Tag

Second Amendment

Browsing

Spring has officially sprung, fellow bikers! While your ever-lovable Grey Beard Biker rides year-round, the 2020 riding season is officially here. Where will 2020 take you? Perhaps to Smoky Mountain Thunder over Memorial Day Weekend? I certainly hope so. It is an amazing event that will make even the toughest biker well up with tears remembering the sacrifices our veterans have made to protect our freedom. We all know that FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!

We all cherish the Second Amendment. It is a very simple sentence:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

But this single sentence has been perverted by the gun control crowd more than any other sentence in our founding documents.

Our Founding Documents

Before we dive too deep into the Second Amendment, let’s take a look at all of our Founding documents:

  1. The Declaration of Independence was our original document. It was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, with input from Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. This document declared our independence and described what our Founders were striving for: a democratic republic. It would be ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.
  2. The U.S. Constitution was the operating blueprint for the United States. It was officially ratified by all of the states on June 21, 1788 and became the effective rule of the land on March 4, 1789.
  3. The Bill of Rights was our next founding document and became the first 10 amendments to our U.S. Constitution. After the adoption of our constitution, many of our Founding Fathers were concerned about a lack of protection for the citizens. These Founders were primarily aligned with the Anti-Federalists and included the most outspoken critic of the Federalists, Thomas Jefferson. These wise men wanted protections for the people including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and protection against an overarching Federal government. These ten amendments would be drafted on September 25, 1789 and ratified by all states on December 15, 1791.

These amendments obviously included the Second – which we freedom lovers cherish. Over the years, there have been continuous attacks on the Second Amendment by those who wish to limit our ability to “keep and bear arms.” The biggest being the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 – a law which fortunately expired after 10 years of doing nothing to prevent violent crime with firearms. But the calls for new assault weapon bans continue along with other proposed legislation including: Universal background checks, restrictions in magazine capacity, banning of all semiautomatic firearms and gun registries. The biggest fallback fallacy of those wanting to take away our freedoms is, “the founders never envisioned modern weapons.” Or, “it only applies to the militia” – which they falsely claim to be our National Guard. This is all a bunch of hooey. Every single one of the Bill of Rights speaks to individual rights, with the exception of the Tenth Amendment – which provides that all rights not reserved to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.

Federalist No. 46

The Federalist Papers were written by three of the Founding Fathers: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. These essays were originally written anonymously under the pseudonym, Publius, and were used as a way for these Founders to speak directly to the “People” – before the ratification of our Constitution.

Federalist No. 46 was written by James Madison and spoke to the “right to keep and bear arms.” Keep in mind this was before the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some of the key portions of No. 46 are:

With regards to our right to bear arms, Madison writes, “The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States; an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and conducted by governments (states) possessing their affections and confidence.” Madison continues, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments (states), to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government (Federal government) of any form can admit of.”

Conclusion

So, what does this all mean? First, the citizens of the United States are the last protection against any enemy, foreign or domestic. Domestic? Yes! Madison, and all of the Founders, recognized that a strong central government, with an ambition to force its will on her people, is dangerous to all God Given rights. Including speech, the press, assembly and the right to a speedy trial. Second, Madison recognized that these God Given rights are not given by the government. This includes the right to protect yourself. Someone attacking you is wanting to take away your rights to everything outlined in the Bill of Rights – with the exception of the Tenth Amendment. So, the next time a gun grabber tells you that you don’t need a gun, confidently tell them that it’s the Bill of Rights – which includes your right to live how you choose and protect yourself.

Grey Beard Biker
gbb@TheGreyBeardBiker.com
@GreyBeard_Biker on the Twiter

Greetings fellow bikers! If you are like me, you feel a bit cheated this fall. Autumn is my favorite time of the year to ride. After riding all summer, fall usually provides a welcome relief from the heat with beautiful colors and mild temperatures. But this year, after having perhaps the hottest September and early October in history, we dropped into a deep freeze more like January than November. Fall literally lasted less than a week! But that will not keep your Grey Beard Biker from riding. It will just require full leathers, heated grips and heated seats.

Currently, we are living in a relatively quiet time with regards to threats against our Second Amendment rights – rights which we know are given by God – not the government. Because I used to shoot pistols competitively, I started reloading my own ammunition about ten years ago. This actually helped reduce the cost of shooting (which is very expensive when you shoot 7,500-10,000 rounds per year) and provided more consistent ammunition than store bought ammo. It also insured that when Obama and the Democrats in congress threatened punitive gun laws and restrictions after Sandy Hook, causing ammunition shortages, I had plenty of ammunition to continue shooting regularly.

Reloading Considerations

There are many things to keep in mind when you are considering reloading ammunition. The number one consideration is the cost. With ammo costs down, and plenty on the shelves of your local gun store, big box retailer and sporting goods stores, cost will be a major consideration. If you are going to start hand loading your own ammo, you will have to shoot a lot to get a return on your investment – think in terms of 10s of thousands of rounds. If you are going to reload rifle cartridges and handgun ammo, it will be easier to recover the costs of your equipment as rifle ammunition can be very expensive. Also, if you only shoot 9mm or .380 ACP, the time it will take to get a return on your investment is going to be VERY long.

The type of press you purchase will also be something to consider. If you are only going to reload rifle ammunition, you do not need a progressive reloading press. You can easily get by with a single stage press. With this type of press, you will de-cap the spent primers and install new primers outside the press. This is done with a hand primer tool. You also measure your powder outside the press. While you can reload handgun ammunition with a single stage press, it is VERY time consuming. A major benefit for a single stage press is cost: it is much less expensive to get started with the basic equipment to reload.

Hornady Lock-n-Load progressive reloading press

Grey Beard recommends a progressive press if you are going to reload a lot of ammunition. There are many very good presses on the market today. I use a Hornady Lock-n-Load press which has five separate stations. These stations are:

  1. Brass sizing and de-capping
  2. Brass flaring
  3. Case activated powder drop
  4. Bullet seating
  5. Brass crimping (not always used)

While you do not necessarily use all of these stages for every caliber cartridge, it is nice that you can do so. It literally creates an assembly line. Besides Hornady, other very good progressive presses are manufactured by RCBS, Redding, Lee, Dillon Precision and Lyman.

Another consideration will be how many calibers you reload. For each caliber you plan on reloading, you will need a die set and shell plate. I reload over two dozen calibers of rifle and pistol ammunition, so I have made a significant investment in just the dies and shell plates.

Lastly, you will need to consider where you will set up your reloading equipment. I have mine set up on an eight-foot workbench and I wish I had double the space. The area needs to be clean and well lit. You will also need plenty of storage as your reloading equipment and supplies take up a lot of space. I store brass in plastic containers on my table. I have an eight-drawer rolling tool box for my dies, shell plates, new brass, bullets, primers and other tools I use. My finished ammunition is stored in 50 or 100 count plastic cases in a locked storage cabinet. This is also where I store all of my powder – which numbers at least 30 different types.

RCBS Matchmaster Powder Dispenser

The Investment

Minimum Initial Investment for Progressive Reloading

DescriptionCost
Progressive reloading press$450
Dies (for each caliber)$50
Shell plates (for each caliber)$35
Loading manual (for reloading recipes)$30
Dial caliper (to measure overall cartridge length)$40
Electronic powder scale$40
Brass sonic cleaner$125
Case trimmer (if reloading rifle ammo)$90
Miscellaneous tools$100
Supplies (powder, primers, bullets)$175
Approximate Total Cost$1,135

Summary

Based on your initial investment, reloading may not be something which provides you a return on investment. Having shot at least 45,000 rounds over the past 10 years, I have recovered the cost of my investment many times over. But cost should not be the only thing you consider before reloading. If you enjoy working with your hands, you may get a lot of enjoyment sitting at your press rolling your own ammo. It is something your ever-lovable Grey Beard Biker enjoys immensely.

Check out Grey Beard Biker’s YouTube video on reloading:

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ,
The Grey Beard Biker
@GreyBeard_Biker on the Twitter

These days are quite divisive. They never fail to make your ever-lovable Grey Beard Biker take pause – and inventory – of the things which are important to us. Specifically, the 1st and 2nd amendments. Freedom of Speech and the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” are central to the founding and long-term health of the United States. Today, the liberal Mainstream Media (MSM) and many leftist congresspeople would like to take action to restrict both amendments.

First, let’s look at some of the assaults on the 1st Amendment – specifically its clauses which provides us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Assembly. We see blatant disregard for this from the MSM and liberal politicians.

  1. The left is constantly trying to restrict Freedom of Speech. It is done by squashing conservative speech on social platforms where Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are throttling conservative free speech. They restrict who can see our posts and even our search results on Google, Yahoo and Bing. They do not want our message getting out.
  2. Today’s press is highly aligned with liberal and socialist ideologies. When breaking news which does not fit their narrative takes place, you will hardly see a mention of it in print or any major network (NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN Et. Al.) – a good example of which is the recent mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. None of the supposed “unbiased media” mentioned that the shooter was a YUGE supporter of Elizabeth Warren.
  3. Freedom of Assembly is being trampled on constantly by politicians, hate groups (Antifa) and social justice groups like the Women’s March. These groups will counter protest against non-violent assembly of conservatives at every turn. Antifa, specifically, will resort to violence against groups they do not agree with, as witnessed recently in Portland, Oregon.
  4. Liberal legislators continually attack Trump, and his supporters, as being Racist Xenophobes, to try and extinguish our message. This is pure hatred and is used to suppress our voices.

Red Flag Laws Are Harmful to the Second Amendment

The latest feel good “commonsense” gun reform, being proposed regularly, appears to be so-called Red Flag Laws. These are also known as (AKA): Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). They are being positioned as a regulation which the majority of law-abiding gun owners support. This is pure hogwash. Once you understand more about these ridiculous laws, no law-abiding gun owner – especially those who partake in Concealed Carry – would ever support these laws.

Several states have passed ERPOs including Vermont, Washington, Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada, Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii and Florida. What’s most surprising about this list is that several of these states have been considered very Pro-2A:  Nevada, Indiana and Florida. Florida enacted their Red Flag Law in the wake of the Parkland Shooting.

Red Flag Laws = No Due Process

So, what specifically do most of these Red Flag Laws attempt to do? In the event that someone you know considers you a danger to yourself, or others, they can go to a court and seek an ERPO against you. If the judge grants the motion for the ERPO, law enforcement will come to your home, unannounced, and remove all of your guns. This may seem “commonsense,” but it is anything but. The biggest issue with these laws is what talk radio host, Dana Loesch (Dana Radio) calls, “inverted due process.” These ERPOs are granted Ex Parte. This means that you are not able to be there to represent yourself. Hell, you won’t even know it’s going on until they come for your guns. If you were aware this was taking place you would have the opportunity to hire an attorney and defend yourself against what is nothing more than an illegal seizure of your personal property. Making matters worse, in some states, is that an ex-spouse/lover, neighbor, acquaintance or even someone who barely knows you can make such a claim – not just someone very close to you. This is a total perversion of another one of our Bill of Rights: Amendment IV, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

The last pitfall of these laws is that in most cases, besides being “guilty until proven innocent,” you have very limited recourse to repossess your improperly seized property (guns). Most of the states with these laws require you wait a specified amount of time to petition the court to remove the ERPO. Plus, there is a cost to do so, as you will probably have to hire an attorney to represent what should be an inalienable right – the right to keep and bear arms – a right which the 2nd Amendment says, “shall not be infringed.” Obviously, the leftists do not care about this amendment.

Act today. Contact your state, local and Federal legislators and let them know you do not want them to support Red Flag Laws!

Grey Beard Biker
@GreyBeard_Biker on the Twitter

The Grey Beard Biker has written several articles on the National Rifle Association recently. The NRA is still very important to gun owners across the United States, but right now it continues to remain in a state of pure chaos. This needs to be remedied quickly, as we are heading swiftly into the 2020 General Election season.

Controversies Galore at the NRA

In my last article, which you can read HERE, I had outlined the most glaring issues/controversies this once proud organization is dealing with:

  1. Ackerman-McQueen lawsuit
  2. New York Attorney General’s lawsuit
  3. Lawsuit and counter lawsuit with previous president, Oliver North
  4. Termination of NRA-ILA chief, Chris Cox
  5. Shuttering NRA TV
  6. Lavish spending by NRA leadership – especially Wayne LaPierre
  7. Culture of fear within the employee ranks
  8. Underfunded employee pension plan

These all represent trouble on the flanks of the NRA and are inevitably causing members to walk away – which may be the most significant hurdle they face. Additionally, they have lost their focus – which should be exclusively protecting the Second Amendment.

I follow Gun Talk and read an interesting article industry icon Tom Gresham penned last week. This article really sums up what I have been writing about over my past three blog posts on the NRA. It is worth quoting:

Gun Talk News, “Wayne Must Go”

“The leaders at the NRA and I’m talking about YOU, the board of directors, as well as the hired help, have spent years … decades … setting up a system which gives key people massive financial rewards. In my view, it’s at least malfeasance, and it might even be corruption. Monster salaries, private jets, slush funds, insane budgets spent on TV shows, as well as PR and advertising campaigns designed to do nothing more than generate more funds which can be siphoned off for dubious programs…”

“It has greatly jeopardized what most members believe should be the NRA’s core mission – protecting the Second Amendment and our gun rights. In fact, it looks as though the leadership has subverted the core mission into just making themselves rich.”

“LaPierre now is a symbol of this financial meltdown. In short, no matter what is done, if he remains in this post (or has any role at the NRA), it is utterly impossible to restore the trust of the membership.”

The Grey Beard Biker is an Endowment Life Member of the NRA. He also agrees with Tom Gresham. The membership of the NRA cannot regain trust in the organization with LaPierre at the helm. While he may not be singularly responsible for all of the troubles the organization faces today, he is the executive running the ship there. The buck stops with him.

There are some grass roots efforts taking place to right the NRA ship – most notably, Save the 2A. I encourage you to go to their website and sign up for updates from them. Read their list of necessary fixes. If you agree with them, sign and mail their petition right away (mine is in the mail). The first petition is to set minimum attendance requirements for board members and must be received by Save the 2A in the next ten days.

The NRA is a big organization, which used to have deep pockets. Setting minimum attendance requirements for their board of directors is a start. But in the Grey Beard Biker’s opinion, no amount of fixes will right the ship as long as Wayne is running the NRA. It is time to retire, sir.

Grey Beard Biker

Recent Grey Beard Biker NRA Posts:

NRA’s Troubles Continue

Saving the NRA – It’s Up To Us

It’s happening right before our very eyes. America is in a state of decay. What happened to our great country? Our Founding Fathers, nearly 2 1/2 centuries ago, took 13 small British colonies and declared them independent of the British throne. They knew that the throne would consider them traitors and that they may all swing from the nearest tree. But these brave men created the greatest country on the face of the earth. Since then, we cleansed ourself from the shackles of slavery – with a loss of nearly 10% of our men – in the Civil War, fought fascism and Nazism in Europe and became the world’s greatest superpower. The Patriots who founded our country, and those who paid the supreme sacrifice to promote freedom, must be ashamed of what we have become.

Main Stream Media

One need look no further than the current Main Stream Media (MSM) to see the decay. While they claim to be presenting the news, nearly everything they report as “real” news is shrouded in a blanket of ideology. Their ratings have continued to decline over the past decade, but their followers believe what they spew because it validates their own beliefs. This is not journalism – this is the promotion of one political viewpoint over another – which is not American. 

Leftist Politicians

This same MSM provides a platform for politicians they agree with: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, Ilhan Omar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders and all the other leftist politicians. Some of those they are providing a microphone to preach anti-American garbage, anti-Semitic trash and socialist doctrine. These politicians do not hold the same views as the average American and are chipping away at what has made America great for over 200 years.

Their policies promote open borders, expansion of the welfare state, Medicare for All, free secondary education and the slow erosion of our Second Amendment. They cannot win on the battlefield of ideas. Their platform is hollow and revolves around class warfare, racism and redistribution of wealth. Simply put, they have to give things away to receive votes. Unfortunately, the entitlements they promote will come at a punitive cost to the American taxpayer.

Antifa

Antifa is a stain on the great fabric of our country. While peaceful protests and civil disobedience have been key to the advancement of our great nation, Antifa represents neither. Antifa is an acronym for Anti-Fascist and represents a broad militant group. Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as:

“A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Nazism during Adolph Hitler’s formation of the Third Reich has many of the same traits as fascism: nation above its people, centralized autocratic government, a dictatorial leader and suppression of opposition.

Antifa claims to be anti-fascist, often trying to suggest President Donald J. Trump is a fascist, but this is simply not true. Trump is not a fascist. He does not forcibly suppress those who disagree with him. Rather, he calls out his opposition to ensure the people understand what he is dealing with. He is not in charge of an autocratic government. He is the chief executive of a government which still has three distinct branches. Lastly, Trump does not promote the government over the people. He understands that the government is the subject of the people and not the other way around. 

Antifa, on the other hand, is fascist in nearly every way. While their chosen name may lead one to believe they are truly anti-fascist, their actions do not support that position. They are protesting a government in which the people vote their legislators and president into office – far from an autocratic form of government. Unlike in a fascist government, the President of the United States can only serve two terms. Antifa members have become violent against many of those they protest, recently beating up a gay reporter, confronting Pro-Life marchers, attacking Trump supporters and blocking traffic. This is nothing like the civil disobedience Henry David Thoreau promoted from Walden Pond. Lastly, they claim to be against white supremacy but come to their protests behind masks – much like the Ku-Klux-Klan did during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This is unacceptable in a country which was built upon providing its citizens the freedoms enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

Indoctrination of the People

The Democrats having been losing in the arena of ideas since the Ronald Reagan years. Since the election of William Jefferson Clinton as president, this country has been moving more towards a far-left ideology – one drip at a time. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack H. Obama are disciples of the teachings of Saul Alinksky. Alinsky was the first “community organizer” and wrote the book, “Rules for Radicals” – which provides the modern Democrat Party many of the tactics they use today. The current hatchling of Democrat 2020 hopefuls, and their minions in congress, have not mastered all of Alinsky’s Rules, but some of them they have. Grey Beard has graded their mastery of each one:

  1. Power is not what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have: B- (they attempt to show their power, but the majority of Americans still recognize them as weak – especially on the laws of the land)
  2. Never go outside the experience of your people: D– (they are constantly failing here – with the same tired old faces spewing the same old hatred)
  3. Whenever possible, go outside the experience of your enemy: C- (Trump usually has them tongue tied and resorting to the same old talking points)
  4. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon: B+ (Ridicule and class warfare is literally the only thing many of them are accomplished at)
  5. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy: A- (Their people love to see them attack Trump, capitalism and religion)
  6. A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag: F (Their call for impeachment and continued investigations of Russian Collusion is way beyond its expiration date – move on already)
  7. Keep the pressure on: B (One must give them credit – they are trying)
  8. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself: C (most of their plans are still quite terrifying to Patriots)
  9. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition: B (They have been building their organization through societal indoctrination for many years)
  10. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive: B (Medicare for all is a good example of their success – the more moderate Democrats have been slowly coming around to this)
  11. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative: C- (This may be the least understood of Alinsky’s Rules – the newest socialist members are trying to do this by throwing out something really unacceptable – like the Green New Deal – with the more moderate Dems offering a compromise which a short time ago no one would have ever seriously considered – this is perhaps the most dangerous of the Rules)
  12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it: A+ (Credit where credit is due – the Left has built an entire political agenda around attacking Trump and impeaching him)

Grey Beard Biker’s Summary

Do not underestimate the power these far-left ideologues have to fundamentally change our country. For years they have been formulating their tactics and have quietly worked to take over our education system, starting with the most malleable in society: our children. The leftists knew this was a long-term play – sowing the minds of these children would take a great deal of time before bearing fruit. Today’s Millennials represent a bumper crop for the Left. They have been patient, and unfortunately, they have succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation. All of us Patriots need to start taking these young people back. The risk of not doing so is beyond grave.

Grey Beard Biker

This is the last post in the five-part series, Principles of a Self-Defense Claim and deals with Reasonableness. In review, the five critical components to a successful self-defense claim are:

  1. Innocence
  2. Imminence
  3. Proportionality
  4. Avoidance
  5. Reasonableness

If you find yourself in the unfortunate position where you have to defend yourself with lethal force, your continued freedom will depend on whether the police, prosecutors and courts believe all five of these components were properly met. If there is any doubt in their minds, that each one was met, your legal team will have to convince a jury that you did in fact meet them.

Principles of a Self Defense Claim – Reasonableness

Reasonableness

Reasonableness of your actions is judged both objectively and subjectively. In the event that the police turn your case over to the prosecuting attorney, objective reasonableness will primarily be determined by interviews with witnesses, physical evidence – and if the case goes to court – testimony by expert witnesses. Subjective reasonableness is primarily going to be determined by your actions and any statements you make (Hint: a subject of an upcoming article). Let’s examine both of these.

Objective Reasonableness

Objective reasonableness is an imaginary litmus test. Essentially, it implores someone to consider if a reasonable person would make the same decisions and take the same actions you did if in exactly the same situation.

This imaginary person is a law-abiding citizen, does not have anger issues, does not do drugs and never drinks to excess. He/she would be cautious by nature. Average in every way, he/she would not have above average intelligence or super human strength.

When considering objective reasonableness, the police and district attorney may well transfer your physical characteristics to the imaginary person. If you are old, frail, small or handicapped you would likely fear for your life more quickly than a healthy man in his mid-20s. As such, a lower threshold would have to be exceeded before you began to become fearful and the fight-or-flight instinct kicked in – that point in time when you believed the threat was imminent.

In a self-defense case the court may also allow Mr. Reasonable to have specialized knowledge which you possess. A good example would be if you knew the person was extremely violent, unstable or had a reputation as a vicious fighter. If you were to find yourself in a position where he was coming quickly at you with clenched fists, and in an obvious rage, you may believe the threat to be imminent more quickly than if you did not have this specialized knowledge. Having this knowledge transferred to Mr. Reasonable is only fair because a reasonable person with such knowledge would be more likely to react quickly.

Other specialized knowledge, such as your previous understanding of the Tueller Drill (for more information see the article on Imminence) can be passed to Mr. Reasonable – and he, like you – will know that a knife wielding man is an imminent threat at 21 feet – which may not seem reasonable to everyone. But if you were to find yourself in court, you will most likely need to prove that you knew this before you used lethal force. Owning a book which cites the Tueller Drill, with a receipt, would be proof. Attending a self-defense class, prior to the incident, which provided information on the Tueller Drill may well suffice as proof.

If Mr. Reasonable would have taken the same actions you did, you have passed the litmus test for objective reasonableness. But that does not mean you are out of the “proverbial woods” yet.

Subjective Reasonableness

Subjective reasonableness takes into consideration all of the things you did and said. Just because Mr. Reasonable would have acted like you did, from an objective standpoint, if you did not believe you were innocent, there was not an imminent threat or your actions were not proportional, you are at risk of not passing the subjective reasonableness test. You may be wondering, “How would the police or prosecutor know I did not believe this if I did not tell them?” This is where your statement to the police may come into play. If you were to say, “I was not afraid for my life,” or “I could have taken him with my fists,” you are in jeopardy of losing your self-defense claim because there was not an imminent threat and your actions were not proportional to your perception of the threat.

Other things which can cause police and prosecutors to fail your self-defense claim, due to subjective reasonableness, would be running from the scene, hiding from police or tampering with evidence. These actions will immediately cause them to believe you were not the innocent party.

In Closing

In closing, remember that you must be able to prove the following to claim self-defense: you are INNOCENT, you believed there was an IMMINENT threat of death or serious injury, your use of force was PROPORTIONAL, there was no reasonable avenue of AVOIDANCE and a REASONABLE person would have taken the same actions.

Grey Beard Biker

Note: Neither the Grey Beard Biker or Michael are an attorney. While he has been involved in self-defense for many years, this article is provided for informational purposes only. Check with an attorney to understand your state’s laws.

This article was originally published in Thunder Roads Tennessee/Kentucky magazine and is used with permission. It was written by Michael Noirot – a/k/a the Grey Beard Biker.

Other articles in this series can be read by clicking on the following links:

Your whiskery, ever lovable Grey Beard Biker does some of his best thinking early in the morning while sipping his coffee. And while he may not be very talkative early in the morning (just ask the beautiful Miss Tracy), he thinks he is quite wise at this time of the day. This morning, reflecting on last week’s Democrat Presidential Debates, one thing which kept spinning around the cobwebs of his mind was their prophetic calls for “Commonsense Gun Reforms.” This group of 20+ wannabes are so damn predictable. Whether it’s student loan forgiveness, healthcare for all, reparations for the downtrodden, government funded abortions or commonsense gun reform they all spout the same stupid talking points.

But the Grey Beard is getting ahead of himself. Having read the linked article yesterday, on Personal Defense World, he was reminded of the Bullet Points article he wrote for the July issue of Thunder Roads Tennessee/Kentucky magazine. You see, when GBB wrote this article in mid-June, he was obviously being quite prescient about what would be said in last week’s debates. Let’s examine the July 2019 Bullet Points article (reprinted here with permission)….

Second Amendment – Danger On Our Flanks

Hello, fellow bikers. Greetings from middle Tennessee. Today, as I write my monthly article for Thunder Roads Tennessee/Kentucky, I am preparing to take a Father’s Day ride with Miss Tracy. Father’s Day is among my favorite holidays, only being surpassed by Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Thanksgiving. It is a day to reflect on our fathers and grandfathers.

Democrat Candidates 2020 – as written about in Personal Defense World
We won’t say we are coming for your guns! But we are!!

Speaking of reflecting, all of us Second Amendment loving Patriots need to reflect on the current state of political duress facing each of us. We definitely need to be involved in our political process as we are currently facing a serious threat on our flanks. Look no further than the current slate of 23(?) Democrats who have officially announced their candidacy for their party’s presidential nomination. All of these candidates will have a chance over the coming months to state their positions – and all of them have a position on the Second Amendment. Let’s look at some:

Joe Biden’s (D-DE) official position on guns is that he wants universal background checks, bans on “assault rifles” and adoption of finger print activated “smart guns.” While on the stump, in May, he admitted that the “Second Amendment exists,” but it doesn’t mean, “[everyone is] entitled to own a gun.”

Corey Booker (D-NJ) is proposing a national (Federal) gun licensing program which would impose minimum standards for gun ownership across the country. Prospective gun owners would have to apply for a license, and sit for an interview, in much the same way one applies for a passport. Additionally, universal background checks and assault weapon bans are part of Booker’s wish list.

Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) is also promoting far reaching gun regulations including such “common sense” reforms as holding the gun industry responsible for gun violence, banning “military” assault rifles and the establishment of a nationwide gun licensing system.

Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY) is proud of her NRA “F” rating and touting it on her own campaign website, where she calls for passing universal background checks – which would inevitably require national gun registration – closing gun sale loopholes (which don’t exist) and banning assault style weapons.

Kamala Harris (D-CA) is making executive action the centerpiece of her plans on gun control, where she would implement “near universal background checks,” revoking gun manufacturers’ licenses (which they don’t need today) and require anyone selling more than five guns per year to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

John Hickelooper (D-CO) also promotes his NRA “F” rating, promoting a policy on gun reform which will include universal background checks, national gun licensing, raising the national age for gun purchases to 21, restricting magazine capacities, banning all assault rifles and providing Federal grants to states which pass “Red Flag” laws.

Eric Swalwell (D-CA) states that he will no longer turn a blind eye to gun violence, proposing “truly” universal background checks, for guns and ammunition, push states to enact “gun violence restraining orders” and remove all “weapons of war” (code speak for those scary black assault rifles) from our communities, “once and for all.” This created a Twitter firestorm, where Joe Biggs Tweeted, “So basically Swalwell wants a war… You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.” Swalwell, in true gun grabber speak, quickly responded to Biggs, Tweeting, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.” 

Now, this is nothing new for leftist politicians. They have been after our guns for a very long time. But the biggest threat is that they are listening more carefully to a media which is unhinged when it comes to guns. A media which neither understands gun owners, how guns work or the current Federal requirements of background checks. This is setting up a very dangerous dichotomy which blurs what we have today to what their Utopian societal dreams truly are. They cloak most of their proposals in the grossly overused phrase, “common sense gun reform.” But please don’t be fooled by anything any one of these candidates refer to as common sense. They totally prove the adage, “common sense is not so common” today.

The Grey Beard Biker realizes that the General Election of 2020 is still a long way in the future. Do not be lured into thinking their proposals are not an imminent threat. The politicians running to lead our state and Federal governments are attracting growing numbers of supporters who believe government should be larger. That the government should provide the things we have provided ourselves for generations: health care insurance, free college tuition, free abortions and student loan forgiveness. These people also want a country free of any reference to God, a country where free speech is limited to those whom they agree with, a country where the government sanctions killing babies – even after they’re born, a country where everyone – including the dead and illegal aliens – can vote – as long as they vote for them. But most importantly they want a country free of guns – unless you are an ultra-rich celebrity, politician, athlete, philanthropist, or Democrat/Socialist donor. Then you can own guns for the times you leave your walled compound with your armed gestapo. Do not let them take our country, brothers and sisters. Act today. Talk to your children and young people around you. The fight is here. Entertain your Grey Beard Biker as he dissects some of their stupid ideas:

Universal Background Checks

Every time a heinous crime is committed with a firearm – be it a pistol or rifle – the gun grabbers reiterate their call for universal background checks. These anti-freedom politicians never even wait for the victims’ bodies to cool before they step up to a supportive press to call for “commonsense gun reform” – which is followed immediately by a fresh call for universal background checks.

So what would a universal background check bill entail? First, universal background checks would require background checks on sales of firearms between individuals. Today, private sales do not require a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer to perform a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) be run by the FBI before the transfer. With a universal background check bill in place, a father could not give his son a shotgun for Christmas!

What those Leftists proposing universal background checks know, but will never admit, is that universal background checks cannot work without one very critical component: a gun registry. Without the gun registry the government would have no idea who owns which guns. They would have no way to enforce background checks between individuals without the registry.

You must recognize they position new regulations as commonsense, knowing they will have to come back and enact more stringent laws to enforce their simple, commonsense gun reforms. This is their way of slowly moving further to the left, one little commonsense gun reform at a time. It’s kind of like dropping a frog in boiling water. He will jump right out. But if you put him in water and slowly bring it to a boil, the poor frog won’t realize he is the main course until he is well on the way to be cooked. Sooner or later, that dripping faucet will fill a pool. Drip, drip, drip, drip…

Never forget that their ultimate goal is to get rid of all guns. The universal background check will lead to a gun registry which is necessary for them to create their Utopian Society – free of all guns. Without the gun registry, they do not know where the guns are. With it, they know exactly where to send their gestapo to confiscate all of our guns.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)

While not part of every Leftist wannabe president’s platform, they all support Extreme Risk Protection Orders – better known as Red Flag Laws. Several states have already passed such laws: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. No surprise here. These leftist states are all against personal freedom when it comes to the Second Amendment. Designed to temporarily remove guns from someone who poses an immediate threat to themselves or a spouse, these laws may seem “commonsense.” Everyone can agree that someone can suffer a temporary lack of judgment during a breakup, financial crisis or custody fight. This could lead them to do something horrendous which they would never normally do. The problem with these ERPOs is how they are obtained.

ERPOs are obtained by a family member, friend, neighbor or acquaintance going to a judge and asking for the order, Ex Parte. Ex parte means that the person being accused is not present. The judge will make a decision to remove someone’s firearms based solely on testimony of an individual without speaking with the accused being interviewed. This is fraught with pitfalls. What if the person requesting the ERPO is themselves a gun owner and is actually the person planning to use the firearm illegally? By obtaining the Red Flag order, the police will go and remove the only protection the accused has against the person who is a risk, leaving them with no means of protection. Lastly, who decides when the person deemed an Extreme Risk can get their property back. Without equal protection under the law, these ERPOs are dangerous. The Grey Beard Biker could get behind these laws if they offer both parties parity in protection.

Assault Weapon Bans & Restrictions on Magazine Capacities

These two gun grabber proposals do not need a lot of examination from your Grey Beard Biker. First, the scary black assault rifles the leftists propose to either ban or confiscate are no different than the common semi-automatic hunting rifles in gun safes across the country. They want to define them by simple cosmetic accoutrements like pistol grips, forearm stocks or collapsible butt stocks. But, at the end of the day, these two guns operate the same – one bullet fired with each trigger pull. A true assault rifle – or “weapon of war” – has a select fire switch – offering single shot, three round burst or fully automatic fire. These firearms are already highly controlled and have not been used in any mass shootings.

Restrictions on high-capacity magazines are not affective in reducing the body count of a determined madman. With practice, swapping magazines can be quickly done – even in an extreme stress situation. One need just remember the Virginia Tech shooter who used common semi-automatic pistols to kill 33 people! Pushing either of these commonsense gun laws will prove folly and will do nothing to prevent the next mass shooting.

Ammunition Restrictions

Ammo restrictions are something which were nearly unthinkable three years ago. Today, several states have enacted laws which require background checks to purchase ammunition, limits on how much can be purchased, how often purchases can be made and how much ammunition you can possess at one time. The states with the most restrictive ammunition laws are California and New York who require background checks at the point-of-purchase. But other liberal states are not missing the chance to limit your personal freedoms. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey all require ammunition purchasers to pass a background check to obtain a license to buy ammunition. These are prime examples of leftist gun grabbing laws designed to keep law abiding gun owners from exercising their rights, as codified by God and the Second Amendment. The current laws in these states will do absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence.

Interviews with murderers and gangbangers in prison have proven that these people are not buying guns and ammunition legally at a local gun store or big-box retailer. They get their stuff illegally on the street. But, mark Grey Beard Biker’s words, every one of these candidates will support background checks on ammunition sales and limits on how much ammo a person can possess. Swalwell has already come out and said he supports this restriction. In fact, his state, California has already passed such a law. These laws are more about taxing people than making our streets safer.

Grey Beard Biker Recommendations

Ranting about stupid leftist gun grabber proposals is not something Grey Beard will do without offering recommendations which make sense and which will reduce potential body counts. So here are some Grey Beard Biker Approved Commonsense things our legislators can do now:

  1. Enforce current laws regarding FFL background checks and prosecute everyone who lies on form 4473 to attempt an illegal gun purchase – this includes straw purchasers, those who lie about current orders of protection, previous felonies or previous dishonorable discharges from the military
  2. Require every state to immediately report commitments to inpatient mental health facilities, whether they are voluntary or involuntary. These records should be instantly available to the FBI and stored in one FBI database. Currently, at best, these are reported to the NICS system sporadically – or worse yet – not at all!
  3. Require all schools have either SROs, specially trained teachers or armed forces veterans present and fully armed in our schools. It is well documented that those bent on killing large quantities of people stay clear of “gun-free zones.” – not necessarily because they don’t want to die – but because they do not want their death toll diminished because an armed good guy kills them too quickly.
  4. Provide firearms safety training in all public schools – by taking away the curiosity young children have with guns they will learn to respect them and use them safely

Together, legal law abiding gun owners working with their legislators can make our children and innocent people safer in our streets. An armed public, is after all, a polite public and a good guy with a gun is the best protection against a bad guy with a gun.

Molon Labe,
Grey Beard Biker

The Grey Beard Biker loves the “land of the free.” A key tenet to the foundation of our great republic is the Second Amendment. The 2A is not open to negotiation and is very simple in its wording:

Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

With the exception of the Tenth Amendment, our Bill of Rights are centered on the individual. Whether it’s the right to free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the right to a speedy public trial – by an impartial jury or our peers – the Bill of Rights protects the individual from the tyranny of an overarching government.

Tonight, I write about our Second Amendment. Over the decades, politicians have tried to pervert what the true meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” means. Since 1871, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has protected our Second Amendment rights – rights given to us by God, not our government or its leaders. It is, by far, the oldest civil rights organization in our great republic.

For the past 30 years your lovable Grey Beard Biker has been a proud member of the NRA. Today, he is a Lifetime Endowment member. In the grand scheme of things this really do not mean much. The NRA never asks me what I think, rarely checks up on what I am doing – unless it needs money – or does anything besides sending me requests for more donations. But this does not mean they are not doing things to protect my right to “keep and bear arms.”

Unfortunately, over the past several months the NRA has come under scrutiny. It appears, by all things which are being reported, that the NRA has:

  • Tied itself to an unscrupulous company which drained millions of dollars from its coffers;
  • Provided monetary instruments to its board members which may be less than ethical;
  • Provided their Executive VP, Wayne LaPierre, with a golden parachute very few CEOs of major companies could ever hope to negotiate

Current Situation

Today, the NRA finds itself embroiled in lawsuits in New York State which threaten the very existence of this once proud organization. They are at risk of losing their non-profit 501(c)(3) tax designation. This could make them liable to pay taxes, as a for-profit company, for several tax years. Currently, the NRA has less cash reserves to pay back taxes. Making matter worse, they are involved in a civil lawsuit with their longterm partner, Ackerman McQueen, which the NRA claims duped them out of millions of dollars for marketing services. The details of this civil suit are not known, but it is rumored that the NRA spent over $115 million with Ackerman McQueen over a six year period of time. This is serious change, friends.

Save the Second

Today, a grass roots organization is trying to “right the ship” over at the NRA – Save the Second. They are not interested in breaking up the NRA or parceling it out. They are trying to save it from itself. They believe that the organization is out of touch with its members and is drifting rudderless in a storm. On their website, they list five very specific goals:

  1. Reduce the size of its board of directors from 76 to 31
  2. Create term limits for its board members
  3. Require board members to be present for board meetings
  4. Get membership involved in the organization
  5. Focus exclusively on protecting the Second Amendment

The Grey Beard Biker, as a 30 year member of the NRA, fully supports what Save the Second Amendment is doing. The NRA has lost its focus and is at serious risk of becoming insolvent. They rely on the generosity of its members to cover their daily operating costs and their war chest, to fight a serious flank attack from a Leftist assault, is seriously compromised.

Get Involved

Your lovable Grey Beard Biker is asking you to get involved. Go to Save the Second’s website and learn about what they are doing. If you are in a position to support them, donate to the cause. By all means, sign their petitions. With the current political climate in this great country there is no guarantee that any organization can protect the Second Amendment. Over the years, the only organization which has consistently been there to protect what we cherish is the NRA. Let’s all come together and ensure the NRA is there to protect what we value for our generation – and future generations.

Grey Beard Biker

Save the Second

Grey Beard Biker’s last blog post on Principles of Self-Defense dealt with Imminence. This post will deal specifically with Proportionality – the third component of a successful self-defense claim if you use deadly force. In review, here are the five components which must all be answered affirmatively for you to prove you acted in self-defense:

  1. Innocence
  2. Imminence
  3. Proportionality
  4. Avoidance
  5. Reasonableness

From a law enforcement and legal perspective, pulling a gun during a fist fight would not be considered a proportional response. Doing so would fail the third component and would certainly put you at risk of being charged and spending time in prison. But before I get ahead of myself, let’s take a look at weapons that are always considered deadly:

  • Guns and other firearms
  • Bows
  • Crossbows

That is the entire list. So, would it be correct to assume only these projectile weapons are considered deadly? NO! Common items can be used as a contact weapon and be deadly: baseball bats, hammers, clubs, walking canes, bowling balls, bricks, tire irons, etc. Even one’s fists can be used to deadly effect if the attacker is much larger, he’s choking you or you are no longer able to defend yourself. But the use of any of these other weapons would have to clear the AOJ Triad hurdle in order to be considered deadly-force:

  1. Ability – The attacker has the ability to cause death or grave bodily harm
  2. Opportunity – The attacker can get to you with the force to cause death or grave bodily harm
  3. Jeopardy – The attacker intends to do grave harm to you

As an example, if you were having an argument at a softball game with the batter and he poked you in the chest with his bat, he would have ability and opportunity. But unless he intended to attack you violently with it (jeopardy), you could not immediately resort to using deadly force. Your self-defense claim would fail the third leg of the triad.

Now, if you were approached in an alley by a thug carrying the same bat, and he gets in your face, saying he’s going to kill you, the shit-bag has ability, opportunity and there is most certainly jeopardy. In this scenario, your use of deadly force should be considered justified. But only if you are innocent. You cannot be the person who started the altercation, you have to be in a place you are legally allowed to be and the threat to your life has to be imminent.

The last thing which must be considered is escalation of force. If you are arguing with someone and they throw the first punch, you have the right to defend yourself with non-lethal force. Your fists would be the most logical response. But if you are overpowered and the attacker is on top of you, pounding you in the face, this could represent a deadly threat or an attack which could cause grave bodily harm – the amount of force has escalated and you have the should have the right to protect yourself with escalated force. But again, you must be the innocent party.

My son-in-law is a sheriff’s deputy in Florida. He carries roughly 25 pounds of gear on his belt when he is working. His defensive tools include pepper spray, a TASER and his service pistol. Law enforcement officers are trained to use what’s called the “continuum of force.” This would involve going up-and-down the ladder of lethality of their available tools. Their first tool is yelling, “Stop!” This is obviously everyone’s first tool. Next would be pepper spray, then their TASER and lastly their service pistol. Obviously, if they are experiencing an imminent threat from a gun wielding robber, they are not going to start by pulling out their pepper spray or yelling, “Stop!” But if, during a routine traffic stop, the person becomes belligerent, they may well go to the pepper spray and escalate force as necessary. This is a useful illustration because many civilians often carry only their fists and their firearm. And while some of you may carry a knife, as your lovable Grey Beard Biker always does, don’t fall into the potential legal trap of thinking it is considered less lethal than your pistol. If you are in close combat with a thug, pulling your knife is the same a pulling a gun and can certainly be considered an escalation of force. Remember, from a legal perspective, it is just a deadly as your gun.

Darrel Ralph Designs
Keychain Kubotan

So, what other non-lethal weapons should you consider carrying? Pepper spray is the most obvious. It is quite effective and will give you time to separate yourself from the bad guy and call 911. But pulling pepper spray may also be considered an escalation of force if the threat is not imminent. Case law in many states has shown that juries will convict a criminal of aggravated assault if they use pepper spray in the commission of a crime. So, remember, you must always be the innocent party before you do so. Another tool which you might consider is a key chain mounted kubotan. A kubotan is essentially a mini-club and is quite effective at taking the fight out of an attacker if used correctly. But training and speed are essential with such a tool. And again, you will still need to be the innocent party in order to justify your use of a kubotan – and it must be used only when an escalation of force is required.

In summary, you cannot use force that is not proportional to the force an attacker is using against you. During a fight, your attacker may escalate their force against you, and you may escalate proportionally to their force.

Watch for the next Grey Beard Biker blog post on Avoidance!

The Grey Beard Biker

Note: Neither the Grey Beard Biker or Michael are an attorney. While he has been involved in self-defense for many years, this article is provided for informational purposes only. Check with an attorney to understand your state’s laws.

This article was originally published in Thunder Roads Tennessee/Kentucky magazine and is used with permission. It was written by Michael Noirot – a/k/a the Grey Beard Biker.

Other articles in this series can be read by clicking on the following links:

From Grey Beard Biker’s Friends at USA Carry! Like their website!

Greetings, fellow bikers. This article deals with the second critical component of a self-defense claim: Imminence. The first column in this series dealt with Innocence and can be found HERE.

As stated in article one, the use of lethal force is justified if you are acting in self-defense, protecting yourself, your family, friends or another person. But in order for a self-defense claim to be successful, all of these components must be successfully proven:

  1. Innocence
  2. Imminence
  3. Proportionality
  4. Avoidance
  5. Reasonableness

In the event that you have responded to a situation with lethal force, you first need to be the innocent party – meaning you were not the aggressor or provocateur. Without innocence, your claim of self-defense will quickly fall apart. Next, there has to be imminence. A quick Google search of legal websites will lead you to Black’s Law Dictionary. Imminence relates to their discussion of homicide in self-defense and is defined as:

“….immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or protection of the law…. such an appearance of threatened and impending injury as would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense.” – Black’s Law Dictionary

In other words, you have to respond immediately to the threat or risk being seriously maimed, injured, disfigured or killed. Lethal force, or for that matter non-lethal force, used too early, or too late (after the threat is gone), will fail the imminence test.

Massad Ayoob has been training in self-defense principles for years and I have read several of his books, most recently, “Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense.” Mas has written much on building a self-defense case and it might be helpful in our discussion on imminence to bring into play his concept of imminence, which is often referred to as the AOJ Triad: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.

Ability:             Is your attacker able to hurt you?
Opportunity:  Can the attacker get to you?
Jeopardy:        Does the attacker, who has ability and opportunity, intend to use illegal force against you?

I will take a deeper dive into Ability in this series’ next article on proportionality, but it is worth mentioning now that anyone has the ability to hurt you. Be it with their fists, an impact weapon – like a knife or hammer – or with a gun. It is, however, germane to the next leg of the AOJ Triad, opportunity.

Opportunity relates specifically to whether or not the thug can get at you. If you are in your locked car, at a stoplight, and the thug approaches you with nothing more than his fists, yelling he is going to kill you, he does not have the opportunity to get at you. Using lethal force in this scenario will likely fail in a self-defense litmus test. However, if the same thug is coming at you with a large brick in his hand, he may well be able to get to you. The car, in the first scenario, can be an obstacle and obstacles are something you need to use to your advantage.

Let’s consider another scenario. You are walking to your car in a dark parking lot. You are being approached by a person that appears intent on doing you harm. Can you put an obstacle between you and the thug? Perhaps you can get behind a car in the parking lot and use it as a shield against a potential attack? In this scenario, immediately resorting to lethal force on the individual would be a bad idea.

Distance is also a consideration when speaking of opportunity. If the same thug is coming at you with a gun, distance becomes a non-issue since he can reach out to you with hot lead. But if he is brandishing a machete, distance is certainly an opportunity limitation. Granted, he might throw the machete at you, but he is unlikely to hurt you from more than a few yards away. The same holds true with other impact weapons like a hammer of a knife. But at what distance does the hammer or knife wielding thug become a substantial threat?

This is dependent on how quickly you can bring proportional force into play. A good rule of thumb is the Tueller Drill. Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City police department, came up with this drill by measuring how much ground a knife wielding attacker could cover in 1.5 seconds – the time it took an average police officer to un-holster his service pistol and accurately fire two rounds, center mass. Using many volunteers, Tueller came up with a distance of 21 feet. Your Tueller Drill distance will likely be greater than 21 feet since your ability to draw your pistol and fire two rounds accurately may well take longer than 1.5 seconds.

The last leg of the AOJ Triad is the most important – Jeopardy. Does the person intend to use illegal force against you? An armed police officer standing next to you has the ability and opportunity to hurt you. But the AOJ triad would fail because he does not intend to hurt you. However, a thug standing less than 21 feet away from you, brandishing a knife, does possess all of the elements of the AOJ Triad.

In review, if you are the innocent person, and there is an imminent threat of severe injury, or death, you have two of the five components of a self-defense claim.

Watch for the next blog post on Proportionality.

The Grey Beard Biker

Note: Neither the Grey Beard Biker or Michael are an attorney. While he has been involved in self-defense for many years, this article is provided for informational purposes only. Check with an attorney to understand your state’s laws.

This article was originally published in Thunder Roads Tennessee/Kentucky magazine and is used with permission. It was written by Michael Noirot – a/k/a the Grey Beard Biker.

Other articles in this series can be read by clicking on the following links: