Rookie cop who killed himself removed clip, left bullet in chamber

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 15, 2007 | Jaxon Van Derbeken,John Coté,

[Shooter 2.5]

However they have proven to be unsafe.

I really doubt that. If Cooper's four rules are followed to the letter, it's impossible to be involved with a negligent discharge.

Who did this time consuming study that proved Cooper's rules were "unsafe"?

[Uri’el-2012]

I really doubt that. If Cooper's four rules are followed to the letter,
it's impossible to be involved with a negligent discharge.

Who did this time consuming study that proved Cooper's rules were "unsafe"?

The NRA.

The study was done by the NRA.

The development of safer training rules was by the NRA's Training Department.

[biscuit jane]

Shame about the cop. Still I thought the same thing; “...he must not have been around guns much...” .

People that respect gun safety don’t go about bragging and showing off — especially at a party.

My own house rule is no gun handling after any amount of
hooch is consumed.

My neighbor accidentally let go a round from his rifle last year. I was just 20 feet away.
He was checking the chamber to see if it was loaded — by pulling the TRIGGER !

[biscuit jane]

accidentally shot himself to death fired his weapon while displaying for a female friend....

---

There goes SFPD only straight cop.

[taxed2death]

That stuff freaks me out. My mom was a Yankee farm girl....and was taught to shoot at age nine. I still have her Remington 22 which is at the top of my “prized possessions”. Now that she is gone...that little rifle is absolutely priceless to me. I would walk away from my damned house before I handed that rifle over to anyone.

[Copernicus]

I am quite familiar with Col. Cooper's rules. They have value for dogfaces and grunts. Which is where they were developed during WWII. Many years ago the NRA used the Cooper rules; His rules proved to be unsafe, the NRA training dept spent years developing safer rules. They are much safer:

Which is exactly why the 76 Million gunowners who take the Second Amendment seriously refuse to join or endorse the NRA.

As their role as America's oldest gun confiscation advocacy group has become completely transparent Americans have moved to other venues for training and education about the 2nd Amendment and firearms use.

My membership will expire at the end of this year, though I believe Col. Cooper was a member of the board up until his death in spite of his disagreements with the organization.

Best regards,

[Uri’el-2012]

Are you familiar with the mission of the NRA since 1871 ?

[Copernicus]

Are you familiar with the mission of the NRA since 1871 ?

Are you familar with the testimony of then NRA President Karl Frederick before Congress in 1934?

Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:

MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.

Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions from the elected officials present that day. The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:

"Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"

Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.

Here is how the NRA's president responded:

"Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought." [emphasis added]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.

A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.

Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:

MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added]

But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.

NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest, Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls -- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi Firearms Act of 1938. But coincidences happen, and this is surely just another weird one.

[Copernicus]

He is an NRA Training Counselor (as am I), so he is doing what he is supposed to do.

We could argue all night about what is a safe direction, but so-called “common sense” comes into play when making that decision.

Behold the 21st Century NRA.

An institution which embraces uncertain subjective language rather than the clear, cogent injunction of Col. Jeff Cooper- "do not cover anything with the muzzle you do not wish to destroy" and is advanced by not one but TWO NRA Training Counselors in a public forum.

The basis for this subjective uncertain language is an unnamed report written by anonymous NRA Training Staff with unlisted credentials.

As I said elsewhere, the track record of the NRA at this point is so clear the 76 million American gunowners who take the 2nd Amendment seriously do not join or endorse the activities of the NRA.

Best regards,

[Titan Magroyne]

Absolutely senseless death. :-(

About 18 years ago, I knew some fellows serving as Camp Guard on a base on Okinawa. (Camp Guard was a TAD function with various base commands sending Marines to serve for a term of 3 months.) An on-duty Squad Sgt excused himself to lunch, removing the armband that denoted his office and handing over his duty belt with holstered .45 to a subordinant Marine on his squad.

It proved too tempting to, ah, “PFC Jones” and another young Marine, as they took turns practicing their quickdraw. Someone decided to “make it real” so PFC Jones racked the slide and then ejected the mag, with the predictable result when he drew and pulled the trigger. Luckily the only victim of this boneheaded move was the floor.

The CG office they were in was at one end of an old barracks converted into odd-sized rooms with thin partition walls. The Sgt of the off-duty squad awakened to the noise and rushed in ask what happened. Silently, they pointed to the spent casing they’d picked up and set on the desk. In the meantime, their SotG remained out of touch on a very extended lunch.

The PTB tried vigorously to pin responsibility for the incident on my friend, the off-duty SotG who rushed to the sound of gunfire in his barracks. Easy target because he happened to be bodily present while the other fellow was not, I suppose. I don’t recall the disposition of that case. I do know there were 2 young Marines who squeaked with every step they took for a long while, heh.