliberation and prayer, before you take another step. All good CCW instructors will discuss this issue. It is not a frivolous subject.  Some people just cannot shoot or kill another.  It’s not shameful, nor a matter of weakness. It means that you must use other options for your self-defense.

But those options are for another column, not this one.

If you are truly serious about self-defense and concealed carry, and you are married, have a family, or just a close friend you spend a lot of time with, you must discuss the issue with everyone in your immediate circle. Some of them will react negatively. It is imperative you understand their reasoning, valid or not, and reach an agreement. Failure to do this could destroy your relationship.

For me, when it came to the defense of my family and friends, it was a short decision. It was not frivolous. But I realized that yes, I could shoot if it was necessary. I don’t know how I’d react afterwards. It’s never occurred. I’ve had a concealed carry permit since they were available in Missouri, some eight years I think. I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve drawn my weapon.  There have been a couple of times when I placed my hand on the pistol butt and was prepared, when I’ve been charged by dogs, to draw but the dogs were stopped by their owners before reaching my go/no go line.

If you cannot answer this initial question—could I shoot if necessary, then you should not buy a defensive weapon nor seek a permit. It would be a waste of time and money.  It matters not if you are a hunter, if you get a deer every season. Deer are not people. For some, it is a critical difference.

I have, in another forum, recommended Kathy Walker‘s book, The Cornered Cat. I would strongly suggest that you read her book before going further towards a CCW permit.  It doesn’t matter if you are a man or woman. Kathy has points to ponder for you both.

Tomorrow, Part II: Does it have to be pink?

In Defense of Kith and Kin

When asked why his party didn’t push through tax increases when it had a majority in both houses of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “Next question.” — The Morning Bell.


Today’s theme is the emergence of ghouls overnight.  In case you haven’t heard, a nutjob broke into a theater in Aurora, CO. The theater was showing a midnight premier of the latest Batman movie. A dozen movie goers were killed.  Their blood was still liquid when Piers Morgan and NYC Mayor Bloomberg were calling for more gun control. Worse, ABC News Brian Ross was trying to blame the Tea Party for the massacre.

The reactions of the liberal media has not gone unnoticed.  We’ve come to expect liberals to use any opportunity to attack the 2nd Amendment and our liberty.

Within hours of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado at a screening of the new Batman movie, the political machine is already gearing up to exploit the incident as a tool to demonize the second amendment and characterize Americans who are against big government as extremists.

Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the establishment uses it to demonize its political adversaries.

The most recent example was the Jared Lee Loughner case. After Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the media instantly launched a smear campaign insinuating that Loughner’s political beliefs were shared by conservatives and libertarians. In reality, Loughner turned out to be a pot smoking left-winger who had dabbled in the occult. —

The dems are now calling for a suspension of campaigning citing Obama’s cutting short his campaign trip to return to Washington. Yeah, like Obama tricked McCain into suspending his campaign just before the election in 2008. I pray we won’t fall for that ploy again.

In Wake of Colorado Tragedy, a Concern Over the Propriety of Campaigning


9:44 a.m. | Updated FORT MYERS, Fla. – The mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater presented a challenge to both President Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, on Friday: Is it O.K. to continue campaigning in the midst of a national tragedy, and if so, how does that change the message?

Mr. Obama chose to cut short his campaign trip here and return to Washington after addressing the tragedy before the audience that came here initially expecting partisan red meat. Mr. Romney opted to keep his schedule but talk about the shootings during a previously planned speech in New Hampshire. — New York Times blog.

Aurora, CO, is a liberal municipality like Chicago, New York and other such cities.  The Mall is not far from Columbine where two shooters once killed a number of students. The liberal mindset expects to be protected from the predators amongst us. Foolishly, they think a “No Guns” sign is a barrier to those intent on doing harm.

In such a crowd as there was in that theater, it’s unlikely a CCW holder would have been able to end the shooting without endangering by-standers. The media would have been like sharks in a feeding frenzy if a CCW carrier wounded or killed a by-stander while stopping the shooter. It would have been a no-win situation unless the CCW carrier was close enough to make the shot while insuring no one else was in the line of fire.

On the other hand most other CCW carriers would take that risk to protect themselves or their families and friends. It’s a tough spot to be in.

Even in this modern society, we are still our first line of defense of Kith and Kin. A cop a mile away, is still a mile away. A lot can—and will—happen before that cop can arrive on scene.

If you ask a cop whether he’s a Peace Officer or a Law Enforcement Officer, he would likely respond with the second label.  That is a result of their training. There’s nothing wrong with that.  Except…that it focuses on events after the fact instead of before the fact.  The theory that enforcing law will prevent crime is a theory yet unproved. All too often law enforcement is cleaning up after the fact. It’s an unfortunate fact.

When it comes to personal or family safety it is still our responsibility first.

First Amendment Triumphs in Iowa CCW case

I heard about this case several months ago but I hadn’t heard the ruling. It’s a prime example of political corruption when CCW is “May Issue.” Until recently, Iowa was a “May Issue” state. That made receiving a CCW a matter of cronyism and patronage. Iowa just recently changed their CCW from “May Issue” to “Shall Issue” and this case was one of the prime reasons.

This was the suit of Paul Dorr vs. Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber. Dorr applied for a CCW renewal and was refused by Sheriff Weber. Weber claimed that Dorr, who was a frequent writer to the local paper’s Letters to the Editor, was a “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist…” and was therefore a person of poor character and unfit for a CCW permit.

The Sioux City Journal reports

Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, “concern from public. Don’t trust him.” The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.

Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,” Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”

The ruling continued, “Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.”

And, Bennett said, “In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation …

“In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.”

However, Bennett’s decision did not favor Dorr’s son, who was 18 years old when he applied for the carry permit, and is 20 now. Bennett noted that sheriffs have the discretion to withhold permits from anyone under majority age.

Bennett required Weber take a class that must be a college-level course on the United States Constitution, “including — at least in part — a discussion of the First Amendment.” And Bennet said, Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Upon completion of the class, Weber must also file anan affidavit with the clerk of court showing successful completion with a passing grade.

That’s more than a hand-slap by a federal Judge. That a slap upside the head for exhibiting extreme stupidity and bias.

You can find the entire report here.