Saturday, February 28, 2015

Jamaica: Licensed Gun Owner Shoots Intruder armed with Knife



Reports from the Crofts Hill police are that about 9:30 pm, the licensed firearm holder was at home with his common-law wife when a man, armed with a knife, was noticed in a section of the house.

An altercation developed between the licensed firearm holder and the man, during which the assailant was shot.

More Here

Bloggers, get your applications in for Dart "Guns and 'Gun Violence' Workshop"






The above is a screenshot from the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma's call for applications from journalists to attend a "workshop for journalists on covering guns and gun violence". It is from the dartcenter.org website, so you can look for yourself. The workshop specifically includes an invitation for bloggers to apply. From DART:
To help journalists and news organizations in the Southwest improve their reporting on guns and gun violence, the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia Journalism School is organizing a two-day regional workshop May 29 and 30, 2015 for reporters, editors, news directors, photographers, producers, and bloggers.
I have emailed the contact twice, asking rather pointed questions about the list of speakers, and the content. I have not received an answer. I have already sent in my application to attend. I do not expect to be selected. I suspect that this will be a seminar on how to construct propaganda to buttress the political efforts of Michael Bloomberg.  He is the person that is supplying the money.

Do not let that dissuade you from applying. At the minimum, you can show that you were turned down. Perhaps someone who is not a committed disarmist will be able to attend, and report on the proceedings.

The application is a fairly simple process, all done with an email.
From The Dart Center:
To apply, please email programs@dartcenter.org with your resume or CV, full contact information (name, address, city, state, zip, phone number and email address) and a one-page letter of interest that:
  1. Describes how and why this workshop is relevant to you and your work;
  2. Identifies three issues around guns or gun violence of particular interest to you;
  3. Explains a challenge you have encountered in pursuing a story on this topic (or a related one); and
  4. Briefly outlines a possible story you might pursue on the topic.
 I strongly urge my fellow bloggers to apply.  At the minimum, you will be able to brag that you were turned down by The Dart Center.

The event will take place at the end of May.  That is a month and a half later than they originally showed on the screenshot, as you can see.  It may mean that they are not getting many applications.   Applications are to be sent in by 13 April.  That gives you plenty of time.

 Definition of  disarmist 

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Bloomberg Backed Gun Bill Dead in Vermont



A bill  pushed by Everytown for Gun Sense, a Mike Bloomberg funded operation, has floundered against intense grassroots opposition in Vermont.

Vermont has some of the least infringements on second amendment rights in the country.  Vermont always had constitutional carry, with no permit required, for its entire history.  Vermont has always had one of the lowest crime rates in the country.   From burlingtonfreepress.com, a Gannet company:
Supporters of the bill faced strong headwinds, including the opposition of Gov. Peter Shumlin and pushback from Vermont's hunters and police chiefs. The most controversial provision would have required almost all private gun sales to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer and a background check.

"S.31 is not on the table," said Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during a discussion Wednesday morning. "Quite frankly, it's dead."
A commenter on the article, Alex Knight made this victory statement:
  Freedom and individualism has won, tyranny and collectivism has failed. Bloomberg and your minions, GET OUT. And leave Vermonters and their freedoms ALONE!
One of the principle grass roots organizations opposed to the bill was gunownersofVermont.org.  As with most second amendment supporters, they concentrated on facts and logic.  Here is some of the testimony(pdf) that they presented to the legislature, concerning Vermont's stellar record of responsible, unfettered, gun ownership:
There are also millions of firearms in Vermont that have been purchased over the previous 200 years, yet Vermont is consistently the safest state in the nation, and we are comparable to Switzerland, long held to be one of the safest places in the world. The anti-gun crowd would have you believe that there is something wrong with Vermont’s laws that needs to be “fixed”, and that the citizens of Vermont can no longer be trusted. For over 200 years, Vermonters have responsibly owned, traded and used firearms for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense against man and beast, yet now, this centuries old tradition is being challenged by out-of-state voices and money.
 Legislatures are afraid of media campaigns financed by billionaires.  They are subject to being influenced by large campaign donations.  But they fear energized and organized constituents more.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MO: Jury finds Gorse not guilty in self defense case



After deliberating roughly two hours, a Washington County jury found a Cadet man not guilty of charges related to the shooting death of his son-in-law.

Martin Gorse, 49, of Cadet, had been charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the April 29, 2012 shooting death of 31-year-old Ronald Coleman Jr.

The jury, which consisted of 12 women, were given five options in their jury instructions. If jurors didn't find the man guilty of first-degree murder, they had to consider second-degree murder and then voluntary manslaughter, followed by first-degree or second-degree involuntary manslaughter. The jury didn't find him guilty of any of those charges.

More Here

NM: Man Shoots Intruder, Intruder dies



A man living on Stutz Drive in Northeast Albuquerque woke up to a strange noise around 10 a.m. Thursday.

He armed himself with a gun and went to see what it was, which is when he found a man later identified as Robert Bartley crouching in his kitchen with what looked like a knife, he told police. Bartley “came at” him, saying he was going to kill him. So the resident shot and killed Bartley, according to police.


Police investigate after a resident shot and killed a home intruder in northeast Albuquerque Thursday morning.

Bartley, 28, has faced criminal charges in the past, and was found guilty of breaking and entering in 2010, according to online court records.

More Here

KS: No Charges in Self Defense Shootiing



TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW)-- No charges will be filed in last month’s shooting death of a south Topeka man.

(snip)

On Thursday, District Attorney Chad Taylor released a statement that no charges would be filed and that Michael Reeder acted in self defense.

More Here

Friday, February 27, 2015

New Jersey AK-48


I came across this graphic at the excellent forum, freerepublic.com.  It is not very far off of actual New Jersey law.  If you read the actual firearm ban code in New Jersey, almost all airsoft guns (which are perfectly legal in gun adverse Japan) are illegal, and may well be considered "assault weapons".  It shows something about how things are done in New Jersey, that airsoft guns are widely available and common in the stores. 

Even the New Jersey courts have found this part of the law so preposterous that they do not enforce it... unless they want to...

New Jersey gun laws have become a tragic joke.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.Link to Gun Watch

Dog Owner's Lack of Care Results in Violent Death for two Dogs






Animal owners are responsible for their animals and the actions of their animals. Dogs are not people. It is much harder for them to understand property lines and property rights. They have to be taught, and often, restrained. When dogs run free of their owners control, their instincts tend to take over, especially if there are more than one of them. Their instinct pushes them to bark at other animals, chase them, bite them, kill them, and eat them. If there is more than one dog, pack instinct kicks in and they bounce off of one another's behavior like little boys playing "I dare you"; with all their instincts pushing them toward making the kill.

This is why virtually all states have laws that allow owners of livestock to protect their animals from the attacks of free roaming dogs. It is the responsibility of the dog owner to restrain their dog or dogs, and it is their fault if they allow their animals to run free where they become a danger to other animals. Dogs act differently away from their owners than they do with their owners.

In Texas, someone was not responsible enough to restrain their dogs. It is reported that they were running loose and attacked Mr. Conatser's calf, in his barn. Mr. Conatser showed remarkable restraint. He did not kill the dogs. He went to considerable trouble to contact the dog owner and to warn them of horrible consequences to their dogs, if the owner did not do as his responsibility required.

Mr. Conatser's warnings went unheeded. He was forced to shoot two dogs. Dogs that were likely fine pets, when they were around their owner and under their control. But the owner failed in his responsibility to his animals, and now they are dead.

Mr. Conatser could not wait for a third or fourth time to intercept the dogs. very likely his calf would have been dead by then. He did what he had to do. A hard thing, forced on him by the irresponsible act of another.

I feel for him.

Mr. Conatser made a mistake. He posted a picture of the dead dogs on Facebook, no doubt out of frustration and anger that an uncaring person had forced this deed on him. It is clear that he did not want to kill the dogs, or he would have done so the first time they attacked his calf.

Mr Conatser is not the one at fault. The person responsible is the one who failed to restrain their dogs. From cbslocal.com:
Family friend Kevin Forester said Conatser found the dogs inside his barn a couple of days earlier, while they were attacking his calf, and recognized them as belonging to his neighbor.

“So he went over to his neighbor’s and told him that his dogs was getting in his barn and attacking his animals, to please ya know keep ‘em at home, put ‘em on a leash, build a fence, do something,” recalled Forester.

The friend says Conatser told him the neighbor didn’t care. We left messages with neighbors in the area, but haven’t heard back.
Here is the relevant Texas statute:
Sec. 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:

(1) any person witnessing the attack; or

(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.

(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
Dog owners, remember that you are responsible for your animals and their welfare.  They depend on you.  I am a dog person.  I love and understand dogs.  It saddens me when irresponsible owners cause unneeded harm to the animals that depend on them.

Most people understand this and feel sympathy for Mr. Conatser.  But some cannot consider anything more than that Mr. Conatser shot dogs.  The volunteer fire department that Mr. Conatser belongs to has received a lot of emails.  Five out of six are supportive.  But one in six is not.  Mr. Conatser has received death threats from as far as Europe.  Conatser has temporarily withdrawn from the rotation, because of the threats.

Here is a comment from the dailymail.com:
I love animals more than people - however - has anyone ever seen a dog attack farm animals??? Ever seen a dog eat a chicken alive, or worse yet, two dogs attack a cow or calf??? I doubt it, because if you had, you would ASK someone to shoot the dogs - imagine the sound that a normal cow or calf make, now picture two dogs eating that animal from the hoof up, it is horrifying, and NO it isn't like you can run up and shoo away two dogs in the middle of an attack. And yes - labs do attack. These dogs are dead because of the owner that doesn't care if other animals die over his lack of fencing.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Kansas Senate Passes Constitutional Carry



The Kansas Senate has passed SB 45, the bill that moves Kansas into the constitutional carry status of Arkansas, Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont.  If the bill passes the house and is signed by Governor Brownback, a person who can legally own a firearm and who is 21 or over will be able to carry a firearm concealed without fear of prosecution.   The bill, SB 45 had 26 cosponsors and was introduced by the Majority leader, Terry Bruce, of Hutchinson.  The bill passed with an overwhelming, veto proof, bi-partisan margin of 31 to 7. 

The seven members that voted against the bill were: Faust-Goudeau (D), Francisco(D), Hawk(D), Hensley(D), Holland(D), Pettey(D), and Kay Wolf(R).

Two Senators McGinn(R) and Schmidt(R) were present but did not vote.

Two Democrat Senators Haley and Kelly, voted for the bill.

Kansas has been in the forefront of restoring second amendment rights for several years.  In 2010, the state voted to provide greater protection of the right to keep and bear arms in its constitution, with 88% of the vote.  in 2013, Kansas counties were required to do away with gun free zones in public buildings, unless they actually enforced them with metal detectors and armed guards.  In 2013, Kansas reformed their antiquated knife laws.  In 2014, Kansas strengthened its firearms preemption statute, which reinforced open carry rights in the state, and included broad knife preemption law.  The legislature also required that Chief law enforcement officers sign the required forms when people applied to pay the federal tax on short barrelled rifles, shotguns, and gun mufflers.

All of this is quite appropriate, as Kansas is the state where the whole mythology that the second amendment is only a "collective right" that applies to a militia, started.  The Kansas supreme court created the concept out of thin air in1905, as the "Progressive" movement gained cultural power and clout.

Here is what Courthouse News says about SB45

Senate Bill 45 repeals the permit requirement to carry a concealed handgun but "leaves all other regulations and the permitting process intact," Stoneking said. "In essence, this bill simply allows for law-abiding citizens, aged 21 and over, to carry a concealed handgun without having to pay the government for permission."
     S.B. 45 is sponsored by a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate and House.
Here is what the  NRAILA has to say about bill:
 Authored by Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce (R-34), SB 45 recognizes Kansans’ freedom to legally carry a concealed firearm without the burdensome requirement of acquiring a Kansas concealed carry handgun license (CCHL).  This is a necessary update to concealed carry in Kansas, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to better protect themselves and their loved ones.  In Kansas, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, he or she would need to possess a CCHL.
The bill is expected to pass the House, which is in recess until March 4th.  Governor Brownback has not said whether he will sign the bill,  but the senate votes are far more than necessary for a veto override.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Rush Says Obama is Trying to Ban Ammunition



Heard on Rush Limbaugh Show a few minutes ago.  Rush mentioned the ban on  SS109 and M855 ammunition being pushed by the Obama administration.  Rush said that when people began buying ammunition two years ago, the left said that they were kooks.  Now they have been proven to be correct.

Rush did say that the ban was on specific ammunition, but that people should not be fooled.  They want to go after all ammunition, and they have to start someplace.

Rush is not a "gun guy"; but he is a far sighted political thinker, and he can see the incremental strategy used by the disarmists'. 

The first effect of Rush's raising of the  public consciousness will be a run on ammunition sales.   Expect significant increases in short term demand, perhaps lasting for several weeks.

I would not be surprised to see existing stocks of pistol and rifle ammunition to be cleaned out of Wal-Mart for the next month.   Most avid gun culture people have already been aware of the pending ban, and SS109 and M855 have been sold out from Internet and wholesale outlets for a week.

  Definition of  disarmist 

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

David Codrea: Illinois Democrat’s ‘Firearms Registration Act’ may test new paradigm


Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant's acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

More Here

NH: Gun right denied: A cautionary tale about licensing


A Nashua firearms case reveals yet again how local governments can, even unintentionally, violate citizens’ civil rights. It provides good reason to support a legal change being contemplated in Concord.


In 1998, Greg DuPont had been convicted in Massachusetts of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor. Though a misdemeanor, the maximum sentence was 2.5 years, which resulted in a loss of DuPont's right to carry a firearm. In 2005, he appealed to the Massachusetts Firearms Licensing Review Board, which deemed him “suitable” to carry a firearm and restored that right to him.

More Here

David Codrea: Federal agents 'catch and release' open carry activist in Washington



Washington State liberty activist Anthony Bosworth was arrested Wednesday outside a federal building for openly carrying a firearm, an announcement on Bosworth’s Facebook page reports. Within hours, he had been released with no criminal charges, his wife informed supporters.

Liberty advocate Kit Lange has fleshed out further details of the arrest on the website for The Patrick Henry Society. The “co-organizer of Arms Expo 2015 was arrested this morning outside the federal courthouse in Spokane as he attended a states’ rights rally with his family,” Lange reports.

Bosworth was arrested in front of his wife and children by agents for the Department of Homeland Security, who “claimed that Bosworth was in violation of federal law by open carrying a firearm on federal property.” That’s in spite of the reported fact that “The sign on the building states that firearms are not allowed inside the building, but makes no mention of the outside grounds, where Bosworth was standing.”

More Here

WI: Bill to Reform Handgun Waiting Period in Play




Back in 1976, when there was no Internet, the fairness doctrine muzzled free speech, and the Media was celebrating their power to overthrow a President, Wisconsin passed a requirement that people purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers had to wait 48 hours to take possession of them.

"Waiting periods" were another trendy law called for by a media culture intent on banning handgun possession from the public.  There had been waiting periods in California for a number of years.  The law was based on a dubious theory that I call the "Progressive Elite" theory of homicide.  The idea was, that a person, in a fit of rage, would buy a handgun to commit murder.  The waiting period was supposed to give a person time to "cool off" before they did the evil deed.

It never made any sense.  The idea that someone, in an emotional fit, would go to a gun store, pay for a handgun, purchase it, then go and commit murder with it is a fantasy.  If a violent person is in an emotional rage, they use whatever is at hand.  The vast majority of murderers already have criminal records, and are not allowed to buy guns from federal dealers.
The law did not slow down anyone from buying a rifle or a shotgun.   It is preposterous to believe that someone intent on murder would pass up a cheaper rifle or shotgun if a handgun were denied them. 

To add insult to anyone with common sense, the law made no differentiation between someone who already had a gun, and someone who did not.   What is the point of denying a gun to someone, for 48 hours, when they already own a gun safe full of them?   A federal court has acknowledged this.  California's extreme waiting period, which had crept from overnight to 15 days, and was belatedly reduced to 10 days, was struck down as unconstitutional for people who already own guns.   The judge in the case noted that there is no evidence that "waiting periods" had any benefit for people who already owned firearms. 

John Lott studied the effect of waiting periods.  He did not find any reduction in crime rates associated with them (page 20, More Guns Less Crime, Third Edition). 

The real effect of waiting periods is to make it harder for ordinary people to exercise their rights.  It is a clear infringement to delay the exercise of a right.  I suffered under the insane 15 day waiting period in California.  Handgun purchases became much more difficult.  I was working as a military game warden as an extra duty, and was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army.  I found a rare and desirable handgun (Colt Python 6 inch) in a shop a 80 miles away.  I had to pay for the Python, then wait two weeks, then make the 160 mile round trip to pick up the firearm.   The real effect of the law was this: it make it harder for people to exercise their rights, and it chilled the exercise of the second amendment.  I suspect that was the real intent.

The Wisconsin legislature has taken notice of the futility and costs of the silly waiting period law.  They probably noticed the federal court ruling in California.  A bill, AB49, has been introduced to eliminate the counterproductive waiting period.  The bill has wide support, with 32 co-sponsors in the Assembly.   A list of people on the committee that will be hearing the bill on February 26th, with contact information, is available at the armedbadger.com.

From AB49:

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau  
Current law provides that a federally licensed firearms dealer must request the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct a background check of a prospective purchaser before the dealer may transfer a handgun after a sale. Current law also requires the firearms dealer to wait 48 hours after receiving notice that DOJ received the request for a background check, without receiving notice that state or federal law prohibits the purchaser from possessing a firearm, before transferringthe handgun to the purchaser. This bill eliminates the 48-hour waiting period. Under this bill, the dealer may transfer the handgun immediately after receiving notice from DOJ that the background check indicates that the purchaser is not prohibited from possessing a firearm.
There are 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly.   I counted 36 Democrat members of the Assembly.   There appear to be 33 Senate seats, with on vacancy.  14 of the 33 senators are Democrats, 19 are Republicans, with a Republican being elected to fill a vacancy this month.


©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


Thursday, February 26, 2015

MI: Officer's Wife Shoots Home Invader (Schoolcraft shooting)


According to investigators, Palmer ended up in the living room and the woman yelled at him to get out of her house at least a couple of times while she was standing on the landing of some stairs in her home.

Matyas said Palmer looked at the woman and began walking toward the stairs, which prompted the woman to fire one shot that struck Palmer in the shoulder.

More Here

Dave Workman: Left’s hypocrisy shows in move by I-594 backers to join lawsuit



Readers of today’s Seattle Times coverage of yesterday’s motion by backers of Initiative 594 to intervene as defendants in a federal lawsuit challenging the measure - a story that broke in this column - are exchanging barbs but one remark brings attention to the left’s hypocrisy about legal action to overturn a voter-passed measure.

Said one reader, identified as “squirl033,” “Funny how the liberal gun-ban crowd complains when supporters of the Constitution do the same thing liberals do when they don’t get THEIR way... how many times have liberals, unable to get their radical agenda passed by lawmakers, tried to use the courts to impose their misbegotten ideas on the rest of us? and (sic) now the hypocrites whine because the shoe is on the other foot...”

When initiative guru Tim Eyman pushed through a measure to require a "supermajority" vote in the Legislature in order to raise taxes, the Vancouver Columbian covered a lawsuit filed in King County to overturn the law. That action was filed by the league of Education Voters and the Washington Education Association, along with a dozen lawmakers including Seattle Democrat Jamie Pedersen and Vancouver Democrat Jim Moeller. Apparently, it all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

 More Here

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Arizona Senator, Dr. Kelli Ward, acts to Remove Obsolete Weapons Bans


Arizona state Senator, Dr. Kelli Ward, added an amendment to a bill on restoration of civil rights.  The amendment would remove several obsolete and arcane weapons bans.  The bill, SB 1460, would add second amendment rights to civil rights that are restored when a person who had been convicted of a felony petitions a court for restoration of their rights.  From havasunews.com:
Her amendment to SB 1460 legalizes devices "made or adapted to muzzle the report of a firearm.'' Also gone would be prohibitions against any rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches, with no new minimum in its place.

Both can be legally possessed under federal law. But buyers must go through a more-intensive screening than the one required to purchase just any weapon.

And while she was at it, Ward got senators to provide preliminary approval to "nunchucks,'' essentially two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods connected together to be used as a weapon.
The amendment would remove state bans on short barreled rifles and shotguns, on gun mufflers, and on nun-chucks.   There never was much logic to the bans.  Short barreled rifles and shotguns are essentially pistols made from rifles or shotguns.  Rifles, shotguns and pistols are all protected by the second amendment and the Arizona state constitution.

The ban on intermediate sized firearms originated in Michigan in 1931 after the state required licensing of all pistols.   It made sense if you were attempting to keep pistols out of the hands of black people, as many have suggested was the intent of pistol licensing in Michigan.  What would be the point of requiring people to ask permission to purchase a pistol, when they could buy a shotgun without permission, and turn it into a pistol in 15 minutes, with a hacksaw?

The federal government aped the ban in 1932, when it attempted to make pistols illegal for most citizens.  The ban on pistols failed, but the ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns made it into law, along with a ban on gun mufflers and machine guns.  No reason was ever given for the ban on gun mufflers, which are almost unrestricted in most of Europe.  Arizona adopted the federal ban, nearly verbatim, some years later.  I have not found a reason, but it was likely to protect the federal ban from court challenges.  If a person was charged under state law, they did not have standing to challenge the federal law.  That changed with the McDonald case that incorporated the second amendment to the states.  From a recent federal court case:
 Classifying one particular device as a "firearm silencer" is a relatively unimportant question in the grand scheme of federal firearm regulations. Indeed, it is difficult to determine what exactly Congress was concerned about in deciding to regulate silencers at the federal level.  See, e.g., P. Clark, Criminal  Use of Firearm Silencers, 8 W. CRIM. REVIEW 44, 48 (2007) ("The  1934  congressional debates [over what became the National Firearms Act] provide no explanation about why silencers were licensed."). In other words, the stakes here are low. This weighs against Chevron deference.
The ban on nun-chucks is even less logical.  It is a ban on two sticks joined by a rope or chain!  That ban likely came about as a result of the kung-fu movies in the 1980's.  It would not be the first time a ban was the result of fictional drama and hysterical overreaction.   Switchblade knives were banned from interstate commerce in 1958.   The ban was the result of yellow journalism and the play, West Side Story.  Arizona had the sense to avoid a state ban on knives that are easily opened with one hand.

People talk about having too many silly laws, about how innocent people are often caught up and prosecuted under laws that should never have been passed in the first place.

It is nice to see the Arizona legislature clearing out some dead wood.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

PA: Homiciede Charge Dismissed at Preliminary hearing

Self defense was claimed.

Homicide charges against Togi’s Sub Shop owner Stephen Stidd were dismissed at a preliminary hearing Tuesday before District Judge Dominic Cercone.

Stidd was arrested on allegations he shot and killed his son-in-law, Melvin Bizzarro, in a parking lot behind Togi’s Family Restaurant, next door to the sub shop.

More Here


No federal charges over Trayvon Martin death


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, the former neighbourhood watch volunteer who fatally shot unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin in a 2012 confrontation, will not face federal charges, the US Justice Department has said.

The decision resolves a case that focused on self-defence gun laws and became a flashpoint in the national conversation about race two years before the Ferguson, Missouri, police shooting.

Zimmerman, who is white, has said he acted in self-defence when he shot the 17-year-old Martin during a confrontation inside a gated community in Florida, just outside Orlando. Martin, who was black, was unarmed when he was killed.

Once Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder by a state jury in July 2013, Martin’s family turned to the federal investigation in hopes that he would be held accountable for the shooting.

The probe focused on whether the killing amounted to a federal civil rights violation, which would have required proof that it was motivated by racial animosity. Although Martin’s parents have said Zimmerman initiated the fight and racially profiled Martin, the Justice Department said there was not enough evidence to bring federal civil rights charges, which would have required proof that the killing was motivated by racial animosity.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/no-federal-charges-for-over-trayvon-martin-death/story-e6frg6so-1227237959215

NC: Man Shot in Catawba County Identified



CATAWBA COUNTY, N.C. —

Catawba County deputies said a man shot an intruder in his home north of Claremont on Monday.

Deputies identified the intruder as Vernon Dixon.

The homeowner was asleep upstairs when he heard a noise downstairs, officials said. He grabbed a shotgun and went to investigate.

More Here

TX: Man outdraws Intruder



Sgt. Brian Miller with Austin police’s Homicide Unit said Castle Doctrine should apply in the killing of 26-year-old Ray Anthony Arredondo. A resident of a North Austin apartment shot and killed Arredondo after he broke into the tenant’s home and threatened him with a gun.
More Here

Dave Workman: Liberal ‘lies’ certainly must cover the Second Amendment debate



Today’s Town Hall online entries include an essay by Kurt Schlicter that posits that liberals lie about everything, and while he points to subjects ranging from global warming to illegal immigration and terrorism, he overlooks one subject completely: Guns and the Second Amendment.

Schlicter could easily have done an entire column on the mountain of canards launched by liberals against the right to keep and bear arms, in Washington State during the Initiative 594 campaign, and across the country during every effort to erode the individual right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many liberals cling to the myth that the Second Amendment applies only to service in state militias, as if the Supreme Court had not twice in the last decade ruled just the opposite.

By no small coincidence, Schlicter’s column appears the day after Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson warned of possible terrorist attacks at shopping malls, specifically the Mall of America in Minnesota. He advised people to be “particularly vigilant.”
More Here

CA: Homeowner wins Gunfight with Three Invaders



Police say officers were called to a home on Acacia Lane at 12:49 a.m. after hearing reports of a home invasion robbery. According to the victim, three armed men tried to force their way into the home. The victim then fired several shots at the suspects, hitting two of them.
More Here

Five Rounds Standard issue for a U.S. Army Guard?


I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years.  During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition.   My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won.  It is titled "The Wing".  In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines.  He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them.  He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine.  In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand.  They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.

If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised.  I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them.  It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.

The reason that my curiosity is aroused is that my experience has been far different.  As this was a commercially produced video made in cooperation with the military, the number of magazines may have been exaggerated for dramatic effect, disinformation purposes, or operational security.

My first experience with ammunition issued to guards was in California, six years earlier than the video.  I had been assigned extra duty as a military game warden on the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation.   I was not issued a weapon, but carried my own, an Argentine Ballister Molina .45 that accepted Colt magazines.   It was a decent pistol, and did not have the grip safety of the Colt 1911.  My partner carried a model 19 Smith & Wesson .357.  We both carried them fully loaded with extra ammunition.

We had been briefed about a potential threat.  A tip had been received that elements of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) were considering a raid on an Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) somewhere in California.  We received a report of shots being fired behind the ASP, and took our Jeep to investigate.

We did not find anything.  The way back around the ASP was mountainous and long, so we decided to short cut back toward the headquarters area through the ASP.   The guard stopped us with a hand signal.   We stopped.  He pawed at his shirt pocket.  We moved forward.  He stopped us, and moved back the distance that we had moved forward.  He pawed at his pocket; we moved forward.  Everything was repeated.  Finally, we got out of the Jeep, he made it be known that he needed to see ID.  We tossed it to him.  He wanted to maintain distance.  After verification, he let us pass through the ASP.

I was curious about the pocket pawing, and asked about it.  It turned out that the guards were issued one .45 magazine with five rounds in it, and it was to be kept buttoned in the shirt pocket.  Very Barney Fife.  Everyone that I talked to thought it was a stupid policy.

The next experience was in Panama, at the Rodman ASP, 1985-89.  I do not think the guards there were Marines; they might have been Army, Air Force, or Navy.  For some reason, Air Force comes to mind.  They were allowed one magazine for their M16s.   Trouble with Noriega was heating up prior to the U.S. Invasion (Operation Just Cause), after a drunken Noriega had declared war in a Panamanian Television program.  It was not clear that he intended to declare war; but he clearly said that Panama was in a state of war with the United States.

At Rodman, the guard's issued magazine and five rounds were to be kept in a magazine pouch.  If a guard did not have all five rounds at the end of his shift, the entire company was turned out to hunt for the missing round.   Guards were confronted by armed poachers several times.   One SOF member (almost certainly a SEAL) was killed by a poacher while training on a night patrol at Ft. Sherman, while I was there, but the policy did not change until the Marines took over security in the face of growing Noriega regime hostility.

There have been other instances in which U.S. military security personnel were not allowed to have loaded weapons, or allowed only limited ammunition in the face of a deadly threat.   The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was one, others have been mentioned in the news.

I would like to know this: What experience did you have with ammunition issued to U.S. military forces on guard duty; and were you issued more than five rounds of ammunition?

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NC: Catawba County Sheriff Coy Reid Supports armed Defense of Home


A homeowner shot an intruder in North Carolina on Monday, February 23, 2015.  An accomplice escaped.   The pair broke in through a basement window, then broke down a door to gain access to the house.  The homeowner called 911.  He armed himself with a 12 gauge shotgun.  When the intruders kicked open the basement door and approached him in a hallway, the homeowner shot one once in the chest.  The intruder died at the scene. 

The Sheriff, Coy Reid, had some advice for people who would consider breaking into homes.   From hickoryrecord.com:
“The only thing I could advise these people out here breaking into peoples’ homes,” Reid said, “(is) if they’re doing it for drug habit, they need to break in on a drug dealer.
“It’s a whole lot safer.”
Another statement from Sheriff Reid did not make the print article.   From the video:
"You have a right to defend your property when someone breaks in the home on you.  You do not know if these people are coming in to steal property or are coming in to cause harm to you or your family."
Sheriff Reid also said that when they catch the accomplice, the accomplice will be charged with murder under North Carolina's felony murder rule.  Most states have some variation of this rule.  In essence, it says that if you are knowingly involved in a felony, in which someone dies as a result of the commission of the felony, you can be charged with homicide for that death. From the legal-dictionary:
A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.
Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.
The felony-murder rule originated in England under the Common Law. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.
Here is North Carolina's felony murder rule, in bold.  From ncfelonymurder.org:

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000, except that any such person who was under 17 years of age at the time of the murder shall be punished with imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole.
Burglary is one of the offenses mentioned, so the accomplice in this case may face life in prison.    But the phrase "shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration"  leaves significant room for interpretation.  You would have to know North Carolina case law to make a prediction as to whether the rule would apply to this case.

Sheriff Reid joins the growing number of law enforcement officials who support people defending themselves and their homes.   Even big city police chiefs like Detroit's Chief Craig and urban county Sheriff's such as Milwaukee County's Sheriff Clarke are vocally supporting the right of armed self defense.


©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

SC: Woman Shoots, Kills Man found in home



Coroner Gary Watts says Jermaine Johnson, 33, of Columbia, died from several gunshot wounds to the chest.

Based on preliminary information, police say Johnson entered a woman's home and a fight occurred when she arrived home. During the fight, the woman allegedly shot the man.

More Here

AR: 'Controversy' about Constitutional Carry Over


The questions about whether Arkansas is a constitutional carry state are over.  The result was never in any real doubt.  On April 4th, 2013, the Governor of Arkansas signed Act 746.  The law clarified a definition in Arkansas law, that had been abused over the years.  The change likely returned the law to its original meaning.  I wrote about it on 25 April. I wrote:
This change clarifies the meaning of the law to what was likely the original intent; that a person may not carry a weapon with the intent of using it for unlawful purposes. There does not appear to be other Arkansas law that forbids the carrying of weapons (except in certain named locations). Therefore it appears that Arkansas will have Constitutional carry. 
 The Democrat Arkansas Attorney General issued an opinion that muddied the waters.   A good dissection of it is here:
When issuing opinions on gun control laws, AG McDaniel will always react consistently; if the question can be used to smother out gun rights, he will do his best to do so. If McDaniel cannot restrict gun rights with an opinion, he will either refuse to give an answer or will muddy up the opinion so as to leave many more questions unanswered, as he did Monday. For decades, gun owners and law enforcement officers in Arkansas have been very confused as to how to interpret and follow the state’s gun control laws, and Dustin McDaniel uses his anti-self defense tactics to keep citizens confused and to restrict the exercising of their rights
But AG McDaniel's tactic did not work.  Second Amendment activists in Arkansas started openly carrying in public marches, challenging officials to arrest them under the weapons law.  I have watched this issue for nearly two years.  I cannot recall any arrests.  Every prosecutor who said otherwise has backed down.  The open carriers triumphed, even in the face of direct opposition by a city council in Eureka Springs.  Even the Arkansas Law Notes grudgingly admitted that the law meant what it plainly said:
As noted above, John Threet, the Washington County Prosecutor, has directed the Sheriff not to arrest those carrying handguns, even without a permit, unless other circumstances suggest the person intends to use the gun to commit a crime such as robbery. Threet also reports that at the last meeting of prosecutors from all 28 judicial districts in Arkansas, only 2 were instructing police or sheriffs to arrest—though he emphasized this was not a formal vote but merely his sense of the room.


Second amendment supporters continued with their open carry walks, which were effectively educating the public about the law.  Then, AG McDaniels was term limited out.   The Republican candidate, Leslie Rutledge, won the 2014 election, and is now the AG in Arkansas.   A member of Arkansascarry.com,  Paul Calvert, paid for the billboard shown in the above photograph.  KTHV, a Gannet company, took the bait.  They asked the new AG for her opinion.  From thv11.com:
In 2013, former attorney general Dustin McDaniel issued an opinion saying he did not consider Arkansas an open carry state under act 746. We asked new attorney general Leslie Rutledge about her interpretation of the law. "I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person," she said. "But anytime law enforcement and citizens disagree on a law we need to ensure there is clarity to protect our citizens."
The debate is over.  There is no longer any doubt that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state, as I wrote back in 2013.  It took a lot of work by a lot of dedicated open carriers to force the media into acknowledging the law.   They did the job, and the rest, as they say, is history.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Gary Mauser: Number of violent crimes involving guns exaggerated by an over-inclusive definition of gun crime



By using an over-inclusive definition, Statistics Canada has exaggerated the number of violent crimes that involve guns. The result is that gun violence appears to be four times more frequent than it really is. In 2013 (the most recent year statistics are available) Statistics Canada reports that there were 5,027 “firearms-related” incidents out of 263,054 violent crimes (i.e., 2% of violent crimes). Clearly, gun violence isn’t prevalent.

But even that small share exaggerates the frequency that a gun was actually used to commit a violent crime. A Special Request I made to Statistics Canada late in 2014 revealed that a gun was actually used in just 1,194 violent crimes in 2013. Gun violence only occurred in one-quarter of “firearms-related” crimes and in just 0.5% of violent crimes.

More Here

FL: Anonymous Internet Source Claims to be Crooked Cop, gives details




An anonymous Internet source posting as "Guest" has started a firestorm on a forum for the Palm Beach County Sheriff Office, titled pbsotalk.com.   The original post, titled "Tricks of the trade - let's exchange!" deals with how to plant evidence to cause problems for someone they arrest who has aroused their ire.  Here is the original post:
I was lucky to get a really good FTO when I started almost 15 years ago. He taught me to always keep learning new skills and techniques. It's not always easy to do being in a zone with the same old people so I decided perhaps I would share and maybe you might also.

I have a method for getting people off the street that should not be there. Mouthy drivers, street lawyers, assholes and just anyone else trying to make my job difficult.

Under my floor mat, I keep a small plastic dime baggie with Cocaine in residue. Since it's just residue, if it is ever found during a search of my car like during an inspection, it's easy enough to explain. It must have stuck to my foot while walking through San Castle. Anyways, no one's going to question an empty baggie. The residue is the key because yo7 can fully charge some asshole with possession of cocaine, heroin, or whatever just with the residue. How to get it done? "I asked Mr. DOE for his identification. And he pulled out his wallet, I observed a small plastic baggie fall out of his pocket..." Tou get the idea. easy, right?

Best part is, those baggies can be found lots of places so you can always be ready. Don't forget to wipe the baggie on the persons skin after you arrest them because you want their DNA on the bag if they say you planted it or fight it in court.

This is one of my favorite tools. I don't use it often but when I have to do something to remove someone, this is a good way to do it with minimal effort.
The thread goes on for three pages, with various posters claiming to be "real" Palm Beach Sheriff Deputies, threats being made against the original poster, and lots of attempts at rebuttal.

The dcpost.org, an online publication, has posted a story claiming that they have verified that their source is who he says he is.   They paid for the information.  Their original story is here.   There are a lot of verified problems at the Palm Beach Sheriff Office, that are referenced in their story.

I do not know if they are being conned or not.  It is a great story that is going viral.  I predict it will be picked up by the old media eventually.  There are many possibilities.  It could be someone who is getting some "payback" at a department that he sees as corrupt.   It could be someone who believes that they have been treated unjustly, or someone who just believes they can stir up a hornet's nest and never be accountable.  It could even be true.

It is very hard to remain anonymous in today's society.  There are many traces left from Internet posts.  Officers who I talk to say that the practices mentioned are not common to their experiences, that they just are not necessary.  But, people do lots of things that are not necessary. 

I have knowledge of a case involving a close friend where the "baggy with residue" trick was attempted.  No one has gone to jail for it yet, but it caused a lot of problems for someone who has little in the way of resources. 

There is the old saying, "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."   The process is often severe punishment in itself.

This could be just an Internet commando, but I doubt it.  The person knows a fair amount of procedure and lingo.  They might be a retired officer.  No one really knows at this point, but I doubt that they will be able to remain anonymous forever.   They have just revealed an ugly underside of society that all too many either want to believe is common, or never happens.  It fits right into the narrative that the current administration pushed in Ferguson.

It would be a good way for the administration to gain credit and distract from world affairs.  I could see Eric Holder devoting considerable investigative resources to this case, except that Palm Beach County is a Democrat stronghold where President Obama got 58% of the vote in 2012.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

South Dakota House Passes Constitutional Carry; HB1116




HB1116, has passed the South Dakota House,  44-23.  While that is an enormous majority, it is short, by one vote, of the 2/3 necessary to override a potential veto by Governor Daugaard.

The house has 70 members, 58 of which are Republicans.  In the Senate, there are 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats, a bit tighter ratio.   The Governor, Dennis Daugaard, has been in office since 2011.  

Governor Daugaard vetoed a constitutional carry bill in 2012, citing concerns of law enforcement officials.   From the argusleader.com:
Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill Friday that would have allowed any resident 18 and older with a valid state drivers’ license to carry a concealed handgun without having to obtain a permit.

In his veto address of the proposal, Daugaard said the state’s permitting laws are already “fair and reasonable.”
“Each year, locally elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history,” Daugaard wrote in his veto message. “Under this bill, those who are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon would no longer be informed of that fact. Understandably, law enforcement officials from across South Dakota have objected to this bill.”

The bill is a reform bill that does much more than loosen  restrictions on the carry of concealed firearms without a permit.

HB1116 cleans up language in the current statutes, removes references that require guns that are carried without a permit to be unloaded, and makes certain that people from other states, who have concealed carry permits, will be able to carry in South Dakota, if they follow South Dakota law.  From the bill:
Section 8. That § 23-7-7.4 be amended to read as follows:
    23-7-7.4. Any valid permit to carry a concealed pistol, issued to a nonresident of South Dakota, is valid in South Dakota according to the terms of its issuance in the state of its issue, but only to the extent that the terms of issuance comply with any appropriate South Dakota statute or promulgated rule. However, if the holder of such a nonresident permit to carry a concealed pistol becomes, at any time, a legal resident of South Dakota, the provisions of this section no longer apply.
The bill would  also strike the language that would render an out-of-state permit invalid when the holder of the permit became a legal resident of South Dakota.

Here is the record of who voted for and against the bill in the House.

It is likely that the bill will pass the senate.   The big question is whether Governor Daugaard will find another excuse to veto it.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
  

ID:Two Rallies in Support of Constitutional Carry


The above rally in Boise, on Saturday, 21 February, 2015, was attended by over 200 supporters of H0089.  The bill, which would remove a number of current restrictions on the carry of firearms in Idaho law.   The local media is said to have reported that there were "dozens" That is accurate but misleading.  After all, 300 people are also "dozens" of people.  Common usage is that once 200 items are reached, they are called "hundreds", not "dozens".  From ISSA facebook page:
Watched Channel 2 and 7 news tonight. No surprise that coverage was sparse and biased. Good thing we have other media outlets like TVOI to do some great coverage of our events.

Channel 7 said "dozens" gathered. Our estimates were probably around 300. So saying "hundreds" would have been too difficult for them to swallow apparently.
There was a sister rally in Rexburg.   Here is an image of it.




The rally in Rexburg was also in support of HB89, a bill that would complete Idaho's reform to a constitutional carry state.   From localnews8.com:
REXBURG, Idaho - If passed, House Bill 89 would allow people to carry guns without a concealed weapons permit.
Currently under Idaho code, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a license.

"We're committed to keep doing this until we see some changes," Dan Roberts said.

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming have constitutional carry.
"We think it's time for Idaho to get on board," Roberts said.
Unfortunately, the reporter makes a serious error in the second sentence. Idahoans can already carry concealed in 99% of the state without a concealed carry permit. From idaho.gov:
(12) The requirement to secure a license to carry a concealed weapon under this section shall not apply to the following persons: 
(snip)

(d) Any person outside the limits of or confines of any city while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or other lawful outdoor activity;
The vast majority of Idaho is outside of cities.  It is one of the most rural states.  What is lawful outdoor activity?  Virtually every activity that takes place outside that is lawful; in other words, every activity outside that is not forbidden by law.

That exception, (d) is clearly over 99% of the State.  So the entire battle is for the remaining small portion of the state that is not already legal to carry without a permit.  The bill even allows those "progressive" strongholds, the Universities, their bans on people concealed carrying on campus without an enhanced permit.

This is the sort of activism that is being used to reform gun laws and restore second amendment rights all over the country.  

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Mariana Islands has Date for Second Amendment Hearing


The Federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands has set a date for the hearing on summary judgment for the lawsuit to uphold the second amendment in the Islands.  From mvariety.com:
THE District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands scheduled a March 12, 2015 hearing on the motion for a summary judgment on the constitutionality the commonwealth Weapons Control Act being challenged by a U.S. Navy Gulf War veteran and his wife.
From radionz.co.nz:
They want to be issued handguns for self-defence, following a home invasion which left Mrs Radich badly beaten.

Our correspondent, Mark Rabago, says the Act is not expected to hold up against the second amendment of the constitution, which guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms.
Perhaps the writer is confusing U.S. jurisdictions with Israel or Switzerland, where guns are commonly issued to citizens by the government.  Crime rates are exceptionally low in both countries.

The correspondent in the Marianas correctly reports that the act is expected to be found unconstitutional.   One of the attempts at defense of existing law is that CNMI customs does not allow importation of handguns.  This is not an insurmountable obstacle, of course, but it would be an interesting situation, if people could legally posses arms, but not import them.  Perhaps a cottage industry manufacturing handguns would spring up.  The defendant in the case claims that the federal court lacks jurisdiction.  It is claim that seems unlikely to hold up in court.  From Marians Variety:
The federal court does not have subject jurisdiction over Count I of the complaint — violation of the right to keep and bear firearms — because handguns cannot be legally imported into the commonwealth, according to Deleon Guerrero.
 
The local elites in the Northern Mariana Islands seem as loath to give up their monopoly of force as Michael Bloomberg.  From the comments on mvariety.com:
We already have the 2nd Amendment in place, only with limitations. If we allow handguns for civilian use, we will surely set a precedent to allow other types of guns. We cannot let this happen. Handguns are nothing compared to high-powered firearms such an AK-47 (7.62 x 39mm NATO round) or an H&K MP5 (9mm) or a splatter-gun such as a 12 gauge shotgun. There will be no one class of persons to have just a handgun. Once we free one type, we free them ALL! NO TO ALLOWING ANY MORE GUNS!
 Those who want people disarmed, are, as usual screaming that there will be "blood in the streets".  It simply has not happened, and it will not happen in this case.  The people who go to the trouble of legally owning guns are simply not the problem.   If a society has respect for the law, the presence of weapons will have little effect.   If there is no respect for the law, the presence of handguns only levels the playing field a bit so that large, strong, men do not dominate everyone else quite as easily.

The biggest question is: Is there respect for the rule of law.  One of the clearest indicators of this is the willingness of a society to follow the restrictions placed on it by its written legal documents.   In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, that includes the Constitution of the United States.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

Monday, February 23, 2015

David Codrea: ‘Gun death’ at hands of police demonstrates public’s need for relevant data



A woman has been shot dead by police in Gastonia, N.C. Betty Sexton had called 911 to have unwelcome guests removed from her home, and was in the process of obeying orders to put down an old musket she was protecting herself with when Officer LaDoniqua Neely shot her in the chest, WCCB Charlotte reported Tuesday, quoting the dead woman’s sister.

Per Steve Watson of Infowars, “Gastonia Police have already shot and killed three people so far this year.” In that report, he links to another in which Gastonia Police killed a sick veteran.

In the Sexton case, the State Bureau of Investigations has taken over. Additionally, and this is important, a neighbor warns against drawing “conclusions based off one-sided information. That’s reckless.”

That’s a valid point. As we would expect a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, so too are law enforcement professionals entitled to the same rights. As has been pointed out in my explanation for the “Only Ones” meme established on The War on Guns blog, a main purpose of that feature is to ensure police are not exempted from standards of conduct “ordinary citizens” would be punished for. The flip side to that is, it would be grossly unfair to penalize a cop for shooting in a situation where gun rights advocates would support a non-LEO’s self-defense claim.

More Here

AZ: Man Forces way into Apartment; is shot



Police say the man was in a domestic dispute with a woman that lives near 16th and Oak streets in Phoenix.

The shooting victim forced his way in to the apartment and was shot by someone inside.

More Here

AL: Elderly Man brings gun to door, is shot by police



The victim's son called police to ask for a welfare check on his father, who lived in the East Lake House in the 7900 block of First Avenue South, Birmingham police spokesman Lt. Sean Edwards said. When the officer and firefighters got to the door on the fourth floor, the man opened the door with a gun pointed at the officer.

The officer fired a couple of shots and hit the man, Edwards said.

More Here

OH: Warning Shot Stops Robbery



Manager Kevin Karcho then pulled out a firearm and shot as the suspect stood in the doorway, according to police.

In an interview, Mr. Karcho said the robber believed he was reaching for cash. He said he was not frightened and did not intend to strike the man.

AL: Woman Shoots Man with Knife



According to information authorities have been able to gather, Martin said he believes an incident erupted between a boyfriend and girlfriend at the house at the time. One man allegedly pulled a knife and cut another other man, which prompted a woman at the residence to retrieve a gun and shoot the man brandishing the knife. The man who was cut has since been treated and released, while the man who was shot is reportedly in stable condition at UAB Hospital in Birmingham.

More Here

TX: Resident Shoots at Intruder; Man Found Dead


Investigators said it appeared a vehicle at the home was broken into as well. After searching for several hours, the body of a white man was located in a field near the residence. Sheriff Johnny Burks said his name was withheld, pending notification of relatives.

More Here

Early Concealed Carry Before Permits (photo)


Many have speculated on the reason for the hand inside the coat pose of officers during Civil War photographs.   Perhaps it was to render access to a concealed weapon.  These, after all, were military officers.

Is that the bulge of a Smith & Wesson #1 under his left arm?  It is about the right size.   The number one was one of the first easily concealable cartridge pistols.  It was first produced in 1857 and was in great demand by officers in the Civil War.


As a .22 short, we might not think of it as having much stopping power.  But considering the extreme reliability and convenience of the cartridge compared to the percussion arms of the era, seven quick shots would have been very attractive. 

Many speculations have been made about the classic hand in the jacket pose.  Some speculate that it was meant to mimic Napoleon.  Others proclaim that it kept the hand still, or that the man was keeping his hand on his wallet.   Those seem unlikely, given that the pose has been said to be popular with Romans and their tunics.   Considering what happened to Ceasar, a Roman tunic would be a handy place to hide a dagger.

So here is another speculation as to why Civil War soldiers are often seen with their hand in their jacket.   They were keeping it close to a concealed weapon.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.Link to Gun Watch

OK: Constitutional Amendment Could Strengthen State Protection to Keep and Bear Arms





Representative Dan Fisher  has started the process to strengthen Oklahoma's state Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms in 2015.  State constitutions may not offer absolute protections, but they can be very effective.  A Vermont Supreme Court found their protection so persuasive, that the state has always had constitutional carry.  It was never legislated out of existence as it was in nearly all the other states.   In the opposite direction, six states do not have a state constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.  They are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.  Four of those, California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York easily fall into the 10 most restrictive states in the Union.

The current Oklahoma protection is rather weak:
Oklahoma:  The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.  Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).
Allowing the legislature the power to regulate the carrying of arms guts one of the main purpose of the constitution: to provide limits on state power.  There is a clear example just south of Oklahoma, in Texas.  There, after the radical republicans were driven from office at the end of reconstruction, one of the tasks of the new state constitutional convention was to restore the right to bear arms.

The Texas right to bear arms was one of the strongest in the nation before the War Between the States or the Civil War, if you prefer.  Even slaves had the right to bear arms, according to the Texas Supreme Court.   When the Democrats rewrote the Constitution in 1876, they left in a clause allowing the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms", and the legislature simply banned them in most cases.  Historically governments take all the power that they are allowed, and work hard to get even more.

Representative Dan Fisher of Oklahoma hopes to strengthen the state Constitutional protection.  Here is the resolution that he has introduced into the House:


AS INTRODUCED

<StartFT>A Joint Resolution directing the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection a proposed amendment to Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; clarifying manner in which citizens may keep and bear arms; stating legislative authority; prohibiting certain laws; providing ballot title; and directing filing.<EndFT>


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 55TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
SECTION 1. The Secretary of State shall refer to the people for their approval or rejection, as and in the manner provided by law, the following proposed amendment to Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma to read as follows:
Section 26. A. The fundamental right of a each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for security, self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall never not be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons infringed. Any regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the State of Oklahoma shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall, under no circumstances, decline to protect against their infringement.
B. This section shall not prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the possession of arms by convicted felons, those adjudicated as mentally incompetent or those who have been involuntarily committed in any mental institution.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or the transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.
SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in the following form:
BALLOT TITLE
Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____
THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
This measure amends the State Constitution. This measure addresses the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. The changes to this section will make clear what types of weapons and for what purpose the weapons may be kept. It would state that regulations by the state on the right to keep and bear arms would be subject to strict scrutiny. The changes would also allow the state to prohibit certain persons from possessing arms. It would not allow the passage of laws that would require the registration of arms or special taxation of arms.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________
SECTION 3. The Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, immediately after the passage of this act, shall prepare and file one copy thereof, including the Ballot Title set forth in SECTION 2 hereof, with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General.

Last year, the amendment was scuttled at the last minute, in conference committee between the House and the Senate. It had passed both with large majorities. It is widely believed that the amendment would easily pass a vote of the electorate. Voters have passed similar constitutional amendments in other states with wide margins. Alabama passed a similar amendment in 2014 with 72% of the vote; Missouri had strengthened its Constitution just months before with 61%; Louisiana in 2012 with 74% of the vote; and  Kansas in 2010 with 88%. Wisconsin voters protected their rights with a strong amendment in 1998 with 74% of the vote.   
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch