Should You Apply for a Concealed Carry Permit?

By Kellene Bishop

I am frequently asked how I feel about letting the government know I have a firearm. Folks seem to be a bit concerned for my well-being when they learn that I’ve applied for a concealed firearm permit. They are concerned that doing so somehow puts me on a list and now the government can know where to go to take my firearm. Well, that’s one way to put it, Ladies, but I see it very, very differently than that.

Media Hype or Firearm Facts—You Decide

by Kellene Bishop 

Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Fact:

100% of ALL firearm “accidents” occur as a result of someone violating one of the four most critical safety rules in the ownership and use of a firearm.  Firearms don’t kill people as the media would have us believe, any more than pencils are responsible for making spelling mistakes.  Your ability to STOP an firearm accident is strengthened by your knowledge of a firearm.  In contrast, if you are not familiar with the workings of a firearm, you may actually encourage a deadly accident if you encounter one in the hands of an unauthorized person.  That said, why don’t we ever hear a news report that says something like “There are over 80,000,000 gun owners in the nation today, and only 5 accidents were caused as the result of error on the part of the gun owner”?

  

Fact: Every person in the U.S. has the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property.  Fit or fat.  Blonde or brunette.  When a drug-crazed criminal has a gun point at you, your political affiliations do not lessen the impact on your body or your mind.  A bullet will sufficiently kill you.  So how you supposed to fight back under such circumstances? 

  

Fact: According to FBI statistics, over 5,500 violent crimes are PREVENTED EVERY DAY by the mere presence of a firearm.  So why are our newspapers and television screens only reporting the horrific scenes of crime and bloodshed at the hands of “crazed gunmen”?  All we ever hear about are the terrible and criminal uses of firearms – school shootings, gunmen clipping off innocent bystanders one by one in a mall or a neighborhood, or gangs who murder and plunder with guns.  Why aren’t we being given a clear picture of the use and importance of firearms in America?  Why aren’t we hearing the real stories from the media – like the 83-year-old woman who shot a would-be rapist in her home.  Or the woman who was raped, then given a rifle by a friend, and when the rapist RETURNED to her home she was able to defend herself and killed the rapist.  Or about the female convenience store employee that was able to save her fellow co-workers from abominable acts at the hand of a robber by grabbing for the gun, and shot him.  Or when a concealed-carry permit holder was able to thwart a massive shootout between police and a liquor store robber because he was willing to draw his gun and shoot the body-armored gunman squarely in the skull.  Violent crime rates have fallen dramatically in right-to-carry states.  

Why do we only hear about the terrible encounters with firearms?  Because blood and sex sells.  And it can’t simply be just anybody’s blood.  No, it needs to be the blood of an innocent person, not a violent criminal.  Yes, the so-called education of the facts of gun use for self-defense in America is being steered by money and mindless sheep, plain and simple.  

The media often fail to portray good examples of self-defense photo c/o abovethelaw.com

Why aren’t we hearing about the real firearm stories from the media?  Follow the same money that goes abundantly to the media and you will see that many members of our government fear the legal possession of guns by its citizens.  Why?  Because the government has committed acts in violation of the U.S. Constitution and thus have reason to fear reprisals from its citizens.  The majority of the media act as mindless minions to our government.  And since the government has trampled mercilessly on the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to us through the U.S. Constitution, left to their own designs with no accountability required from the media, it is clear that the media is a willing accomplice in these acts.  Violation after violation have occurred at the hands of each administration that have stripped many of our Constitutional freedoms in a clandestine manner, and yet the media and entertainment industry have failed to produce any headline which even questions such acts.  Do the media even know what’s it like to actually be courageous Americans anymore?  Or do they merely write about it in hopes that it earns them lauds of glory from their peers? 

Fact: Having a firearm and knowing how to use it does not make you a violent person.  In fact, you will find that responsible gun owners are peaceful, law abiding individuals because they are able to function without fear hanging over them.  Yet firearm owners are never portrayed such an image in the national news.  

Instead we hear the irresponsible and oppressive mantra of, “Don’t resist.” “Don’t fight back.”  “Just give them the money, it’s not worth your life.”   What they forget it that while money may not be worth your life, the freedom to be free IS worth your life.  Ironically, what Thomas Paine and his associates did to the king of England to protect free speech (particularly of the media)  is actually being used to give us a false education and thus strip us of other freedoms because of the false and criminalized picture of gun owners that we are confronted with every day. 

According to Thomas Jefferson, history has proven time and time again that the option for citizens to arm themselves is what ensures protection against a “tyrannical government.” 

  

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)   

You see, not only can this type of “preservation of property” give you peace in your ability to defend yourself against violent acts, but it also gives you peace in defending your nation against the loss of freedoms as well.  

 

  

Firearm training gives you peace of mind

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised… to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia…” (In Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380) 

• “The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless – by disarming them.” (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)  

The men and women of America are not only the sole stewards over their own lives and that of their families – they are also the sole guardians of the Constitution.  In the ultimate act of freedom, specifically for the women of our nation, I say that we must take on a more proactive stance in order to fulfill our roles appropriately.  With the increasing numbers of women raising families single-handedly, the extended hours our husbands are forced to work to sustain us, the increasing threat of brazen crimes being committed against women and children in broad daylight, the consistent attacks which are made on our freedom, for all of these reasons, women need to become informed and skilled in the use of a firearm—not just in matters of self-defense use and safety, but also as a Constitutional right.  We cannot relinquish our safety, our lives, or our freedom to the hands of strangers who may or may not be available to defend us when the need arises.  We must take this responsibility for ourselves.  After all, when all of our liberties are gone, there will be nothing left to protect. 

 Copyright 2010 Women of Caliber and Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Women of Caliber and Kellene Bishop. 

2nd Amendment Rights for Sale

By Kellene Bishop

Are your 2nd Amendment rights for sale? Photo c/o highdesert

Are your 2^nd Amendment rights for sale? If they were, would you sell them for as little as $10.50, $3.50 or even 99 cents? Well, there are sure a lot of us doing that right now as we give businesses who CLEARLY object to your 2^nd Amendment rights and yet provide you with NO alternative to protecting yourself in their environments. I’m sure that if you thought about it, you would refuse to give your business to those who actively provided criminals with drugs, cash, prostitutes, and other props they need for their crime sprees, right? Then why would you think of supporting these same businesses in providing criminals with pools of defenseless citizens as well? Drugs or defenseless citizenry. It’s all the same. It benefits the criminals and leaves the law-abiding citizens punished for a “crime” of honor and responsibility.

2^nd Amendment Rights for Sale: Case #1 — AMC, Cinemark and Regal Theaters. I noticed yesterday when I went to a matinee that they now post a sign on one of their entrance doors barring any firearms. Needless to say, I don’t care for the scenario of being in a dark, overcrowded room with people I don’t know, whose lack of consideration for others has depleted dramatically in years past. I’ve seen fist fights break out over something as simple as saved seats. In addition, each of these theaters have donated heavily to anti-gun campaigns. PAH=LEEZE. They have pimply faced teenagers in charge of “security” at these places. I don’t trust them to protect me and my family in any way shape, or form. I assure you if push comes to shove, they are the first ones hitting the deck to save their own bacon. And if the Supreme Court has ruled that even your local police department is under no obligation to protect the citizens, what makes you think that a non- living/breathing business entity will do so? (Oh, and if you need any more fodder, read my article on how the movie theaters have little regard for your health as well—flu season be damned.) In this case, your 2^nd Amendment rights are sold for the cost of a movie ticket.

You may want to check with the laws in your state. In some states it’s meaningless for a theater to post such a sign. In other states, such signs have some very strict criteria, i.e.: how big they have to be, where they have to be placed, etc. But I’m telling you. All of this garbage makes the dollar theaters and Netflix look a lot more attractive to me.

2^nd Amendment Rights for Sale: Case #2 — Blockbuster Video. Don’t be surprised if you see a sign posted on a Blockbuster Video also prohibiting you from entering their “private property” with a handgun. Regardless of whether you’re legally carrying it or not, they would prefer to only show violent movies instead of having you prevent violence in your family. Do a search on “Blockbuster Video shooting” and “Blockbuster Video Robbery” and see just how safe you may feel in this unconstitutionally established gun-free zone. Is your life really worth the price of renting a video? Folks, you can pay a buck to Red Box and not surrender your rights of self-defense. Heck, if you do a search for “Red Box Code” you can even get your movie for FREE! Surely your safety is worth more than the price of a 2-hour entertainment escape. Netflix and Red Box keep looking better and better, folks. “Announcing: 2^nd Amendment rights purchased for the cost of renting Cinderalla II.”

2^nd Amendment Rights for Sale: Case #3 — Google is vehemently committed to being anti-gun. (What do you really expect for a couple of guys who never had to pay a real price for success?) Google liberally allows an unbridled range of pornographic ads and also takes no responsibility for the veracity of their postings, but hey, when it comes to posting ads for the sale of guns OR ammunition, they draw the line. Wow. I’m sure their mothers are proud. Use the alternative search engines such as AskJeeves.com, Yahoo.com and Bing.com. Well Google, since you don’t verify the factuality of anything, allow me to point out to all of my readers that you are a BEHEMOTH contender when it comes to funding international anti-guns and anti-self-defense propaganda.

2^nd Amendment Rights for Sale: Case #4 — McDonald’s. Not only does McDonald’s refuse to use meat produced in the U.S. where it has significantly better health guidelines than the “Grade G for Garbage” meat it purchases from South America, McDonald’s is decidedly against you being able to defend yourself in the vicinity of one of their locations. This is quite disturbing to me since so many Americans are drawn to take a break at McDonald’s along their long road travels throughout the U.S. I believe that when traveling long distances, one is especially vulnerable to criminal encounters and thus should indeed have the protection that the 2^nd Amendment ensures them. McDonald’s doesn’t stop at just publishing their anti-gun agenda. They also put their money where their mouths are and have donated over $500 million to anti-gun organizations over the last 15 years!! By the way, they also support many anti-hunting initiatives as well as anti-fishing. So much for thinking there’s REAL fish in the Filet-o-Fish fillets. Wouldn’t you rather support a local fast food place where you know they don’t have the money and power to buy tainted South American meat? I personally have fallen in love with a place near me called Emmett & Ethel’s. Not only is everything fresh, but they don’t even freeze their meats! The fish, the burgers, the fries, the hand-battered onion rings all make my mouth water. When is the last time McDonald’s made YOUR mouth water? Really. Your 2^nd amendment rights are definitely worth more than the price of a Happy Meal. (Oh, and by the way, they have less “meat” in their “meat” than even Taco Bell! See here🙂

There is a litany of many more businesses that I could address for you, but that’s not really the point of my article. My point is that if you care about your ability to defend yourself, check up on the businesses that you give your money to. Otherwise you’re unknowingly sending your money directly to the criminals and anti-gun groups. As for me, I refuse to PAY these kinds of businesses to take away my 2^nd Amendment rights. Let’s stop complaining about the government taxing us when we willingly allow these businesses to rape and pillage away our freedoms voluntarily.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Safety in Your Car

By Kellene Bishop

Car jacking photo c/o freedomsphoenix.com

As a nation overall, we don’t walk much. Sure we walk to and from our cars, but usually we’re in the vehicles when we’re going somewhere. As a result, the poor criminals who would normally hold you up in the back alley are starving. So they’ve taken to the brazen act of holding people up in their cars, car jacking, and “bumping” cars in order to get someone out of their car for a more vulnerable attack. Some have even gone so far as to obtain red and blue flashing lights and make you think you’re being pulled over by law enforcement. As such, I feel it’s appropriate to give you some good advice to strengthen your safety in your car.

• Safety in Your Car Rule #1: Always keep sufficient room between you and the car in front of you when you’re stopped at a light or a stop sign. This way, if you have trouble come up to your window, you have an escape route. We are in such a habit of getting right on someone’s tail at a stop light. This simply boxes us in with extreme vulnerability in the event of an attempted hijack or robbery while you’re in your car.
• 

  9mm and 40 caliber bulletholes through a car door. Photo c/o gunfreezone.net/

  Safety in Your Car Rule #2: Have the firearm handy. Having your firearm in your purse or glove box is not going to do you a lick of good in defending yourself against a would-be robber at your car door. The best place is on your body on your front or side. Others have been successful putting it in a Velcro type holder right behind their steering wheel or attached to the front of their seat as well.  If you’re going to have the tools to protect yourself, you might as well have the access to these tools. Also, don’t be afraid to shoot through the door so long as you’re shooting a 9mm or higher caliber. If you need to shoot you don’t need to roll down the window. That would be a precious waste of time. May I suggest however, that you try to go to a junk yard where there are cars and get permission to shoot a firearm from the drivers seat in the car? The sound and experience is a bit more rattling that what you experience at the range, so it’s good to at least have experienced it on some level. (By all means, use your hearing protection. It will still give you an idea of what to expect should you need to shoot from within your car.)

• Safety in Your Car Rule #3: When you park your car, be aware of potential escape routes. I like to park my car where a simple jump on the pedal will take me to safety. If I’m parked facing the building I’m shopping at, that’s not possible. If you must park near the building, do so with the back of your car facing it, not your front.
• Safety in Your Car Rule #4: If you insist on storing your firearm in your purse, then when you are asked for your wallet, reach into your purse calm and coolly and then grip your firearm. Shoot it from within your purse aimed at your friendly neighborhood robber. Play it dumb. Play it vulnerable. Play it freaked out. But be conscious of what your purpose is—to get out alive and to not be taken to another location. Shooting from within your purse is easier when you have a revolver, but if you have a semi-auto, you will be able to get off at least one round. So make it count. This means that you may need to rethink WHERE you are stowing your firearm in your purse. If it’s in the little outside zipper that you have to dig into in order to retrieve your firearm, then it’s in the WRONG spot. Shoot, then get the heck out of there.

• 

  Photo c/o ehow.com

  Safety in Your Car Rule #5: When you’re pulled over, even by law enforcement, you have the right to feel and be safe. If you have any alarms going off in your head/gut, then you should NOT get out of the car, NOT roll down the window and NOT engage in a conversation until you have verified with a law enforcement source (via your telephone) that this person pulling you over is the real deal. Call 9-1-1 and verify that this person is who they say they are. Once you’ve dialed, tuck the phone under your chin and keep your hands visible on the wheel while you speak to the person on the phone, in order to show the officer that you are complying, you’re just being safe. Even while you’re dialing, keep the car in drive, and your foot on the brake, just in case this person is not who they are pretending to be. Just so you know, it’s HIGHLY unusual for a plain-clothes law enforcement officer to pull you over. You should always at least have the benefit of seeing a uniform. Just because you’re getting pulled over, doesn’t mean you should let down your guard.

• Safety in Your Car Rule #6: In the event that you think you are being followed, take 3 right hand turns. Ideally you will want to take 4 right hand turns so that you’re back in the original direction you were going. But if a car follows you after 3 right hand turns, you have undoubtedly confirmed that you are being followed and you should call the police or drive to the nearest police station. There have actually been quite a few instances in which driving to a local police station have saved someone’s life.
• Safety in Your Car Rule #7: Get in the habit of looking at your tires and your back seat each time you get into your car. You want to check for damage to your tires that may have been instigated in order to waylay you as perfect prey for a criminal and you want to make sure that you don’t have any hitchhikers in your vehicle. If you do see a tire problem or notice someone hiding in your car, go back to the safety of the building that you came out of and call the police or the towing company. Do I really need to tell you to always park in well-lit places too?

Hopefully these 7 points will get you thinking how you can be safer when traveling and using your car. I also hope that you may start looking around you in more circumstances and determine what you back-up self-defense plan is—just in case.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Warning to Home Invasion Criminals

By Kellene Bishop

Photo c/o guns-n-stuff.blogspot.com

I’m sure I won’t win any popularity points with the liberal media and its adoring admirers with this comment, but here’s a warning to home invasion criminals: if you come into my home uninvited, you better plan on having a current will drawn up and have repented of everything else in your life. (Sorry, you can’t repent of the breaking and entering just before you do it. It just doesn’t work that way.) I say this because chances are very high that you’re going to meet your Maker relatively soon after you pass through my homestead threshold.

Many would argue that punishing someone who breaks into your home with possible death is un-Christian, archaic, and even “murder.” To be perfectly blunt, such thinking is wrong. It’s not only wrong, but it’s dangerous to the safety and peace of all Americans as it perpetuates an invalid amount of doubt and hesitation which could cost someone their life. Here are some questions I would ask of those who would break into my home. A little something for the “other side” to consider.

1) What part of the U.S. Constitution do you not understand? Did you read the 2^nd or the 4^th Amendment? If not, I assure you that ignorance does not absolve you of a crime.

2) Did you expect me to give you a full interview first to determine whether or not your initial illegal action was intended to lead to other illegal acts?

3) If I did interview you, am I supposed to frisk you as well, or simply take your word for it?

4) A burglary isn’t just about “losing your stuff.” Sure, a lot of stuff can be replaced. But I’m 100% certain that peace of mind, virtue, and life cannot be replaced if it’s taken from me or my family. 

Bottom line, if you walk through my door uninvited, I am not under any obligation to read you your Miranda Rights. I am not under any obligation to read your mind or evaluate your motives. I have every legal right to defend my home and the persons and property therein. So home invasion criminals, consider yourselves warned.

Sign c/o guns-n-stuff.blogspot.com

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

An AK-47 for Home Defense?

Hmm… worth considering.

See the full article at http://patriotroom.com/article/outstanding-2d-amendment-defense-smackdown-of-cnn

Right-to-Carry Laws and the Thune-Vitter Amendment

Right to Carry vs. Gun Control photo c/o freerepublic.com

From an excellent blog by Scott J. Bach, blogger for www.blog.nj.com on the Right-to-Carry, published July 21, 2009. 

In an era where vicious criminal predators prey upon the weak and vulnerable, the U.S. Supreme Court has surprisingly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens and cannot be held accountable when they fail to do so. This means that from the time you dial 911 until the police arrive, you’re on your own. Right-to-Carry helps level the playing field in the gravest extreme, and offers victims a fighting chance while they wait for help to arrive.

Approximately 40 states comprehend this simple truth and recognize the Right-to-Carry. Wherever Right-to-Carry laws have passed, there has been a corresponding and sustained drop in violent crime rates, for one simple reason: criminals go somewhere else when they think their victims may be armed. When the predators can’t tell the difference between the lions and the sheep, the whole flock is safer. Right-to-Carry thus benefits not only the law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights, but also those around them who don’t.

Think about it: every mass killing in recent memory has had one thing in common: the victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves against violent and brutal surprise attacks by predators. Right-to-Carry helps even out the odds, and criminals know it. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment expands Right-to-Carry and will enhance public safety, contrary to Governor Corzine’s ill-advised view. It recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines.

New Jersey’s policies on gun rights are as backwards as its policies on taxes. It’s time for elected officials who swore to uphold the Constitution to stop trampling on our protected gun rights.

For the whole article from blog.nj.com, click here.

U.S. Senate Rejects Thune-Vitter Gun Proposal

Senators Reject Gun Proposal: July 22, 2009 from ABCNews.com

• The U.S. Senate voted against a proposal to allow certain gun owners to bring concealed weapons across state lines.
• The Senate’s 58 to 39 vote fell just short of the 60 votes needed to add the amendment to a defense policy bill.
• The gun debate was not an issue that cut down party lines.
• Many new Democrats from conservative states are supportive of gun rights, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who voted in favor of the amendment.
• Author Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said, “The visitor must comply with the restrictions of the state they are in.”
• For example in S. Dakota, he explained, concealed weapons are prohibited at schools or anywhere that sells alcohol.
• “It is not, as some have suggested, a preemption of state laws,” Thune said.
• Only two states not slated to be part of the plan: Illinois and Wisconsin, who do not issue any conceal and carry permits so wouldn’t have been affected.
• The amendment also did not apply to the District of Columbia.
• “Law-abiding South Dakotans should be able to exercise the right to bear arms in states with similar regulations on concealed firearms,” Thune said in a Monday statement. “My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws.”
• Those backing the measure argued that it’s not the people holding permits that Americans need to worry about.
• “Few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file a permit,” said Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, who said he has a concealed carry permit himself.
• Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., agreed, saying those who take the time to go through the steps required of gun permit holders before carrying a concealed weapon are likely the ones who “understand the responsibility that goes with owning it.”

What is the Thune-Vitter Bill? February 5, 2009 kalb.com

• U.S. Senators John Thune and David Vitter introduced the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in February 2009
• The bill would allow individuals the right to carry lawfully concealed firearms across state lines, while respecting laws of the host state
• “This bill simply clarifies the rights of gun owners and affords citizens a right that they are already entitled to under U.S. law,” said Vitter.
• “By elevating concealed handgun permits to the same status as driver’s licenses, we can ensure that an individual possessing a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon from his or her home state is afforded the same privilege in another state that already has concealed carry laws.”
• The Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act allows an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they have a valid permit or if, under the state of their residence, they’re entitled to do so.
• Traveling individuals must follow the laws of the host state, including laws concerning areas where firearms may or may not be carried.

For a full copy of the Amendment, click here.

What are your thoughts on the rejected Amendment?

Self-Defense—A Human Right

By Kellene Bishop

Last night I was asked a question by one of my readers on my Emergency Preparedness blog, Preparedness Pro.  Although this question was asked by a citizen of England, in which possession of a firearm and essentially any weapon of any kind is forbidden, I still believe his question has merit for our Women of Caliber readers also.  The question posed to me in the most basic of terms is what would I do if I lived in such a state?

I wonder what a mother would tell me if I told her that she does not have the right to protect her children.  What would your reaction be if there were a “law” passed telling parents that they are required to allow their children to immerse themselves in whatever is on television or their computer or in their video games without ever being permitted to give any parental input to “defend” them from anything negative they are exposed to.

Now, let’s take a citizen of England, for example.  They are forbidden from possessing a firearm, pepper spray, knives that would be obviously used for self-defense, billy clubs, etc.  The penalty is 5 years in prison.  Recently in Australia, a farmer was imprisoned for shooting a burglar—IN HIS HOME—as the result of the views of self-defense there. 

What would you do if for some reason you were forbidden from using valuable tools to protect you and your loved ones and were left solely to the use of your physical abilities for self-defense?

For me, it’s a relatively simple response with two parts.

Human Rights c/o osocio.org

First of all, let’s be perfectly clear that there is a huge difference between a RIGHT and a CIVIL LIBERTY.  Inherent human rights can NOT be given and taken away by man regardless of what title or position the world may give him.   Human rights are only to be protected and preserved by man.  A person can write something down, have “men” vote on it, and then CALL it a “law,” but if it is in opposition to human rights, then it cannot be considered a law.  Just because a man (or group thereof) establishes a procedure and labels it a law, does not make it such.  And it certainly does not make the law right.  No law can undo any of your inherent rights as a human being.  Just because individuals are willing to accept such a “law,” and just because men or women may forcibly be put into prison for breaking such a “law,” does not make it a law.  It just makes it a persuasive argument–even though a seriously flawed one.  It is merely an attempt to squelch a human right and hope that all will submit to such a position. 

In my opinion, no man can take away a right that God has given.  We have a right to breathe.  We have a right to benefit from all that God has given us.  And we “sure as shooting” have a right to defend ourselves, our family, and our property from harm.  No man can take that right away from you.  Any attempt to take away from a person the right for them to appropriately defend themselves is unacceptable.  Only YOU can ignore an inherent human right or refuse to acknowledge it, but that does not surrender it.  Human rights are not even our own to surrender.  They are infinitely a part of us.  To attempt to surrender them only states that one is willing to be a subject or a slave.  In other words, they willfully acquiesce to such a state.  Unfortunately, when too many people surrender their unalienable human rights in this manner, it gives the impression that a governmental opinion is “law” regardless of reality. 

For example, there is a state in our nation (Colorado) that has claimed all rain water for itself.  Citizens (not subjects) are literally BANNED from collecting any rain water.  This is a “law.”  And yet it is unacceptable.  A state government cannot claim that which falls from the sky to the ground to be its property.  Rain is for the benefit of all and is the owner of Him who provides it and none else.  I would definitely defy such a preposterous law were I a citizen there.

To summarize the first part of my response, if a human right is infringed upon, then it is the responsibility of the citizens to correct that wrong.  It may require a heavy price.  But in my opinion, no price is too heavy to pay in order to recognize and embrace all of our human rights.  The ability for every person to defend themselves, regardless of their level of physical fitness, bank account balance, or occupation is indeed a right.

Second part.

If a person elects to subject themselves to such a preposterous position—that they aren’t allowed to possess effective self-defense tools in order to even the playing field against themselves and a criminal—then additional knowledge is required.  You want to be sure to become familiar with how to expertly use alternative items which are not defined as “weapons” such as a kitchen knife, a golf club, etc.  A can of air deodorizer or hair spray and a cigarette lighter can go a long way to defend yourself.  

The success of self-defense doesn’t begin in the moment of an attack.  Successful self-defense has everything to do with the preparation.  Protecting and preserving such a right against unlawful infringement is one of your best defenses.  I come from a long line of revolutionaries.  This particular nation exists with a shred of freedom because of them.  Personally, I’m a wholehearted believer in paying a price for FREEDOM of all mankind and I firmly believe that such can only be ensured if all mankind is openly “permitted” to defend themselves, anywhere, anytime, and in any way most appropriate for the situation. 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Yes, You Can Defend Yourself with a Firearm

By Kellene Bishop

As a Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor, it’s no wonder that I am asked frequently “when is it exactly permissible to defend yourself with a firearm?”  Many believe that the circumstances of defending yourself are actually rare. Personally, I don’t believe that 2.5 million crimes being stopped every year with a firearm constitutes a “rare” circumstance, but I will address this issue as clearly as I can.  Bottom line is, under the correct circumstances, the answer is YES, you can defend yourself with a firearm, legally, lawfully, and morally. 

I will attempt to answer this question bluntly in this article, however, keep in mind that state laws vary, so please check with your state.  I’ll do my best to speak in more universal terms as assured by the Constitution of the United States.

1. You have the right to defend yourself if you feel your life is in jeopardy or you are under threat of serious bodily injury.  Based on my most recent research, this standard is applicable in every state in the U.S.  This does not mean that you have to wait until you’ve been punched, shot at, told that you’re going to be killed, or any other such aspect.  If you are in the midst of a threatening encounter in which either of these two qualifiers are present, you have the right to permanently stop your attacker.  The foundation is that you must feel an imminent danger upon your life or the threat of serious bodily injury.  If you’ve received a death threat, no, you cannot be proactive and put the antagonist out of his misery.  Defending yourself must be “reactive” in such an instance.  However, with the truth of the situation, law enforcement will typically see such as “self-defense”.
2. The next issue is not cut and dry in all states in the U.S., although it is generally acceptable.  You are permitted to defend the life of someone else who is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.  That’s right.  If you come across someone who is being threatened at knife point, you are permitted to take action with your firearm to defend such a situation.  Although I would strongly advise you to be 100% certain of your environment prior to doing so
3. I haven’t found a state yet that prohibits this (although there are plenty of shameful countries which do), but in the U.S. you are permitted to defend your habitation—plain and simple.  If someone forcibly or with deception enters your home uninvited, you have the right to encourage them to leave the premises immediately, even by permanently stopping them. 
4. Lastly, the U.S. Constitution entitles Americans to defend their property.  While this does not mean that you can kill someone over something as temporary as piece of property, you are permitted in most states to attempt to stop a felony robbery from taking place.  (Even outside your home.)  With proper concealed permits, you are allowed to approach a felon in a fully armed state.  If your attempts to stop the felon were to escalate to the point in which your life or body was threatened, then you could legally use a firearm to stop such danger

In all such instances, defending yourself must be a reactive result, never a proactive one.  The only offensive actions you can take part in is to be competent and proficient with your firearm, have it handy, and have it ready to go in an emergency.  This is how you become truly prepared.  Unexpected events need not be tragic ones, if you’ve properly rehearsed your response. 

Ultimately, your right to protect yourself is inherent in the U.S. Constitution; however, it also behooves you to become very familiar with the laws in your area in order that you might fully be protected.

Note that the author of this article is NOT an attorney, nor does she play one on T.V.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.