Gun Defenses Demand Equal Treatment in Protecting Rights

All Moms should demand this right.
All Moms should demand this right.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Dallas mom shoots man who took her car with kids inside,” Fox 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth reported Thursday.  “Michelle Booker-Hicks … saw a man get into the car with her 2 and 4-year-old sons in the back seat. She jumped back in too, grabbed a gun from her glove box and shot the man in the face to get him to stop.”

Narration for the video accompanying the report says Booker-Hicks saw what was happening ”just minutes after a trip inside a Shell station” and notes “the car was left running.” It’s not unfair at this point to question decision-making that leaves children that young in such a situation, especially with an accessible gun (and lest anyone argue they were in car seats, mine never saw one he couldn’t squirm out of at that age).

As for the gun, this is yet another case where “gun control” laws actually increased the danger because in order to be compliant Booker-Hicks could not keep the gun on her person:

“She doesn’t have a license to carry. However, police say Texas state law allows people to carry guns inside their car even without a license.”

That said, she stopped a bad actor that was doing something he shouldn’t have been doing and endangering her children in the process. If the story went down as related in multiple accounts, the perp has only himself to blame for its outcome, and the latest word is Booker-Hicks probably won’t be prosecuted.

So why, despite marked parallels in circumstances, is Siwatu-Salama Ra in prison? The Michigan woman had a concealed carry permit. She removed her unloaded handgun from her glove box and merely “brandished” it at a neighbor who was crashing her car into Ra’s while Ra’s daughter was playing inside it.

Siwatu-Salama Ra
Siwatu-Salama Ra

Barring heretofore unreported evidence, if the story went down as stated, Ra’s conviction and imprisonment make no sense. Even other-side-of-the-story counterclaims appear more one person's word against the other's, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. While differences in state laws, decisions to charge and prosecute, and jury variables can be cited, the “supreme Law of the Land” exists “to secure the Blessings of Liberty” for all – at least that’s the theory.

There’s a similar third case, one in which the shooter was a Chicago fire official identified for some reason only as “the lieutenant.” He’d left his Jeep running and a 17-year-old got behind the wheel and tried to steal it:

“He drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest … He did not have a gun on him.”

“The lieutenant,” a concealed carry permit holder, “was not charged and he was not disciplined by the department.” Everyone up to the state attorney evidently thinks it was a good shoot and met use of force justification requirements, and a report at the time of the shooting says the young thief “tried to run him over after stealing his car.”

There’s one other consideration from the story that needs to be examined more closely, and that’s the statement from the “concealed carry instructor who … said he would let an armed carjacker take his car:

“You want my car? You can have it and I’ll hand over a (credit) card for gas, too,” he said. “I’m not going to defend a car with a gun, that’s what insurance is for. I’ll get a better one.”

Assuming this was reported accurately, that could end up being horrible advice. There is no “one size fits all” solution and we can find plenty of cases where victims have complied and been murdered anyway. Besides, if someone pulls a weapon on you, he’s not threatening your property he’s threatening your life. To those who advise “Just give them what they want,” it’s reasonable to ask “What if what they want is you?”

And again, unless there’s something about the Ra case that hasn’t been reported, it’s fair to wonder why she has been dealt with so differently.


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 5 thoughts on “Gun Defenses Demand Equal Treatment in Protecting Rights

    1. 1, In the vast majority of states it is not legal to use lethal force to protect property.
      2. Only the politically connected get carry licenses in Chicago, I assume, however, that an investigation supported the claim that the car was being used as a weapon. Firing through an open driver side window and hitting the driver is difficult if someone is trying to run you down, unless you just jumped out of the way a second before firing.
      3. No ethical instructor would recommend that a student use lethal force just to save property.
      4. Property can be expensive but not much portable property is as expensive as a good defense lawyer. Absent a reasonable fear that the thief is also about to cause serious bodily harm to an innocent party, using lethal force is a great way to lose all your belongings in legal costs. Unless of course you are on the local political boss’s Christmas card list.

      1. Well Texas is a state you can defend your property with deadly force.That is the way it should be in all states.Most the criminals would pick up on that law pretty quick.The ones that didn’t would just give the undertaker a little more business.

    2. Stealing a car is a felony in nealry every state, perhaps even all. Many states allow for citizens to use lethal force to stop a felony in progress, and/or a person felling the scene of a felony crime.

      A vehicle is also considered a lethal weapon… someone at the wheel of a car being used as a tool of force, as happened in the Siwatu case, is wielding a elthal weapon, and can be met with lethal force.

      Some states also allow for the use of lethal force to protect property. Last I checked, and very surprisingly, California was one of those states. My own is not.

      Yes, David, you are correct… the use of force to protect lives MUST be given equal protection under the law, and that across this whole land.

      I wonder how differently the newspaper shooting in Maryland would have gone doan had that incredibly brave woman Wendi been granted PERMISSION to have upon her person a handgun…. insteading of charging the dirtbag wielding a twelve bore when all she had was a trash can, perhaps she and half the rest of the crew would yet be breating. HOW CAN I BE that the People of Maryland are denied this basic human right, under colour of law? Did not Maryland as a state retify the Constitutioin when they became a state? WHY are not those perjurous lawmakers behind bars for refusing to abide by their oaths of office?

    3. As I said the first time this was posted. This lady made the opportunity by which a dumbass took advantage of.
      Guns don’t go in glove boxes they stay on you. That’s unless you’re not licensed to CC. Then still, don’t leave keys in the ignition or guns in the glove box with kids in the back.

      She should be charged for neglect because she’s a total moron.

    4. Why hasn’t the NRA or some other gun group check this out?As far as giving anything to a thief as suggested by instructor,he is nuts.Yea there is insurance,but that’s my hard earned money paying for that car and anything else.If anyway possible make the thief pay

    Leave a Comment 5 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *