A hold-up at a Waffle House in North Charleston, S.C., was thwarted when a customer shot the would-be robber. The Post and Courier reports that the suspect was transported to a hospital but succumbed to his injuries. The armed citizen had a concealed-carry permit and is not facing any charges.
An employee at the restaurant said of the shooter, “He saved us, that’s what he did.” An officer on the scene elaborated: “It says something about firearms … for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
The White House has announced that President Barack Obama is considering using his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the range of firearm sales for which background checks are required. The Hill reports the expert opinion that any such action would face significant legal challenges. The proposed executive action would impose the need for a license and background checks on any private individuals who sell a “significant” number of guns in a year, and the administration may have a hard time selling the courts on what a “significant” number looks like.
The president is not able to impose the “universal” background checks sought by so many anti-gunners. NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker explains the administration’s motivation: “They hate guns. They know they can’t get rid of the Second Amendment, so they want to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.”
Anti-Gun “Navy SEAL” Exposed As Fraud
In the past week, Raw Story and The Nation have both published accounts meant to discredit the idea that armed citizens are capable of stopping mass shootings. (This ignores the fact that they demonstrably do stop them.) But as The Truth About Guns reports, both stories relied heavily on the words of so-called Navy SEAL Stephen Benson—who, if he truly exists, appears to have “exaggerated” his credentials.
The fact that no SEAL can be located by that name was not enough to convince either publication to withdraw the original stories, although both edited out Benson’s essential testimony. It just goes to show that anti-gun journalists love to hear evidence that backs up their beliefs, and they tend not to be too discerning about whether said evidence is true.