CCW is better than a Court Order
 

This woman had a restraining order against some psycho stalker

And unfortunately, they are not actually worth anything. Why do people think that a criminal or a psycho will follow a court order.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/02/washington.shooting.ap/index.html

Police: Slain woman had restraining order

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A man and a woman were shot to death in the University of Washington's architecture building Monday in an apparent murder-suicide, university police said.

Officers responding to reports of gunfire found the two and a handgun in an office on the fourth floor of Gould Hall, Assistant University Police Chief Ray Wittmeir said.

The female victim, a 25-year-old university employee, had a restraining order against the man, who "almost certainly" shot her and took his own life, Wittmeir said.

About six shots were fired, and the only people involved were the woman and the man, who was in his 40s, Wittmeir said.

Lance Nguyen, a researcher at the Runstad Center for Real Estate Research, which has offices on the building's fourth floor, said he was a co-worker of the woman and that she had said she was worried about her former boyfriend. The woman, a research specialist, changed her telephone number and e-mailed a photo of the man to friends, asking them to watch out for him, Nguyen said.

"She said it's a psycho from her past," Nguyen said.

Student Meghan Pinch, 27, was in a first-floor classroom when she heard several loud bangs. She said she did not think they were gunshots at first but then police told everyone to evacuate.

"No one wanted to really think it was real," Pinch said as she waited outside to learn if the victims were people she knew.

"We all are pretty close in this building," she said.

Gould Hall, built in 1972, houses three architecture department offices, a dean's office, a library, shop, lab, computer facilities and classrooms, according to the university's Web site.

The building, in an urban neighborhood on the edge of the campus, was closed for the day with classes rescheduled elsewhere on campus.

Sad and more proof that there cannot be a cop everywhere to protect everyone. CCW is a good thing, just wish that every state understood this.

that's life.. a restraining order is meaningless against a psychopath... unfortunately a CCW maybe not have helped in this case. Might have given the woman a chance to defend herself. but if someone really wants to get you, it's not that difficult.

Even with a CCW the UW campus is off limits to carry. There is a big gap in coverage, so to speak, even with a CCW. Anyone who desires to do what this man did, or anyone seeking unarmed victims for whatever reason, will have nothing to fear even from a CCW holder anywhere carry is still "off limits". This is, of course, unnacceptable and un-Constitutional. We have every right to be armed anywhere, any time we so choose.

Not that this particualr woman would have chosen that option anyway. Far too many people like her have deluded themselves into thinking the law can protect them. I bet she was very surprised, an quite indignant, that this guy had the gall to break the law. Oh my God, what has the world come to? Dissobeying a court order... How dare he...:rolleyes:

I personally think anyone who CCW is a little paranoid. The chances of being attacked like this are so very small, it's silly to carry heat on you everywhere you go "just in case". that takes away from your freedom.

Call me crazy then. But I take my life and the life of my family seriously. And you don't CCW because you think something is going to happen. If you have ANY idea that something could be bad, you don't go.

If you think you need a gun, bring a rifle. And bring friends with rifles.

The only way carrying takes away from your freedom is that you have to take a LOT more $hit from someone when you're armed, whereas you could easily thump their skull and get away with it if unarmed.

Since I've witnessed a fatal shooting and had a knife pulled on me, both in the last 15 yrs. and not in dangerous neighborhoods, I don't delude myself into thinking it could never happen to me.

Exactly. If you are going to a scheduled gun fight, bring a rifle.

I personally think anyone who has auto insurance is a little paranoid. The chances of being in an accident like this are so very small, it's silly to carry insurance everywhere you go "just in case". that takes away from your freedom. Sounds pretty stupid paraphrased in this manner, doesn't it?

Was thinking the same thing but trying to reason with some people just does not work.

Its funny but out of all the CCW permit holders around the nation, they commit no crimes and have been involved in very few incidents of any type. Pretty good for so called "paranoid group of gun owners" huh?

there is a good reason why the law states you have to carry auto insurance to drive a car.
there is no law that states you have to carry a gun. making this comparison is just plain ridiculous, so don't confuse the 2.

Up here a drunk who was involved in a hit and run broke into a family's house trying to steal their car to get away. Husband confronts him with a shotgun. There's a struggle and the husband is shot. Bad guy picks up husband's shotgun and proceeds to almost kill the wife and kill the son with shotgun blows to the head and body. Bad guy was otherwise unarmed. No prior violent crime history; history of petty crimes, alcohol and drug related.

The moral of this story is either that if the family hadn't had a gun they would still be alive today. Or, if the father wielded the gun more proficiently the family would be alive and the bad guy would be dead. I guess it depends on your perspective.

My take on it is you call 911 BEFORE you open the door when you hear something in the garage. If you have a stalker you carry a cell phone and call 911 immediately whenever you see the stalker and certainly BEFORE you engage him in conversation.

And how many "false alarms" will the police respond to before they and the 911 dispatchers stop taking you seriously?

In your above example, what's to say the deranged drunk would not have beaten the man to death if he was confronted unarmed?

So you would rather be buried by 6 than tried by 12?

I always tell my wife when we go out that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Yes but you are a man in command of your future and not someone with no spine waiting around until the police rescues them.

Totally agree.

If you wait for the police you are waiting for the crime scene investigators.

Thanks Joe.

In Minnesota the answer is "an infinite number" if the caller identifies herself as someone with a restraining order. By the way, it's not considered a false alarm if the guy runs before the cops arrive. The cops will consider that a victory.

In the example I gave the locked garage door between him and the bad guy probably says the bad guy wouldn't have beaten the family to death before the cops arrived.

I prosecuted for a few years and handled a few thousand domestic abse cases. I never figured out why people didn't call the cops before they opened the door to confron their stalker/drunk ex-boy friend/burglar.

We aren't talking about a person protecting themselves in a theft situation, we are discussing a person who has a known stalker and she opts for a "restraining order". A restraining order only works if the person who is restrained is rational. How many times is this the case?

A gun is somewhat unique amongst the vast array of tools at our disposal. When one is truly needed, anything else is a very poor substitute. Certainly a piece of paper filed away in some far off court has nowhere near the deterent affect when confronted with a determined, deranged assailant.

<------- saved family and self with a hand gun, from intruders 100 miles from a city.


ccw's should be issued to sane and sober people in good standing with the law.

The chances weren't small for her. They were 100%.

I hope that nothing bad enough happens to you or anyone else to ever need to use a gun.

Some feel that CCW is an exercise of their Freedom, others feel that it is silly and takes away your freedom. Isn't it nice to be able to choose?

Another moral of the story is if the family hadn't had a car, the crook wouldn't have tried to steal it. This nonsense about having a gun in the house makes you XYZ more likely to be a victim of a gun crime is just nuts. If I live near a lake, am I more likely to die from drowning? Is marriage the #1 cause of divorce?

That's funny

The shooting is a sad thing, not sure what could be done to prevent something like this. With that said, I'm in favor of anything that improves my odds of survival. Packing might not have saved her life, but, maybe it would have.

I recently got my CCP. I don't carry, but I would like the option.

I actually got it because I was tired of the waiting period. There is no wait in WA if you have it.

the waiting period is a funny thing.

once you own a firearm you should be clear to buy your next one
with out waiting.

Thank Mrs. Brady for that.

But doesnt Mrs. Brady break the gun laws when she feels that its needed? She got busted recently for doing something firearms related. Course the liberals overlooked that.

Kinda like Rosie's bodyguards carrying weapons when she was thumping the desk on her show against weapons. Guess whats good for the fat old goose is not good for anyone else??

Edit, just found it. http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000780.html

Yeah, I hated the waiting period here in Texas. Those phone calls could take 5 minutes!

Heh hehe heh!

I took a British guy into a Gander mountain to just show him that any sporting goods store can sell guns. Then I bought a Springfield 1911, sort of to show how easy it could be done!

I read that whole thing and the Brady bill and don't see where she broke any law. Can you point out the violation?

Straw Purchase. Question 12a on form 4473 asks if the firearm is for you.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/images/4473-1.gif

The reason behind 12a is that a background check is being run on the Purchaser (part of the Brady waiting period/Instant Check requirement). A NICS check is run on the purchaser. If the Purchase is for someone else, they have to fill out the form and have the background check, and show ID, etc.

It asks if you are the purchaser, and then defines it. She was not acquiring it on behalf of another person. She actually did purchase it. On behalf would mean that someone else gave you money to buy the firearm for them. If it is the intent to prohibit a gift it is very unclear.


And the question puzzles law enforcement.
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@listserv.ucla.edu/msg00173.html



I could not find any such discussion about gifting a firearm in the Brady bill.


So the uproar is nonsense and so is the article. If we need to clarify this, then the gov should do that.

Please try an experiment. Go to a gun shop near you and tell the clerk that the rifle you are buying is a gift for someone else. See what happens (or really, what doesn't happen).

The link I posted also makes it a very murky question. The question needs to be clarified, I believe.

I would suspect it depends on how you offer the information.
" I want to buy a gun for my son." Nope
" I want to buy a gun and see how I like it, and then give it to my son" maybe.

" I want to buy a gun and see how I like it, and then give it to my son in ten years" Yes.


But even if it was my intent to give it to him for his birthday next month, I am still the purchaser and would read that question as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brady

A controversy occurred after Sarah Brady recounted in her book that she had purchased a Remington .30-06 rifle with a scope and safety lock at a Lewes, Delaware, gun shop, for her son, James Scott Brady, Jr., "as a Christmas present" in 2000. According to Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler, this purchase was apparently a "straw purchase". Under the gun laws, her son, as the intended recipient of the weapon, should have undergone the required background checks, although he has no criminal record.

According to a quote in the New York Times, "We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

Ms. Brady was not indicted by any grand jury, state or federal, in the incident.

It is simple fact that Ms. Brady has campaigned tirelessly to make purchasing firearms more difficult and more complicated for anyone, with the ultimate goal of making it impossible to do so. Many of us found irony in the fact that she quite innocently bought a gun and, in the process of doing so, raised questions about the legality of her having done so.

It should never be illegal for anyone to buy a gun. That is a miss-guided attempt at "preventative justice" that does no more than make honest citizens trip over meaningless, ineffective rules, as Ms. Brady demonstrated. Criminals will acquire guns no matter what. Her efforts merely inconvenience honest people and have no demonstratable affect on crime. Her measures have been in place long enough now to have solid numbers to back that up.

What is needed is (and gawd I hate to use this term) "zero tolerance" towards gun crime. Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for life. The first time you do it. For life; no parole, no plea bargains, nadda. Life without parole on the very first offense. Empty our prisons of non-violent victimless crime type offenders, like drug users, and fill them back up with gun-toting criminals. Then leave the rest of us honest gun owners, including Ms. Brady's son, out of it.

excellent idea, Jeff.

+1 Jeff