Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Absurd Convictions under Gun Control: How the Public is put at Risk

This .22 rifle is a near identical version of Marlin rifle mentioned in the Joseph Pelleteri "assault weapon" case in New Jersey.  It holds 17 rounds.
This article by Keith Kaplan at didtheyvote.com deserves to be read by every U.S. resident.  It show the insane results of "gun control" laws that are based on fantasy.

The story of Joseph Pelleteri and others like him create one of the biggest obstacles to "commons sense" gun legislation -- the fear that otherwise law abiding citizens will be snared in a law enforcement nightmare.  It is that fear, embodied in the prosecutions of people attempting to navigate a labyrinthine system of regulations that dooms most gun control measures.

Imagine winning a brand new sports car with a V8 engine in a contest hosted by your local police department.  You keep the car in your garage, never driving it, and one day while the cops are at your home on an unrelated issue, they arrest you.  V8's you are informed were made illegal in the time between winning the car and today.  You find it a bit absurd, after all, since the same police arresting you were the ones that gave you the car.  You're less amused when you find out you're sentenced to jail for many years.

This sounds absurd.  Surely, no one would change a law and then arrest you for breaking it.  But for Joseph Pelleteri, it was no joking matter.

Pelleteri, an expert marksman who was once employed as a firearms instructor, won a contest hosted by a police department.  He received, from the police, a legal Marlin semi-automatic rifle that held 17 rounds of ammunition.  Several years later, the State of New Jersey amended N.J.S.A  2C:39-1(w)(4) dealing with firearms and because his rifle held more than 15 rounds, Mr. Pelleteri's rifle was subject to the "assault firearm" ban enacted in 1990.  The decision in his case says that "[w]hen the police recovered the gun from defendant's residence in December 1993, it still had the manufacturer's tags and the owner's manual attached to the trigger guard."

To be clear, Mr. Pelleteri wasn't a criminal before he received this rifle form a police department.  There is no indication that he had committed a crime to bring the attention of the police upon him (it is unclear in the record why police were at his home).  By all accounts, he was an upstanding, law abiding member of society and this rifle, capable of holding 17 rounds was perfectly legal when a police officer gave it to Mr. Pelleteri in the 1980s.  But now, it would now be the cause of his incarceration.

The Judge presiding over his case refused to even inform the jury that Mr. Pelleteri claimed he never read the owners manual and had no idea that the rifle was subject to the "assault firearms" ban and the appellate division affirmed the decision:  "Defendant's failure to inspect the weapon or read the owner's manual to determine whether it fell within the statutory definition was unreasonable as a matter of law. We find no error in the trial judge's refusal to submit the issue to the jury."

The parting words of the Appellate Division give chills to gun owners: "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license."  You can read the decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division in the Pelleteri case here.

If you think this is an isolated incident in the distant past, you haven't been paying attention.  Every time gun laws change and an item which has previously been legal to possess is outlawed (e.g. assault weapons or high capacity magazines), these stories reappear.  And NY made many changes after the Newtown tragedy last year.

More Here

Monday, December 30, 2013

Philippine Gun Ban in Effect for Most of 2013

Small workshop pistol in Danao, Philippines
In 1972, Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator in the Philippines, instituted a nationwide gun ban.   Police went house to house confiscating firearms.  Firearms that were confiscated were never returned.    While the current gun ban is not so draconian, it amounts to a ban on carrying guns outside of the home for most of the year during election years, which occur every three years.

 In 2013, the ban started on January 13, and lasted until June 12. It then started up again on September 28 and ended on November 12. That is 225 days out of a 365 day year. During this period, everyone is subject to searches at numerous checkpoints. In 2010, there were 3,500 checkpoints. In a way, this is a form of New York "Stop and Frisk" for the entire nation of the Philippines.

In 2007, the gun ban only included politicians and their security details. This seems rather strange, when politicians are statistically the ones being targeted by assassins. There was no election gun ban in 2004.

The bans include the carrying of knives and explosives as well as guns, and are supposed to be applied to off duty policemen, soldiers, and government officials. However, different penalties are applied to some groups. They face administrative disciplinary action, up to dismissal from the service. Ordinary citizens face jail time and fines.

Among the arrested gun ban violators were nine cops, eight soldiers and eight government officials, including a town mayor of Abra.

“They will be charged with appropriate criminal cases,” said Mayor.

But for government employees like policemen and soldiers, separate administrative charges will be filed with a maximum penalty of dismissal from the service.

The government claims that the bans are effective in reducing crime. From The Vera Files, a publication of Philippine journalists:

   But since our police data are rarely available and reliable, we just have to trust the statement of no less than President Aquino that the total crime volume went down in 2012. If, indeed, the trend observed by the Philippine National Police is true, gun-related crimes shall likely drop sometime soon. In 2010, when gun ban was strictly imposed, the crime rate incidence fell by nearly 70 percent during the first half of the year compared to the same period in 2009.

To see a 70 percent drop in crime would be quite an achievement, but one that is not particularly believable. The article notes that the police say that owners of registered guns only account for a bit more than two percent of crimes committed with guns in the Philippines.
After all, police data revealed that 1.2 million of loose firearms accounted for 97.7 percent of gun-related offenses in 2009. Read again, almost all gun-related cases are perpetrated by loose firearms. Now, does the success of the election gun ban, at least according to PNP data, merit the enforcement of a year-round total gun ban?

Of course, the same caveat about the reliability of the data applies to these numbers, but it indicates that the police think that legally owned guns are not a large part of crime in the Philippines.
It is estimated that there are roughly equivalent numbers of legal and illegal guns in the Philippines, about 1 million registered rifles and pistols, and 1.2 million unregistered guns. Underground and semi-underground manufacture of guns is thriving in the Philippines, so the number is likely growing rapidly. Citizens who have jumped through all the legal hoops to own and carry guns are not happy about being forbidden to do so when they may need them the most:
The election gun ban practically prevents licensed and responsible gun owners from carrying their defensive weapons during the critical months of the election period. Is it the best way to say thanks to them when most of the time they’re not the ones involved in gun-related offenses? Most likely, the politicians have been given exemptions already. It is doubtful if an election gun ban type could have prevented the New Year’s Eve firing of guns or the rampage in Cavite. Revellers can still fire their weapons from their private areas and drug-crazed people will forget or disregard a gun ban. Perhaps the actual implication of a successful Election Gun Ban is not necessarily the call for a total gun ban, but the call for active policing against gun-related offenses.
A ban that persists for most of the year is not a "temporary" ban.  It has become the norm.  If the government claims that the ban is so effective in reducing crime, then the logical response would be to make the ban permanent.  

It would be just as logical to eliminate the separate gun ban, and simply have heightened security enforcement during the elections.   If there is a serious reduction in crime during the period, it is more likely from the checkpoints than from the ban on carrying legal weapons.  Many would say that it is the age old question:  Who do you trust more, the people or the government?  A healthy society grows trust for both the government and the people.  Allowing people who have gone to the trouble of legally obtaining weapons to maintain their use during troubled times increases trust for both groups.

The Philippines passed a comprehensive new firearms law this year that seems to include at least some positive reforms.  It leaves the election year gun ban in place.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

CA:New gun law steps over 'line in the sand'

  — Gun registration had always seemed like the “line in the sand” — a proposal that would so offend the nation’s gun-rights advocates that they would bring out their full political muscle to stop it. Yet a California law mandating government record-keeping for all new long-gun purchases goes into effect on Jan. 1 and few people even seem to know about it.


The new law also expands the infrastructure for confiscation for other reasons (i.e., after specific types of guns are banned). This is not an unfounded worry. In the 1990s, the state used registration lists to demand that many law-abiding assault-weapons owners relinquish their guns. “Registration has led to confiscation in California,” Michel said. “Registration is leading to confiscation in New York right now.”

Gun-ownership lists raise other fears. Police have lobbied for long-gun registration as a means to promote the safety of police officers by letting them know whether someone may be armed when police go to a house to make an arrest. But civil libertarians worry that police officers may overreact if they gain such information, which can be a big problem given the number of Californians who own shotguns for home defense and rifles for hunting and target practice. (The Department of Justice confirmed that local police agencies have access to these lists.)

“My research into more than a dozen raids that turned out badly is that … the presence of a firearm wires officers into a much higher tendency to shoot,” said Joseph McNamara, the former San Jose police chief and a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “(T)he presence of a legally possessed firearm bought to protect the home may get totally innocent people killed by the police who casually use SWAT for drug search warrants especially if they register.”

Statistics from Canada, which required long-gun registration before abandoning it, find that only a tiny portion (around 4 percent) of such guns used in homicides are registered to those who commit the crimes. So police officials who use ownership lists to “protect” themselves will be gaining a false sense of security given the unlikelihood of criminals to use properly reported guns.

Gun-rights supporters have just introduced an initiative that would include gun rights specifically in the state constitution. The measure would forbid registration, but it’s unclear whether backers can gain sufficient resources to wage a statewide campaign. An ongoing federal case could arguably affect California’s system, also.

FL:Business Owner Accidentaly Shot, Refuses to Press Charges

I think Mr. Pfiester deserves a kudos for this.   Many would have been vindictive.  Not Mr. Pfiester.   He understands that bad things happen.  it can be particularly difficult to be sure that a gun is pointing in a "safe" direction in an urban setting.   It went through three walls before it hit him.  Yes, the discharge was negligent.   Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  There is a world of difference in making the injury whole, and in having a criminal record. 

According to Tom Raulen, Indian River County Sheriff’s Office public information officer, the bullet that passed through Pfiester’s right leg and grazed his left leg, first went through three interior walls in the fitness club.


 Pfiester is reportedly back to work this week teaching classes, though the injury is keeping him from his normal workout routine. Pfiester, who did not press charges, was quoted in a press report saying he considered the man who accidentally shot him to be a friend and an otherwise responsible gun owner.

More Here

NH:Man Bites Cab Driver; Driver Holds Biter at Gunpoint for Police

A Nashua cab driver dealing with a difficult and allegedly violent fare pulled out a handgun and kept the man at bay until police arrived, according to Amherst Police.


Paradise, who is  licensed to carry a concealed weapon, pulled out his handgun during the incident, which happened just before 1 a.m. on Route 101A near Northern Boulevard in Amherst.

More Here

Philippines:New "Temporary" Gun Ban

 Is history repeating itself?  Something similar happened in 1972.

MANILA, Philippines — A 150-day ban on the carrying of firearms outside residences across the Philippines began on Sunday to prevent violence that could erupt during May 13 congressional and local elections in a country awash with weapons and plagued by a history of deadly poll rivalries.
Commission on Elections Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. said the ban, which ends June 12, suspends all permits to carry firearms in public areas and exempts only top officials, on-duty troops and police, and people facing threats. Violators could be jailed up to six years.

Election and police officials staged a march in metropolitan Manila and inspected security checkpoints to dramatize their call for peaceful mid-term elections—an often-futile goal in a country where rivalry for power among old and new political clans has been blamed for electoral violence and fraud in past years.


Police have identified at least 60 privately maintained militias across the country, along with 43 criminal gangs, which could be tapped by candidates in the elections, Sarmiento said, adding that a government crackdown was under way to hunt down and dismantle those groups.

In Maguindanao on Sunday, army troops and police manned checkpoints and staked out bus stations and other crowded public areas, checking people for guns.


An anti-gun group has proposed that the elections firearms ban be made permanent, but Aquino, a known gun enthusiast, has wondered whether such a total gun ban or better law enforcement could deter criminals and gunslingers.

More Here

Mandating Effective Gun Free Zones

Kansas recently passed legislation requiring that local governments that ban the legal carry of concealed weapons in public buildings, do so for people who ignore the law as well.  The logic is simple: If a person is willing to do illegal harm with a weapon, then ignoring a simple sign that forbids people from having weapons on the premises will not be much of a deterrent.  This creates a situation where only those who are willing to ignore the law are armed.  John Lott has noted that all of the public mass shootings since 1950, except one, have been in places where the public is not allowed to carry guns, "Gun Free Zones".    Second amendment supporters often refer to such areas as "Defenseless Victim Zones".

The Kansas response is to require enforcement of "Gun Free Zones" in public buildings.   If a government entity wishes to prevent the public from carrying guns in a public building, they can do so, but they have to put in place security measures such as guards and machines that are capable of detecting weapons, not a simple sign.
Wichita will open most of its public buildings – including libraries, recreational centers, CityArts and the Wichita Art Museum – to people carrying concealed guns under a new state law.

Fearful of lawsuits, the City Council voted 4-2 to allow concealed-carry in all but 16 of 107 city-owned buildings effective Jan. 1
Those who oppose the right of the people to bear arms have also opposed making the "Gun Free Zones" effective.   They claim that the cost is prohibitive.  That is partly the point, to inject reality into the debate.   If you want to be secure from guns, a mere sign is only effective against those who are law abiding.  From kansas.com, Lavonta Williams, a city council member, stated an ideological reason for the ban on legal concealed weapons:
“My thing is the kids,” Williams said. “What are we teaching them? Two wrongs don’t make a right. If you’re saying the outlaws are carrying so we should carry, then two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Many proponents of the measure say that citizens carrying arms is not only a moral right, it is a fundamental human right enumerated in the Constitution.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/12/10/3170875/city-council-to-vote-on-concealed.html#storylink=cpy
Kansas is the first state to put such a law into effect.   Arizona passed a similar measure in 2012, but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it.   Wisconsin considered a similar provision as part of its gun law reform in 2011, but it was ultimately removed during the legislative process.

The primary argument put forward by opponents is that the measure creates a costly burden for those who want to maintain those largely symbolic "Gun Free Zone" signs.   But, the cost only occurs if the signs are kept up.   Then the proponents of "Gun Free Zones" have to show that they are serious about preventing dangerous criminals from having guns in those zones, not primarily interested in disarming armed citizens.

After the attack by Islamic terrorists in Nairobi, Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble noted that open societies have  to make a choice between living with extremely tough security measures, and having an armed citizenry.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
Static defenses, such as these security measures, have generally proved ineffective over the long run.  They are costly to maintain, and can be defeated by dedicated opponents.  They cannot be extended over all of society.  To do so results in a police state or totalitarian system.   They have the advantage, however, of clarifying the reality of the choices.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Sunday, December 29, 2013

OH:Neighbor hold Accused Burglar at Gunpoint

Curtis Stanford, 48, told officers he heard a loud noise come from his neighbor’s home while he was in his bedroom. He said he looked out of the window and saw alleged burglar Darrel Watkins running from the backyard in between his residence and the neighbor’s, Rodriguez wrote.

Stanford stated he then grabbed his gun and a flashlight and met Watkins outside where he ordered him to the ground.

More Here

PA:Judicial Insanity: State Trooper can Carry on Duty, but not off Duty

From pennlive.com, we find the latest bit of judicial folly:
Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation.

When on duty, he can carry a gun.

Yet while off duty, he is barred by law from possessing any firearms, because seven years ago he suffered from deep depression, repeatedly tried to kill himself by taking drugs and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.
This reminds me quite of bit of Dick Heller, of D.C.  v. Heller, who was trusted to carry a gun to guard government buildings in the District of Columbia, but not as a private citizen of the District.   It is the ultimate in trust in the State.  When the man is in the employ of the state, in uniform, he is the ultimate symbol of trustworthiness and training, able to be trusted where no other mortal, because of human failing, may be.   After all, he is an agent of the state.

One second after stopping his duties as an agent of the state (wait, haven't we been told that police officers are "always on duty"?);  he transforms to a normal human being, subject to all the vagaries and error of normal humans, and significantly, no longer able to carry those deadly firearms!

The judge justifies this dubious distinction with this pair of sentences:
It is "rational" for Keyes to still be allowed to have a gun on-duty because then he is under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow troopers, Ford Elliott concluded.

"Were [Keyes] to again fall into a depressive state with suicidal ideation, it would be much more likely to be discovered while he is on-duty and his superiors could then restrict his access to state police firearms," she wrote.
So, is he never left by himself?  What about all his colleagues, who carry all the time?  After all police commit murder more often than those with concealed carry permits.    Does the judge have any facts to show that those who have been found to be sane are more of a threat to others than ordinary police?    The article only mentions Trooper Keyes threatening  himself, never anyone else.

 On duty, he has access to automatic weapons, the radio net, data bases forbidden to ordinary citizens, and can freely go armed into schools and other "gun free zones", but because he carries a radio, and is under the supervision of the state, he is no threat?

In the article the judge says that once involuntarily committed, a person's second amendment rights are gone forever, and can never be restored, as long as grass grows and the sky is blue (I added that last bit).
 "The dangers inherent in the possession of firearms by the mentally ill are manifest," the judge wrote. And while Keyes argued that he is no longer mentally ill, "a present clean bill of health is no guarantee that a relapse is not possible," Ford Eliiott noted.
The twisted reasoning in the above decision makes me wonder about the mental health of President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Dave Workman:Suicide should not be classified as ‘gun violence’

Dave does a good job here.   In Washington, it is legal to commit suicide, as long as it is approved of by the state.

Yesterday’s daring intervention by a Washington State Patrol trooper in an attempted suicide on the East Channel Bridge at Mercer Island and I-90 is yet another reminder that people intent on taking their own lives will find a way, and when they use firearms that should not be classified as “gun violence.”

Lumping suicides together with murder victims to inflate a “victims-of-gun-violence” figure is not simply disingenuous, it is fraud, and it occurs on a national scale. Every time a national gun control advocacy group complains about “30,000 annual gun violence deaths,” they are perpetuating a canard, and they know it.


 Had yesterday’s suicide been successful, would the gun control crowd call that “bridge violence?” It is a legitimate question. According to the state Department of Health, less than half (49 percent) of the 947 suicides in 2010 involved firearms. Twenty-two percent were accomplished with poisons and 19 percent via suffocation (typically suicide by hanging). Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for Washington residents of all ages, and the second leading cause among people ages 15-24, the Health Department said. Don’t forget, Washington is one of a handful of states that allow assisted suicide.

More Here

AL:Homeowner Shoots Intruder in Groin

The homeowner told authorities that when he asked the two men to leave, one of them came toward him and threatened to kill him. That's when the victim told deputies he shot the suspect once in the groin with his rifle. Both suspects managed to flee the scene.

More Here

Some Animals are more equal in Chicago

Second City Cop does an expose of media collusion to protect Sheriff Dart from embarrasment:


Dart Silences Media (UPDATES)

Hey CBS and Mike Krauser? How does it feel to be Dart's bitch? He calls your bosses and you take down an entire article? Did he claim that the threats endangered him and his family, so you caved? Of course, you come from a long line of bullshit artists, like Dan Rather passing off forged documents as "news," so we aren't really surprised.

Thank goodness GoogleCache lives forever. Here's a capture of the article CBS and Dart don't want you to see:
Again, we doubt that Dart was threatened by anyone credible. Ed Burke wasn't, but he still has a gun, too. One set of rules for them, and another for the serfs.

UPDATE: CBS put the article back up around 2:04 this afternoon. They added a paragraph about how Dart has supposedly carried a gun for 7 years, but wouldn't admit it when it was pointed out no one has seen him with a gun during that time frame.

The article also calls Dart a "former lawmaker," meaning he has little (if any) law enforcement experience, but carries a gun simply because he's a sheriff - like an aldercreature who can carry a gun by dint of being an elected official - but possibly without completing the mandatory firearms courses.

And all you peons who want a gun under the Second Amendment and Concealed Carry laws, well, you aren't nearly as qualified as a politician says Dart.

UPDATE II: Guess why the post went back up?
  • I called CBS Chicago about this. Seriously. I'm not joking about this. After an awkward pause after my initial question, the guy said "we realized the story was no longer timely and relevant." He stuck to this explanation even after I told him that I know how the Chicago machine works. What a bunch of bullshit!
The leftist media hates getting caught by playing footsie with the leftist politicians. It gives them hives.

More Fast and Furious Scandal

So, who has more credibility,  Ian Garland, who tells us he was doing what the BATFE  told many other, well documented, dealers to do, or the federal prosecutors, who have already been caught lying.

If not for Ian Garland’s appeal, he would still be sitting in prison. In what appears to be a gross injustice, Garland, who ran a gun shop near El Paso, Texas, was encouraged by ATF officials to sell weapons to “straw purchasers during the failed Operation Fast and Furious,” and then was arrested and thrown in prison for doing what he was told to do by the government.
Thankfully, a federal judge released Garland earlier this month, over the objections of federal prosecutors.

Ian Garland was arrested, along with the town’s mayor, Eddie Espinoza, former Columbus Police Chief Angelo Vega, and former village trustee Blas “Woody” Gutierrez, and many others, who were accused of smuggling guns into Mexico.
The federal government seemed quite keen to arrest everyone in the town of Columbus, New Mexico.

As an aside, former Mayor Eddie Espinoza also won an early release this month for “good behavior,” as reported by Lauren Villagran at the Albuquerque Journal. His current whereabouts were not disclosed by ”officials of the U.S. Marshals office and U.S. Probation office in Albuquerque.”

After sitting in prison for two years, Garland was released about a week ago after a federal judge ruled that federal prosecutors inflated the charges against him, saying that he sold machine guns to straw purchasers. But the weapons Garland sold were legal, and the federal prosecutors even acknowledged that, but they still fought to keep this innocent man in prison! 
Richard A. Serrano of the LA Times reported,
“But his lawyers won him a new sentencing hearing after discrepancies arose because some of the weapons were mislabeled as machine guns. Federal prosecutor Steven R. Spitzer acknowledged the discrepancy, but urged U.S. District Judge Robert C. Brack to keep Garland in prison because he had been “conspiring” with the smugglers in Columbus. Instead, the judge released him.” [emphasis added]
The question begs to be asked. How is it possible that Garland’s legal weapons were “mislabeled as machine guns”? And how is it remotely possible that this “discrepancy” never was revealed during Garland’s trial?

More Here

Saturday, December 28, 2013

TX:Homeowner Shoots, Kills Home Invader

I have been told that the Mayor of Cedar Hill said that he did not blame the homeowner.

Authorities say the shooting occurred on Stoney Creek Drive about midnight when a man attempted to break in through a window.

Detectives at this point don’t “see anything unusual other than the fact that it was a break in and the homeowner shot the person breaking in,” said Cedar Hill spokesman Corky Brown.

More Here

Father Writes of First Range Trip With Son

The thumbs up picture with the closed bolt is his response after firing the his 1st round.

The rifle is his Cooper Firearms Jackson Squirrel Rifle chambered in .17 Mach 2. With a 2.5-8X Leupold VX-II scope that has been re-paralaxed to 50yds. The gun was purchased for him by my father after he was born. It has a custom serial number of his birthday and the scope is engraved with his name.

In addition to being a really nice gun, it is important to our family because of the manufacturer. Cooper Firearms hosts a one-shot competition each year where competitor have one shot to hit a 0.25″ dot at 150 yrds and the closest to the dot wins. My father has won 3 paintings in the competition and a rifle.

When my dad presented the gun to Aiden (he was about 18mos old) we took a photo and as of the SHOT Show last year I was told it is still hanging in the company lobby… even though they have moved facilities.

More Here

Does Exercising the Second Amendment Invalidate the Fourth Amendment?

The Rutherford Institute is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, a case where the lower courts have held that the exercise of the second amendment is cause to invalidate the protection of the fourth amendment.   From the Rutherford Institute:

 WASHINGTON, DC — Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court hears only a small number of cases each year.   Much as I would like to see this case settled by the Supreme Court, the odds make it unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear it.    This  is an important case because of the precedent established.   About half of U.S. households have firearms in them.   If your home can be violently invaded because police have information to believe that you have a firearm in it, then about half the homes in the United States qualify, once any cause for a warrant has been issued.   If a random sampling of homes would show that one of two homes contain a firearm, and if a firearm is sufficient cause to do a violent home invasion as part of the service of a warrant (no knock warrant), then why would a risk adverse police administration risk "officer safety" half the time?   The logic would suggest that every warrant service should be a violent home invasion.

Combine this with registration lists, which anti-rights advocates claim will be used to "protect police officers".    Advocates of the recently abandoned Canadian gun registry claimed that a major use of the registry was to check to see if homes, to be visited by police, held firearms.   Further debate shows that this was not the case, but that does not mean that a registry would not be used that way.  Registration lists are already being used to confiscate firearms in California.

If the police have a list showing that there is a gun in the home, and the presence of a gun in the home is sufficient to justify a "no knock warrant", then being on a gun registration list makes you a potential target  of such a raid.  Given events of the last year in New York, Maryland, and Colorado,  it is easy to believe that you, or a gun you own, could be legislated into a group of either "people  banned from having guns" or "guns that people are not allowed to have".

This adds a twist to the fact that gun registration is gun confiscation, even if it is in slow motion over time.   With the precedent set by this case, gun registration presents a risk of violent home invasion by police.   Second amendment defenders have been saying this for some time, as have some of the more candid opponents of second amendment  freedoms.

Many will note that this is an incremental step on the slide that we are on, degrading all the protections in the Bill of Rights.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch 

Update: From Chief McNamara in California:

 “My research into more than a dozen raids that turned out badly is that … the presence of a firearm wires officers into a much higher tendency to shoot,” said Joseph McNamara, the former San Jose police chief and a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “(T)he presence of a legally possessed firearm bought to protect the home may get totally innocent people killed by the police who casually use SWAT for drug search warrants especially if they register.”

FL:Resident is Wounded in Gunfight, Drives off Invader

A 22-year-old man was shot by an invader who broke into his Tangelo Park home early Thursday, according to the Orange County Sheriff's Office, and authorities suspect the shooting wasn't a random act.


 McMillan encountered the invader in a hallway, and the two exchanged gunfire, deputies said. McMillan was hit in his torso. He was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center, where he was in stable condition.

More Here

Friday, December 27, 2013

AR:Gun Law Questions Sidestepped

Hot Springs Arkansas Act 746 Open Carry Walk

The Harrison City Council was asked about the cities position on Act 746, which seems to have brought Arkansas law in line with the State and Federal constitutions.  The law reformed previous Arkansas law, which made it illegal to carry weapons in Arkansas, with exceptions, to one that made it illegal to carry weapons with the intent to use them illegally.

Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, issued an opinion that the the new law does not allow open carry.   That opinion is dissected here.   The local media in Arkansas is starting to discover the truth about Act 746, but there is considerable resistance to recognizing the effects of the new law.

It appears that a local second amendment supporter, Glenn Britland, has been attempting to determine if the City of Harrison is going to recognize the new law, or is going to continue to suppress the bearing of arms.  He has not had much luck.  First, he asked the City Attorney, Van Younes, if he would be arrested if he carried a gun in the City.  From harrisondaily.com:
Younes said Britland had specifically asked him if he would be arrested in Harrison for carrying a gun.

He said that each case would be handled individually. If an officer cites a citizen for carrying a gun, the citation would go to Younes as city prosecutor and the matter would be handled through normal procedures.
This does not sound much like the rule of law.   If the person charged with enforcing the law essentially says: "It depends", how is someone to know if they are violating the law or not?   After all, this is a pretty simple question.   Glenn Britland is not asking what happens if he points a gun at someone.  He is not asking what happens if he trespasses.   He is trying to find out a simple thing.  If he openly carries a gun, will he be arrested?   Attorney Younes tries to avoid the question by pushing it onto the state:
Younes told the Daily Times that the city technically has no position on Act 746, which is a law passed by the state Legislature. He also said that because it’s a state law it will be up to the state to clarify it, not the city.
But, Younes is in charge of enforcing the law, so he will have to make the decisions on the ground.   

Harrison is a small town of 13,000 people.  HarrisonArkansas a different view, published this in an article six months ago:
Stan Witt, director of the Arkansas State Police, had this to say: “It’s kind of been twisted where that’s construed as open carry: You can just strap a gun on while you’re going down the road, and you can get out and go in a convenience store with your gun whether you have a concealed carry permit or not. That’s not true.” He added that anybody who tries to carry a gun openly in such a circumstance will be arrested.
Since then, numerous open carry marches have been organized by Arkansas Carry.  No one has been arrested during these marches.   It is unclear what Stan Witt, quoted above, would charge someone with in the circumstances that he described.  Perhaps he would charge them with disorderly conduct, as happened many times in Wisconsin while Wisconsin residents were educating the Wisconsin Police about the legality of open carry in that state.

At least one Arkansas prosecutor says that he will not prosecute people for openly carrying firearms.   From the Log Cabin Democrat:
Previously the statute, A.C.A. § 5-73-120, defined the offense of carrying a weapon illegally as having a handgun on their person or in their vehicle “readily available for use with a purpose to employ” the weapon against a person. Altes’ amendment changed this to “’readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ” the weapon against a person.

According to Hiland, the addition of the words “to attempt to unlawfully employ” “fundamentally alters the character and nature of the statute.”
Given the threats made by Stan Witt of Arkansas State Police, and the misdirection by AG McDaniels, it seems reasonable to ask  City  Attorney Younes how he is going to handle things in Harrison.  When Glenn Britland does not obtain any useful information from the City Attorney, he takes his question to the City Council.   But here, again, City Attorney Younes advises the aldermen not to take Britland seriously, and they adjourn without answering his question.
Younes told aldermen that it appeared Britland had a personal agenda and “maybe the city has better things to do.”

Britland responded that it’s always good for government to stand up and take a position, but aldermen moved to adjourn the meeting without further comment.
I can see that a small town Attorney might not want to be on the record one way or another, but that is not what he is being paid for.   People should be able to determine if they will be subject to arrest for a simple act, especially one that seems to be protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.

Here is the Arkansas Constitution on the issue:
Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5
The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.
 So, is City Attorney Younes just trying to stay out of hot water, refusing to do what he is being paid for, or both?   

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Thursday, December 26, 2013

WeaponsMan:Zimmerman Reporting on "Arsenal"

Russell Goldman of ABC News is one of the small army of reporters who maintain cast iron, 24/7 coverage on the doings of America’s only “white hispanic” (media term for a Spanish guy they don’t like!) painter. Goldman and his effete cohort of soi-disant newsmen have been unable to find anything to write about in Benghazi, the ATF’s ongoing and widespread gunwalking, the new war in Sudan (which has already had its first US casualties, a handful of wounded Marines), or the cancellation of millions of insurance policies.
Because they’re as obsessed by Zimmerman as they are by various Kardashians. (Does anybody who does not write for a news outlet give a rat’s rump about those people?) Zimmerman is their Great White Hispanic Whale. He’s their Rosebud. He’s Jodie Foster to their John Hinckley. Since that’s probably the comparison that fits the Russell Goldmans of the world most precisely, Zimmerman is probably wise to arm himself. Goldman:
Zimmerman, 30, whose arsenal was confiscated in November following a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, picked up his four firearms, including a shotgun and an assault rifle from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office in Sanford, Fla., this week.
Sorry, Russ, four guns are not an “arsenal,” but you still didn’t equal CBS News’s rewriting of the famous Texas Ranger motto into “one gun, one arsenal.” Seriously, two rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol? That’s all it takes to make an “arsenal”?

More at WeaponsMan

David Codrea:Vanderboegh defies anti-gun governors with ‘Toys for Totalitarians’

Mike Vanderboegh defies the tyrants.

Adding a Christmas component to his continued defiance of anti-gun edicts by smuggling standard capacity ammunition magazines into states that ban them, citizen journalist, blogger and right to keep and bear arms activist Mike Vanderboegh is daring ban enforcers by sending such magazines to select governors, an update posted Tuesday on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog reports.

“[T] he smart money is betting someone evil-minded is going to take official notice of this little bit of defiance,” Vanderboegh speculates. “That could get dicey.”

Longtime readers of this column recall Vanderboegh is the citizen journalist who first reported on allegations from CleanUpATF -- a website maintained by so-called “dissident” agents to expose bureau waste, abuse, corruption and fraud -- that “walked” weapons from the Fast and Furious operation were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. His groundbreaking work on validating related reports and securing insider sources, pressuring Congress into providing whistleblower protection and conducting formal hearings, and guiding a mostly indifferent or hostile “mainstream media” into independently investigating and then reporting on the story, has been exhaustively documented in a series of Gun Rights Examiner reports beginning with the first of several guides.

“There is much concern among readers about my potential arrest,” Vanderboegh relates about his latest civil disobedience campaign. "’Have you checked whether this is legal?’ is a common question in my emails and phone calls.

“Let's understand one thing,” he continues. “[T]he law, these tyrants have decided, no longer applies to them. As evidenced by Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other scandals we are in the Age of Catch 22 -- they can and will do anything we can't stop them from doing.

More here at Gun Rights Examiner

Daniel Greenfield:Rise of the Mediacracy

It is both heartening and humbling to see a great writer put together the arguments, and even some of the verbage and terminology that I have been pushing for the last 20 years.

Greenfield is a brilliant writer. This is a brilliant essay. I am pleased to say, that in my own way, I have been saying almost exactly the same thing. I like to think that I was one of, if not the first, to use the term “mediacracy”.

Daniel Greenfield does it so much better than I ever could.

 A nation where governments are elected by the people is most vulnerable at the interface between the politicians and the people. The interface is where the people learn what the politicians stand for and where the politicians learn what the people want. The bigger a country gets, the harder it is to pick up on that consensus by stopping by a coffee shop or an auto repair store. That's where the Mediacracy steps in to control the consensus.

 The media is no longer informative, it is conformative. It is not interested in broadcasting events unless it can also script them. It does not want to know what you think, it wants to tell you what to think. The consensus is the voice of the people and the Mediacrats are cutting its throat, dumping its body in a back alley and turning democracy into their own puppet show.

Media bias was over decades ago. The media isn't biased anymore, it's a player, its goal is turn its Fourth Estate into a fourth branch of government, the one that squats below the three branches and blocks their access to the people and blocks the people's access to them. Under the Mediacracy there will still be elections, they will even be mostly free, they just won't matter so long as its upper ranks determine the dialogue on both sides of the media wall.

The Mediacracy isn't playing for peanuts anymore. It's not out to skew a few stories, it's out to take control of the country. In military empires, the military can act as a Praetorian Guard. In political empires, it's the people who control the political conversation who also control the succession.

In 2008, the Mediacracy elevated an Illinois State Senator who had briefly showed up in the Federal Senate to the highest office in the land. They did it even though he had no skills for the job and no serious plan for fixing any of the country's problems. They did it to show that they could. They did it because they wanted to tell a compelling story and inflict radical change on a country that would have never voted for it, if it had not been lied and guilted into making the single worst decision in its entire history.

Propaganda is a powerful weapon and seizing control of the newspapers, radio and television stations is one of the first things that tyrants do. That wasn't supposed to be an issue in a country where anyone could open their own newspaper. But that changed with the transformation of journalism into the media. The media, plural, embraces multiple mediums, most of them expensive and requiring a license and often, government approval.

Two hundreds years ago, a few friends could open a printing press and take on the big behemoths and often did. Today the only place they can do that is on the internet. Radio and television are walled cities controlled by a small number of interlinked corporations that keep merging together. Their staffers come out of carefully controlled environments, where with the pyramid of indoctrination, political gurus pass down their wisdom to professors who program students with its doctrines, to create the Mediacracy.

 More at Sultan Knish (highly recommended)

OH:Intruder held at gunpoint

The resident held Cannon at gunpoint until officers arrived.

Cannon was found to be intoxicated and told officers he believed the residence belonged to an acquaintance of his.

More Here

OR:Wallowa County Passes Second Amendment Protections

I have not been able to access a copy of the actual ordinance.   I have found two different stories as to when it goes into effect.  This story says it goes into effect immediately, while another article, here, says it goes into effect in 30 days.  The article excerpted below was dated two days later, on December 18th.

ENTERPRISE — A Wallowa County ordinance preserving the Second Amendment was unanimously passed Monday during a public meeting at the Wallowa County Fairgrounds’ Cloverleaf Hall.

 Commissioner Paul Castilleja read a five-page draft of the ordinance compiled in part by Chad Nash of Enterprise.


Nash said the ordinance was written by “those of us who want to restore rights that have been taken from us through the adoption of a county ordinance.”

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Kurt Hoffam:"Assault Weapon" bans and Disabled

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that "More disabled people oppose assault-weapon restrictions." The reason for that opposition is that the very same ergonomic features (pistol grip stocks, vertical foregrips, etc.) that the gun ban jihadists (the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for example) demonize as "too lethal" for ownership by mere private citizens can make the difference between a physically disabled person being able to exercise his Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and abject disarmament. From the LA Times article:
"They're banning these weapons for arbitrary reasons — because it has a certain grip or stock — when in reality those are the features that someone with a disability like me needs to operate a firearm," said Scott Ennis, a hemophiliac who started the Connecticut-based disabled firearm-owners group and serves as its president. Like Foti, Ennis suffered joint damage that makes it difficult for him to grip and shoot.
More Here

SC:78-Year-Old Victim Wins Gunfight with Home Invader

The victims, a man and woman, told deputies the suspect tried to force his way into the home at gunpoint, placing a woman who lived at the home in a choke hold.  They added that the woman was able to alert her husband, who confronted the suspect with a gun.


 Coroner Greg Shore said the possible suspect in the home invasion, Rahim Shakur, 39, of Williamston, died of gun shot wounds.  A SLED background check revealed Shakur had a long criminal history that spanned more than half his life, and included charges for violent crimes and drugs.  A personals profile on the site PrisonerLife indicated he was released earlier this year.

More Here

MI: Open Carry Lawsuit; Police Report or Dashcam Video?

Open Carrier With Revolver

Johann Deffert is suing the Grand Rapids Police for their treatment when he was stopped while openly carrying a handgun.  Now, two versions of events are being put forward.   In the official police version, as reported in mlive.com:
“Deffert was alone, and was loudly talking to himself,” Moe wrote. “Based on the area, and Deffert’s unusual behavior, R/O (responding officer) was concerned Deffert may have mental issues and was about to commit a violent crime.
The responding officer then elaborates:
He secured Deffert in handcuffs. He then secured a .40- or .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol with attached flashlight.
“Deffert immediately began stating that he was exercising his right open carry,” Moe wrote. “R/O explained to Deffert, he had that right (to) open carry as long as he was not a felon or had any documented mental orders.
“R/O further explained to Deffert, R/O would release him as soon as R/O checked him in LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network). Deffert stated he had neither. Based on Deffert’s answers and odd demeanor, R/O was not so sure Deffert did not have some psychological issues. Deffert would not elaborate on why he was talking to himself. He had no cell phone on him,” Moe wrote, in a four-paragraph narrative.
The problem is that people who claim to have seen the dashcam video from the officers patrol car say that the video does not support the R/O's report.  From the comments on mlive.com  Tom Lambert , who claims to have seen the dashcam video, writes:
 Tim and I are on the leadership of a group called Michigan Open Carry and are local to the GR area. The plaintiff contacted us after his incident seeking help. We reviewed his case (the video) and sent him to a qualified attorney.

I have tried to be open and honest about who I am, and the facts of this case. If you still do not believe me, I understand, but I feel there is nothing more I can do.
In a later post Tim Beahan writes:
Having reviewed the video, the comments offered by the responding officer are a complete fabrication. I'm looking forward to his impending career change.
Tom Lambert writes:
 "But, his attorney, Steven Dulan said Deffert “repeatedly offered his identification to (police), who refused to retrieve it for several minutes, instead choosing to debate public policy with plaintiff.”"

This is backed up in the video. If the R/O just wanted to "check out" the plaintiff, why did he debate policy with the plaintiff instead of checking him out?

In a separate post:

 "Deffert would not elaborate on why he was talking to himself. He had no cell phone on him"

Both are not true as demonstrated on the video. Perhaps if the R/O had listened to the answers to his questions, this might not have turned out this way.
The dashcam video has not been released to the public.   Deffert's lawyer is said to have the copy that Lambert and Beahan say they saw.

The  Police in Warren, Michigan and Grand Haven have settled  claims with open carriers who sued.   It will be interesting to see if Grand Rapids Michigan does the same.   A common requirement of such a lawsuit is training of the police to respect the second amendment rights of open carriers.   Another common requirement is that plaintiffs are required not to talk about the settlement.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

David Codrea:Piers Morgan shows as much contempt for First Amendment as he does for Second

Entering the “Duck Dynasty” fray after family “patriarch” Phil Robertson explained in a GQ interview his faith-based belief that homosexual acts are sinful, CNN host Piers Morgan posted an opinion to his Twitter account Thursday demonstrating the Second Amendment isn’t the only part of the Bill of Rights he advocates gutting.

“Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots. #PhilRobertson,” Morgan tweeted.
The employment controversy between Robertson and A&E is not a First Amendment issue. It’s a contractual one, invoking specific relevant clauses, and more broadly, one of voluntary association involving private parties with a conflict between the right of one to say what he believes, and the right of the other to not associate with someone they perceive does not represent the image they want to identify with. Fans of the family can, and have, let the network know of their displeasure, with some pledging a boycott, and some sponsors making their support for Robertson and his religious views known. On the other side are groups like GLAAD and their supporters condemning Robertson’s statements. There are even spin-off impacts, such as national restaurant chain Cracker Barrel removing selected “Duck Dynasty”-related merchandise from their gift shops (which in turn resulted in secondary boycott calls and a quick apology).

That all falls within people’s rights. You are free to pick and support your side or to ignore the whole sorry mess.

In Morgan’s fascist world, that choice would be taken from you. Let’s prove that together.

The prefatory clause to his tweet repeats a false claim he made a little over a year ago, and still hasn’t responded to once his utter lack of an educated opinion was demonstrated.

“The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles,” he proclaimed. “Fact.”

Except it’s not a fact. This column dissected a common claim by anti-gun activists that the Founders could not have imagined today’s firearms technology when they wrote the Second Amendment, and proved it without merit, listing technological developments -- some of which had already been around for hundreds of years -- that showed advances in firearms that were known at that time, such as pepperbox revolvers, volley guns, breech loading rifles and the Puckle gun. Of note, the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls, had been in use by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified (be sure to watch the accompanying video for the effect the rifle’s “high capacity magazine” had on discouraging Indian attacks on the Lewis and Clark expedition, and note how the mere presentation of a gun with such capabilities deterred violence).

More Here at Gun Rights Examiner

Scottsdale Gun Club Gift Ideas

Full disclosure:  The owner of Scottsdale Gun Club is related to me, and has credited me with inspiration for his firearms career.  The Club is an incredible facility.   If you are in the area, I recommend that you look at it, even if you are not interested in buying.

Phoenix residents who are looking for fun and exciting events need to look no further than the Scottsdale Gun Club. The Scottsdale Gun Club offers recreational and team-building solutions in the form of the Machine Gun Adventure. Participants always leave with a wide smile imprinted on their faces and lifetime memories are created when shooting 750 rounds per minute in an air-conditioned and modern facility.

The holiday season is a time when many people spend their shopping sessions scrambling for the best idea on what to get their loved ones. The Scottsdale Gun Club offers gift cards for those who don't know what to get for their loved firearms enthusiast. With a massive retail floor, countless rental options, and tons of inventory, loved ones will surely find what they want at the Scottsdale Gun Club.

The Scottsdale Gun Club boasts a vibrant and diverse membership base that take advantage of the many benefits of being a member. These benefits include free range time, discounted prices on select ammunition, a free Machine Gun Adventure on the member's birthday, and the opportunity to bring guests to use the range. Everyone loves sharing holiday pictures, and the firearm enthusiast is no different.

 More Here

Here is a link to the ScottsdaleGunClub.com website

Dave Workman:Kalashnikov dies, let the demonization begin

Earlier today, the inventor of what many consider the most popular rifle in the world – Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov – died following a long illness, and his passing is being reported by news media all over the world, including the Seattle Times, and leave it to the Associated Press to demonize him, just a little.
“Mikhail Kalashnikov,” says reporter Jim Heintz, “started out wanting to make farm equipment, but the harvest he reaped was one of blood as the designer of the AK-47 assault rifle, the world's most popular firearm.

“It was the carnage of World War, when Nazi Germany overran much of the Soviet Union, which altered his course and made his name as well-known for bloodshed as Smith, Wesson and Colt,” the report added.

By comparison, the Washington Post’s extensive obituary, picked up by the Seattle Times, tells the story of a poor Russian kid who was drafted into the Red Army, became a Communist and spearheaded the development of a firearm that is in circulation all over the globe. Alas, and even Kalashnikov knew it, the rifle bearing his name has fallen into some of the most wrong hands on the landscape.

Yet Kalashnikov, who became a Soviet general, once noted in an interview, “I sleep soundly. I created a weapon to defend the motherland. It was not my fault that it was sometimes used where it should not have been. That is the fault of politicians.”

For someone who never lived in the United States, Gen. Kalashnikov could obviously turn a phrase sure to hit a sensitive American nerve.

More Here

WV:Neighbor Shoots One, Holds Another Intruder

LOGAN COUNTY, W.Va. (WSAZ)-- Two men are facing charges after police say they were caught red-handed trying to break into a Logan County home Saturday morning.


“I told them both, just please get on the ground, I’ve got a gun, I'll shoot you, don't try anything just get on the ground until the police get here,” Robbins said.
Robbins said before police could arrive, Walker tried to attack him so he shot Walker in the stomach. Robbins says he's been told he likely will not face charges.

More Here

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Kurt Hoffman: Obama Administration to Ban Shooting on Public Lands

The U.S. News and World Report noted Monday that the Obama administration, perhaps frustrated at its inability to impose yet more restrictive gun regulation through the legislative process, is once again doing everything it can by executive diktat. This time, the infringement on that which shall not be infringed is to come via proposed new regulations barring hunters and target shooters from millions of acres of public land.
Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.
With candor that has likely not endeared him to his superiors, a Department of the Interior official freely admits that the idea here is not to make anyone safer:
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
In other words, vast tracts of land--belonging to we the people--are to become Second Amendment-free zones, and without even the attempt to justify it through the fiction of "public safety," but merely to save timid urban herbivores from "freak[ing] out."

More Here at St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

Calguns:"Assault Weapons" Legal Challenge Amended

Yesterday, counsel for plaintiffs Brendan Richards, Mark Haynie, The Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amended complaint in the case of Haynie, et al. v. Kamala Harris, et al., a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging California’s “Assault Weapons” laws as unconstitutional.

The court filing states that plaintiffs seek “injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants [Kamala Harris and DOJ] that the California Penal Codes and Regulations defining Assault Weapons are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and therefore result in wrongful arrests and seizures of lawfully possessed/owned arms.” The filing also claims that “the unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous definitions of assault weapons and the ongoing risk of arrest and seizure have a chilling effect on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms of ordinary and common design as protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The case stems from a series of unconstitutional arrests and property seizures relating to firearms mis-identified as “assault weapons” by law enforcement. Mr. Richards was himself improperly arrested and had legal firearms seized twice on two difference occasions by two different law enforcement agencies since 2010.

More Here

Monday, December 23, 2013

AL:Woman Shoots Ex-Boyfriend

Being ambushed by a nasty Ex who broke in  and was hiding in the basement.  It sounds like a horror movie, only in reality, this victim is armed, and the weapon is effective.

The victim says she went to her basement to smoke, when she realized that her ex-boyfriend was in the basement. He smashed her phone when she tried to call 911, before chasing her around the basement.

The woman took a gun from her pocket and shot the 34-year-old in the leg. When he fled, he dropped his cell phone, which she used to call 911.

More Here

KS:Clerk Fights Armed Robber, Wins

A 28-year-old man is in jail after a robbery late Thursday night at a convenience store in south Wichita. He fought with a female clerk during the robbery, and he was arrested after his girlfriend reported he had been assaulted at the store.


 When the man demanded money from the safe, the clerk took the gun away from the man and hit him with it. The robber jumped over the counter and the two fought for several minutes. The clerk dragged the robber out of the store and told him to leave. 

More Here

MI:Legally Carry, Ask a Question, Lockdown a School

In an article from wnem.com, when a school volunteer asked if she could open carry a handgun at the school, the school was put into "Modified Lockdown".  The article does not say that she was openly carrying a handgun or if she was carrying concealed, either of which were likely legal (depending on the intricacies of Michigan law) only that she asked that the school allow her to do so.  The video with the story claims that she had a loaded handgun.  The article and the video are vague enough that she might have had a gun in her car, she might have been carrying concealed, she might have been openly carrying,  she might have been asked if she had a gun, or the school authorities might have assumed that she had a gun.  From the article:
Millington Schools Superintendent John Males tells WNEM.com that a woman who is a volunteer with the district went to Kirk Early Elementary and asked to open carry a handgun in the school.
It is what happened next that is truly astounding.  The school was put into "modified lockdown" until the County Prosecutor had determined that the woman was off of school property!   Consider.  School was disrupted simply because a woman asked some authority figure at a school if they could openly carry a handgun there.   The woman is legally allowed to carry with her Michigan Concealed Pistol License (CPL)   Then, the authorities at the school, obsessed with the thought crime of carrying a gun in a school (unless it is by a government sanctioned authority figure) put the school in "Modified Lockdown".   Apparently they are not able to determine if the threat of a person who asked a question has left school property themselves.   They only allow school to resume when the County Prosecutor determines that the person who asked a question, is not on school property.   A poster on opencarry.org claims that they know the woman in question, and that the wnem.com story is full of inaccuracies.  It is a short story.  Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to what the inaccuracies might be. 

Unless there is more to the story, such as a history of mental problems, or threats, in which case one would ask why the woman is allowed to be a volunteer for the school, this is so bizarre as to be something  out of Kafka.  The woman likely knew that she was not doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening, and was simply asking as a courtesy to the school authorities.   People with concealed carry permits tend to be extremely polite.  I know this from having taught concealed carry permit classes in Arizona for over 15 years.

I can understand the school authorities saying "no, we do not want you openly carrying in the school".   Bureaucrats tend to be timid creatures when it comes to the potential for public controversy.   But put the school on "Modified Lockdown"?   I wonder if that is anything like  "Double Secret Probation".

From the article, the school authorities are not releasing any more information.

A poll at the article has the question:

Do you think law-abiding citizens should be allowed to openly carry handguns in schools?

79% if the respondents answered "Yes".

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

LA:Senators Cruz and Vitter, with State Rep. Thompson, Promote Second Amendment

The political battle for second amendment rights is far from over, according to U.S. Senator David Vitter, R-La.

Ways to protect and defend those rights was the center of discussion for Vitter, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and State Representative Jeff Thompson, R-Bossier City, during a live telephone town hall meeting Wednesday night.


“The Second Amendment is a fundamental constitutional right. It’s an individual right to keep and bare arms,” Vitter said. “It is in the original Bill of Rights not because the [nation's] founders were concerned about crime or self defense, but because, fundamentally, the second amendment right is about freedom and liberty.”

Sen. Cruz said Louisiana and Texas “see eye-to-eye” when it comes to gun rights and praised Louisiana delegates for their effort to protect them. He also stressed the importance of not only the national fight, but the state and local efforts as well.

“Texas has a lot in common with Louisiana, one of those being that we cherish our constitutional rights, especially our Second Amendment rights,” Cruz said. “The condition in Washington is incredibly perilous. The Obama administration, in my opinion, is extraordinarily hostile and the most anti-gun administration we’ve ever seen in Washington.”

More Here

AL: Update Shooting may have been self-defense

A man who shot and killed his friend Thursday night said that he fired in self-defense during an argument, investigators said Friday.


 “Based on the claim of self-defense by the suspect, the statements of witnesses at the scene, and the evidence located at the scene, the suspect has not been charged with anything at this time and his name is not being released,” Hart said.

More Here

NM:Intruder Shot

The man appeared to have been an intruder attempting to rob or burglarize a home when he was shot in the torso, Las Cruces police Det. Frank Torres said. 

More Here

WV:WVCDL Files to Render Charleston Law Void

Charleston, WV – The West Virginia Citizens Defense League has filed for an injunction against the City of Charleston in the Kanawha County Circuit Court. Charleston has continued to enforce multiple city ordinances which are in clear violation of state law governing Home Rule cities, made effective July 1 of this year. Under the state law, Charleston’s firearms ordinances are rendered null and void as a condition of participation in the Home Rule Pilot Program.

More Here

Saturday, December 21, 2013

WI:DNR to help fund Shooting Ranges

A nice reversal of the trend to close shooting ranges.

MADISON — More high-quality shooting opportunities for the public are on the way thanks to a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources cost-share grant program for public and private shooting ranges.

The Shooting Range Grant Program is funded by the Wildlife Restoration Grant, also known as the Pittman-Robertson, which is fund supported by a 10 to 11 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition. For the first time in several years, this money has been made available to increase public access to quality, safe shooting opportunities throughout the state and improving both public and private shooting ranges. The DNR is awarding 12 shooting ranges full or partial funding for their projects ranging from $1,500 to $84,000. A total of nearly $280,000 will be spent on all the projects combined.

More Here

National Review: Crazy about Open Carry

Nice to see a mainstream publication writing about open carry.

The University of Texas’s resident “writing and photography” guru, Matt Valentine, has identified for your delectation a vexatious “new craze.”
The worrying trend, Valentine reported yesterday on Salon, is nothing less than the open carrying of firearms, and it “is more dangerous than you think.” Crazy libertarians, you see, have opened up a “new front line in the battle over gun rights and public safety in American culture,” and they are demanding the “liberty to display their guns in public rather than keep them concealed under clothing.”

Valentine’s piece is chock-full of fun predictions. In the course of 2,200 words, he contends that soon all of us “will be affected by seeing guns in our everyday environment,” he cites psychologists who are worried about “the kind of actions people are going to take,” and he expresses concern that “habituating people to guns so that they no longer perceive any threat . . . might not be prudent.” Valentine doesn’t point to any cases of people taking action, of course, but he does run through the science of the thing, which apparently reveals that carrying a gun makes one more aggressive and, also, more likely to think that things that are not guns are in fact guns. The implication is clear, if tumescent: If we introduce guns into American life, the natives will start shooting one another in public.
 Naturally, what Valentine doesn’t do is demonstrate that open carry has any actual effect on crime. Nor, for that matter, does he show that it leads to any real change in human behavior. One would imagine that if there were statistics linking the open carrying of firearms to crime, Valentine would cite them. But he doesn’t. Instead, he relies wholly on theory and prognosis, noting with disrelish that the “real world effects of open carry might soon be tested in the largest lab yet — the state of Texas.” In Texas, “it’s not currently legal to openly carry modern pistols,” Valentine observes correctly. But this might be about to change. And then what might happen . . . ?

 Naturally, what Valentine doesn’t do is demonstrate that open carry has any actual effect on crime. Nor, for that matter, does he show that it leads to any real change in human behavior. One would imagine that if there were statistics linking the open carrying of firearms to crime, Valentine would cite them. But he doesn’t. Instead, he relies wholly on theory and prognosis, noting with disrelish that the “real world effects of open carry might soon be tested in the largest lab yet — the state of Texas.” In Texas, “it’s not currently legal to openly carry modern pistols,” Valentine observes correctly. But this might be about to change. And then what might happen . . . ?

More Here