Sunday, September 20, 2020

President Trump: If I Wasn't Here You Would not Have a Second Amendment Right Now

 


 On 9 September, 2020 in an interview on the Shawn Hannity show on Fox news.com, President Trump made a bold assertion. He said if he were not in office, the Second Amendment would have become essentially meaningless, because of the different judges who would have been appointed. From the transcript:

And also, Supreme Court judges or justices.

And you -- the whole country, it depends on these decisions, which way you go, whether you have a Second Amendment or not. I mean, the Second Amendment would be under siege.

If I wasn't here, you wouldn't have a Second Amendment right now. You wouldn't have a right to guns. You would -- whether you had it or it was just almost totally obliterated, but it would be in a very different form than you have right now.

I've kept it totally as it was, and it's, you know, something I'm very proud of, and people -- I think it's a real voting issue, Second Amendment.

Life, you look at that. So these judges are going to be making massive decisions. And the next president is going to get one, two, three, or four justices of the Supreme Court.

The President is correct in his statement. If Hillary would have become President, the Second Amendment in the bill of rights would have been interpreted out of any significance. We already have several circuit courts who are working hard to interpret the Second Amendment as of little consequence. If  a President Hillary would have appointed replacements for Justice Scalia and Kennedy, the ten Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court has refused to hear, would have been granted writs of certiorari at the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters would not have liked the results. 

Very likely, the Supreme Court would have confirmed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home; that bans on semi-automatic rifles are permissible; that ammunition bans are permissible; that bans on magazines are permissible; that not all commonly available handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, or, they may be covered by the Second Amendment, but the state can still regulate them out of existence.

The ban on butterfly knives in a Hawaii District Court, or the ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, are templates for that "interpretation" of a toothless Second Amendment. 

President Trump has appointed over 200 judges to the lower federal courts. Without Trump appointees, it is likely the three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit would have held the California magazine ban to be constitutional.

President Trump has appointed ten judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges. 

President Trump is correct in saying that next to war and peace, the appointment of federal judges is the most consequential act a president can perform. President Trump has been appointing judges who respect the Constitution as written.

President Trump has done better in this regard than any other president since Calvin Coolidge. It is one of the reasons the Left in this country fear him so much. The judges he is appointing are showing a willingness to reverse decades of unconstitutional decisions by Progressive judges who have worked hard to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



 

 

AZ: Security Guard Shoots man who had a Knife

There, an armed security guard shot 37-year-old Shawn King, who was armed with a knife, Justus said. Police did not explain the events leading up to the shooting or say where the security guard was working.


More Here

KY: Man who was Unlawfully in Residence was Shot, Police are Investigating

PIKEVILLE, Ky. (WTVQ) The Kentucky State Police Pikeville Post is investigating a case from the weekend where a ma suspected of being a intruder was shot.

KSP troopers and a detective responded to a residence on Road Creek and discovered a man had been shot. The initial investigation indicates 32-year-old Charles Branham was unlawfully inside the residence of Billy Hamilton, the KSP said.


More Here

AZ: Yuma Homeowner Shoots Man who was Attempting Entry




The Yuma Police Department (YPD) says officers got called to a home on West 22nd street around 9:30 Tuesday night. They say the homeowner shot a man who was trying to get into his house.

Police say the man shot had gone to the house to find someone, and tried to open the front door. They say that's when the resident opened fire.

More Here

Saturday, September 19, 2020

TX: Armed Homeowner Shoots, Wounds Home Invader

Flower Mound police responded to a shooting call at approximately 2:22 p.m. Sunday in the 5400 block of Briar Lane.

During the 911 call, the homeowner stated he had shot at an unknown male and female, who had allegedly broken into his house through the back door. After the gunshot, both individuals fled the location in a vehicle.

Upon arrival, police were able to locate the vehicle a short distance away, where it was determined the male suspect had been shot one time in the chest.

The 29-year-old male suspect was transported to Medical Center Denton where he was immediately taken into surgery. He has since been moved into ICU and is in critical condition.


More Here

Friday, September 18, 2020

Kyle Rittenhouse: Political Prisoner

 

Image posted on Freerepublic as political meme, scaled by Dean Weingarten Top image, unarmed man beat to near-death by violent mob in Portland, Oregon. Lower image Kyle Rittenhouse after defending himself against multiple attackers in Kenosha Wisconsin.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a political prisoner.  Just before midnight on 25 August, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people who attacked him in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in self defense. Rittenhouse was legally there performing voluntary actions to minimize damage done by rioters.  He was fleeing a mob pursuing him when he was forced to defend himself, shooting three of numerous pursuers at two separate locations. All three of the people shot got within contact range of Rittenhouse. Two were attempting to disarm him, the third had a semi-automatic pistol in his hand.  The first attacker had been aggressive earlier and had challenged a black man to shoot him, saying shoot me n*gga!" more than once. The first attacker was a felon and sex offender who chased Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle.

After that defensive shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse fled the mob and attempted to turn himself in to police custody. There is audio of his intent to do so as he ran from the mob. One of his attackers asked him what he was doing while the attacker was live streaming and running close to Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse said "I am going to the police".  Rittenhouse was repeatedly attacked as he ran in an attempt to reach the police.

Rittenouse tripped and went down on the street, and was attacked in a coordinated manner by multiple assailants.

The second person shot had hit Rittenhouse on the head, neck and shoulder with a skateboard, a common Antifa tactic. He was trying to take Rittenhouse's rifle when he was shot. 

The third attacker was lunging at Rittenouse with a semi-automatic pistol in his hand, from less than body length, when Rittenouse shot him in the gun arm, stopping the attack. The actions were all videotaped; there were witnesses; they were clear cases of self defense. 

After successfully repelling those attacks, Rittenhouse continued on his way to the police. 

To prevent themselves from being shot, the attackers only had to allow Kyle Rittenhouse to run away from them, to the police, and refrain from attacking him. Several of Kyle's pursuers do exactly that, and are not shot.

There is video evidence of Rittenhouse with his hands up, attempting to surrender, walking to police vehicles as they ignore him, driving past. 

Just hours later, after returning to his home in Antioch, Illinois, 15 miles from the scene of the attacks. Kyle turned himself in to the police in his home town, on 26 August, 2020, accompanied by his mother, long before any court documents were filed in Wisconsin.

 Kyle Rittenhouse voluntarily surrendered to police in Antioch, Illinois.

Two guns were turned into police when a 17-year-old Antioch man charged in the Kenosha shootings surrendered himself, police said, but officials are not saying who owned the guns and whether they had valid firearm owners identification cards.

Kyle Rittenhouse was accompanied by his mother when he went to the police department Wednesday, Antioch Interim Police Chief Geoff Guttschow said Thursday. He faces multiple charges in Kenosha

 Kenosha is less than five miles from the Illinois border.


About the same time as Kyle turned himself into the police on 26 August, CAIRchicago was mobilizing a political campaign urging the political powers in Kenosha to prosecute him.  They named Kyle and urged a phone and email campaign. 

This may explain the rapidity with which the prosecutors created a warrant for Kyle's arrest, which was issued on 27 August, 2020. The criminal complaint is absurd; the facts it contains absolve Kyle; one statute does not even apply to Kyle.

No grand jury was convened to consider the case. The evidence is such as to vindicate a self defense plea rather than first degree homicide charges. 

An anomaly in the case, is the handwritten non-traffic complaint by the Antioch police dated 26 August, which appears to be before a complaint was issued in Wisconsin. It lists a Wisconsin warrant number, W261694050. 

Perhaps it was a simple mistake in the date. Perhaps an alert reader will be able to find the Wisconsin warrant and explain how it could be issued before a complaint was filed with the court, or how a prosecutor could do enough of an investigation to ask for a warrant less than 24 hours after the event, in which there were enormous amounts of evidence available. 

Image from Antioch police public domain cropped and scaled, green text added by Dean Weingarten

The District Attorney, Michael D. Graveley, did not have a reputation of being a far left politician, even though he attended Berkely for his batchelors' degree and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for his law degree. He was unopposed in the last election. He is listed as a Democrat. 

The entire political structure of Kenosha seems incapable of resisting the mob of radical leftists who took over the center of the city, burning businesses.  Governor Evers of Wisconsin appeared similarly frozen from action. Just say the magic word "racist" and all Democrat politicians, and most Republicans, seem to be cowered into submission.

The case seems similar to the McCloskey's case in St Louis, or the Baca case in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  In each case, the people being charged defended themselves against attack by an angry mob; in each case the prosecutor charging them is a Democrat politician.  In all three cases the police were withdrawn from the area, giving full reign to the rioters.  

In each case there is clear video evidence of self defense.  Both Steve Baca and Kyle Rittenhouse were retreating from a mob of pursuers when assaulted by people armed with skateboards and attempting to disarm them; the McCloskeys were at their own home and threatened with beating and rape. In all three cases, the possession of personal defensive firearms prevented further physical assault.  In all three cases, the prosecutor bent the facts in extreme ways in order to prosecute the armed citizens.

Imagine if Kyle were black, and had defended himself against a mob chasing him. Kyle would be universally decreed a national hero. While defenses against mobs are thankfully rare, black peoples' defense of self and others are fairly common, and have been praised here on AmmoLand when known. 

 None of Kyle Rittenhouse's attackers have been charged with their crimes.

Police do not routinely release information on people who defend themselves, so it is harder to know their skin color.  Numerous uses of guns to defend themselves are recounted in Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms.

Second Amendment supporters universally praise minority groups use of arms to defend against mobs. "Roof Koreans" has become a phrase because of Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots. Condoleezza Rice often recounted how her father and other black men defended themselves with firearms.

CAIRchicago gave a list of handy contact points for politicians who could effect the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution.

This has become a political case rather than a legal one. The solution is political as well as legal. The prosecutor must be made aware his political decision to persecute Kyle has a political price. Fortunately, CAIRchicago listed these contacts:

  • Call the Kenosha City Attorney at 262-653-4170.

  • Call the Mayor of Kenosha and City Administration at 262-653-4000.

  • Demand justice from the Kenosha Police Non-Emergency Line 262-656-1234.

  • Call the Wisconsin Department of Justice at 608-266-1221.


Political contacts work for anyone. There are many Democrats and black people in Kenosha who do not appreciate Antifa and BLM types coming in and burning up their town. 

 The criminal complaint against Kyle reads almost as if the people writing it were his defense attorneys.

The first person he shot was witnessed chasing Kyle in concert with others, throwing an object at him, (laughingly called a plastic bag in the criminal complaint, when clearly there was an object inside the bag) and grabbing for his gun while Kyle was attempting to evade him and those who were following behind him. 

The other two people he shot were chasing him and attempted to disarm him. One hit him on the head, neck and shoulder with a skateboard while attempting to disarm him, after three previous, failed attacks against Rittenhouse.  This is laughably referred to as "the skateboard makes contact with the defendant's left shoulder".  The last person shot "moves toward the defendant" and "Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot". None of this makes the cut for a charge of First Degree Homicide. All of it indicates justifiable self defense. 

The last charge, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18, isn't even a criminal offense, because it does not apply to people over 16, except in special circumstances, which where not germane to Kyle.

All three of the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot had police records, indicating their propensity for violence, or at least, willingness to break the law.

It is sad to see elected officials so fearful of radicals in their own party, they allow themselves to be bullied into persecuting innocents.  That is what happened in the French Revolution, where the Left earned their political nomenclature as being "on the left". 

A terror where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed to satisfy the insanity of a radical mob, is something we need to fight, not encourage. 

Free Kyle Rittenhouse!

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

MI: Armed Woman Holds Suspect who Stabbed, Killed 85-Year-Old for Police


ADRIAN, MI – An 85-year-old man was stabbed to death inside a Meijer store in Adrian Wednesday afternoon and the suspect was arrested after an armed customer intervened, preventing escape.

Police were called at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16, to Meijer, 217 US-223, to a stabbing in progress within the store, according to the Adrian Police Department.

While en route, officers were told a suspect was being held at the scene at gunpoint by a concealed pistol license holder until they arrived to take the suspect into custody, police said.


More Here

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Albuqurque Gun Ban used to Arrest Black New Mexico Movement Organizer

 


 

 

On Sunday morning, 19 July, 2020, a kindergarten teacher was organizing a Black New Mexico Movement protest at the Civic Plaza in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He had a firearm holstered across his chest.  Police say he refused to disarm after they told him firearms were banned at the Plaza.  A few minutes latter they arrested him and two other armed men who were with him.

Grady complained that members of the New Mexico Civil Guard, who attended a Protest for Freedom rally at the Civic Plaza on Friday, July 17, and were armed, were not arrested.

From the abqjournal:

The 40-year-old kindergarten teacher was helping set the stage for a Black New Mexico Movement protest at Civic Plaza one Sunday morning in mid-July, his gun holstered across his chest.

A short time later, Francisco “Frankie” Grady was handcuffed and then cited for having a firearm on city property. He was subsequently charged with unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises, a fourth-degree felony that now follows him on his record, even though there is no school in sight at Civic Plaza.

A quick look at the video of the rally on the 17th of July did not show any openly armed people there. There are plenty of black people at the rally.  The rally did not get much press. It looked to be pretty high energy.

P

Link to video


The police said that the New Mexico Civil Guard had been warned to disarm, and they had done so.

As of 23 August, all of the charges against the trio of black men arrested on 19 July had been dropped. 

The police spokesman said the three arrested on 19 July had been told to disarm, but had not done so.

Administrative instruction 5-20 was issued on 19 June, five days after the self defense shooting at the Juan de OƱate confrontation.  The order claims Albuquerque city parks and recreation centers are "school premises" under state law banning guns in schools. 

 The New Mexico Patriot Advocacy Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging such a broad interpretation of the law in Administrative Orders 5-19, in September of 2019.  In Order 5-19, Mayor Keller claims all of the City's Community Centers, Multigenerational Centers, and senior Centers fall under the definition of "school premises".

Mayor Keller of Albuquerque acts as if he can ban firearms anywhere in the city he wishes to. Where, in the city, is a place where school children or university students banned? Under Mayor Keller's interpretation, those are the only places the state law would not have effect. 

It is difficult to know who will prevail in the New Mexico courts. 

When you are dealing with people who do not acknowledge the existence of truth or objective reality, who are accustomed to changing the meaning of words to suit their political purposes, interpretation of the law to something they like, is almost reflexive.

If they do not like the right to bear arms, as protected by the United States Second Amendment and the New Mexico Constitution, the answer is simple: just declare most of your jurisdiction to be a school! 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




OR: Woman Holds Man who had Matches alone, for Police

An Oregon woman was captured on video holding a suspected arsonist at gunpoint on Saturday after she allegedly caught him on her property carrying only matches.

The woman, Kat Cast, can be seen in the video parking her car, grabbing a gun, and approaching the suspect as he is crossing a road.

“Get on the floor, right now, face down! What are you doing on my property?” Cast shouts at the man. “Did you light anything on fire?”

More Here

NC: Suspect Shot Attempting to Break into Occupied Car at Remote Location

Public domain image from wikicommons, taken November, 2013 of Craggy Gardens Parking

A man attempting to break into a car at 3 a.m was reported to have been shot on Friday morning, near Milepost 364 on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina.

From wyffr.com:

A man was shot while trying to break into a car Friday morning along the Blue Ridge Parkway, according to the National Park Service.

The owner of the vehicle was the shooter, officials said.

Craggy Gardens is the National Park Service facility located at milepost 364 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. There are no sleeping facilities near that location on the Parkway. There is a parking area and a visitor center.  From nps.gov:

Sleeping and Eating:

Craggy Gardens Picnic Area: Pack a picnic basket and grab a table. The picnic area is open seasonally; check the opening schedule for specific dates. When you visit Craggy Gardens, we ask that you Leave No Trace.

Craggy Gardens does not offer any sleeping options. See nearby towns for accommodations. Along the Parkway, the closest campground is Crabtree Falls, 25 miles north.

Speculation: A person was sleeping in their vehicle, likely in the parking area of Craggy Gardens. At 3 a.m., an intruder attempted to break into the vehicle. The vehicle owner called 911; but responders were too far away to intervene. The owner, had a firearm then shot the intruder in self defense.. Craggy Gardens is one of the most popular spots on the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is 469 miles long.


The screen shot of the vehicle from video at wlos.com, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten.

The image of the vehicle, shown in dense fog, suggests that visibility was severely limited at the time of the shooting.

The National Park Service schedule for Craggy Gardens lists a store which is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Thursday through Monday, closed on Tuesday and Wednesday.  No one would be expected to be at the facility at 3 a.m. on a Friday morning. 

These sort of remote rest areas/picnic areas are natural attractants for criminals. Prostitution, illicit sexual activity, drug dealing, even robbery and worse are not uncommon.  A woman  was sexually assaulted on a Craggy Gardens trail in 2016.

The sparse details of the shooting on Friday morning, 4 September, 2020, suggest it was a valid case of self defense. The owner of the vehicle was the shooter. They claim the person shot was attempting to break into the vehicle, which, if they were sleeping in it, would also have been their temporary residence. 

No motive for the suspect has been released. The suspect was transported to a hospital and required surgery. The car owner has been identified as a man, as has the suspect. 

Under North Carolina Statute 14-51.2, a lawful occupant of a motor vehicle is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm if someone is attempting unlawful and forceful entering.

Persons who are defending their home or motor vehicle are presumed to be justified in using force to stop the threat. A person who is found to have been justified in such a situation, will be immune from civil and criminal liability, with some exceptions. 


The shooter is being held as part of the investigation. The Buncombe County Sheriff's office will be the lead investigating agency in the case. 

The shooter, and owner of the vehicle being broken into called 911 immediately to report the incident and is currently being held by investigators.

The Buncombe County Sheriff’s office will be the lead investigative agency with assistance from the National Park Service.

The author and Ammoland are not attorneys and do not give legal advise. The reference to statutory law is for educational purposes only. 


Update, defender has been released. Two suspects, brother and sister, 23 and 24 years old, are in custody.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 


IA: Armed Victim Shoots Armed Robbery Suspects, Kills 16-Year-Old suspect



DES MOINES, Iowa —

The Des Moines police have identified the teenager who died in an early morning shooting on the city’s north side. Police said the shooter acted in justifiable self-defense.

Officers were dispatched to the 1400 block of 13th Street, between Clark Street and Forest Avenue at about 5:45 a.m. The caller reported that he had been approached by two armed teenagers who attempted to rob him and he shot them in self-defense, according to police.

More Here

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Second Amendment Knife Case in Hawaii: Dangerous Opinion


 The Hawai'i Federal District Court has issued an opinion in Teter v. Connors that guts the Second Amendment. The opinion holds that even if butterfly or "balisong" knives are protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a state law banning any possession, manufacture or transport of such knives is constitutionally valid. From the opinion:
The popularity of an all-encompassing class of weapon (the knife, or even the folding knife)is immaterial when only one narrow subset of the class (the butterfly knife) is banned here.The Court declines to treat the ban on butterfly knives—a relatively obscure weapon—the same way the Heller Court viewed the ban on handguns—the “quintessential”self-defense weapon. Doing so would neglect the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the regulated weapon at issue—and by extension much of the Court’s reasoning that led to its ultimate holding. This case simply does not amount to the same level of “destruction of the [Second Amendment] right” as Heller.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. 

The District Court opinion shows how appeals courts hostile to the Second Amendment have been successfully salami slicing away Second Amendment rights. 

The Supreme Court has been deadlocked and unable or unwilling to protect the exercise of those rights. Without the election of Donald Trump and the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Second Amendment would be dead letter law across the United States. Instead, federal appeals courts in circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been using the lack of action to slice away most meaningful Second Amendment protections in several Circuits, notably the Ninth and the Second Circuits.

The first salami slice is the claim that Heller is a very narrow decision, only protecting the defense of self and others in the home with commonly available handguns. 

The Supreme Court has not corrected this extreme position, allowing lower courts to claim Second Amendment protections do not extend outside the home; do not cover semi-automatic rifles; do not cover magazines; do not cover ammunition; do not cover the ability to sell guns, do not cover the ability to store unlocked firearms in the home, ready for use.

This is the core of the argument used in the Hawai'i District Court opinion.

In this extreme view, handguns in the home are the only "core" of protected Second Amendment rights. 

In this view, knives are not mentioned in Heller, therefore the court is free to declare that certain knives are not as protected as handguns.

The particular Hawai'i law only bans a particular type of knife. The Court's opinion in Teter v. Connors is the law is Constitutional because it does not ban all knives. 

Heller rejected this view point with Caetano, unanimously clarifying the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. 

With the "salami" approach to the Second Amendment, laws banning all magazines which hold more that one round of ammunition, all ammunition of greater power than a .22 short, and all knives except for butter knives, could be banned, bit by bit, and pass Constitutional muster. 

Laws that forbid the carry of weapons outside the home would be Constitutional. 

Laws banning carry outside the home are already in effect in New York City and Hawai'i.

It is absurd. It shows the arrogance of the District Court, and its belief the Supreme Court will do nothing to prevent a wholesale ban of most weapons in most circumstances, as long as it is done salami slice by salami slice.

The District Court mentioned the Caetano decision, which makes clear knives are protected by the Second Amendment. The Hawai'i opinion defines the protection of the Second Amendment as so close to zero, in its view, as to be effectively meaningless.  

The logic, as such, is this:  even though butterfly knives are covered by the Second Amendment, they are not part of the "core" right: therefore they may be banned by the state.

The District Court goes on to say "intermediate scrutiny" applies; it cites appellate courts where "intermediate scrutiny" has devolved to mere rational basis. 

The Court repeatedly cites the N.Y.State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of N.Y., N.Y., (N.Y.S.R.P.A.). N.Y.S.R.P.A.was so certain of being overturned by the Supreme Court, the City of New York and the State of New York changed their law and regulatory framework, to moot the case, so the Supreme Court would not hear it. 

The opinion in Teter, from Hawai'i, cites N.Y.S.R.P.A. no less than nine times.

For those unfamiliar with the "scrutiny" framework, strict scrutiny means the court can deny the exercise of the right in only the most extreme circumstances. For example: The exercise of Second Amendment rights can be denied to a prisoner.

The next level is intermediate scrutiny. This is supposed to be a somewhat lower standard. The law or regulation being considered is supposed to effect the Constitutional right in a peripheral way. Intermediate scrutiny is supposed to require the government to prove the particular law serves an important government objective, and the law is substantially related to achieving that objective. In intermediate scrutiny, the government is to bear the burden of proof.

The lowest level of scrutiny is rational basis. Almost all laws pass this level. At this level, the plantiff, not the government, must prove the law is not related to any rational objective in any way. It is an almost impossible burden.

Several appellate court decisions have degraded intermediate scrutiny, as applied to the Second Amendment, to mere rational basis, which Heller explicitly forbids. The Circuit courts avoid the ban on the use of rational basis, by calling their rational basis scrutiny "intermediate scrutiny".

An important government interest is safety. Safety has become a catchall reason in any Second Amendment case. No court has required the government to show whether safety is actually improved with a law infringing on the Second Amendment. As for whether the law is substantially related to achieving the objective of greater safety, the court simply takes the government's word for it. 

For infringements on the Second Amendment, no proof has been required. 

In the Hawai'i case, the government did not show a single crime where a butterfly knife was used. 

The opinion cites several appellate court cases to justify its definition of intermediate scrutiny as no more than a different name for rational basis. 

If intermediate scrutiny were to have any actual "bite" in this case, the government would have to prove banning butterfly knives, while leaving the vast majority of knives unregulated, would have an actual effect on crime. The opinion does not require proof. It assumes the government knows best.

If these definitions are accepted as the correct way to determine what level of regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment, it is difficult to imagine what arms are forbidden for the government to ban. Perhaps we would be allowed five shot .22 revolvers, which would be required to be unloaded and locked up, separate from any ammunition, when not actually carried on our person, in our home.  

These arguments make the Second Amendment dead letter law, by reducing the limits on government power to irrelevant and minuscule restrictions, which have little practical effect. 

It is the long-running dispute between two philosophical views of the Constitution. 

Originalists and textualists insist words mean things. The Constitution may only be altered by the amendment process. 

Progressives state the Constitution is "living document", the meaning of which is whatever a set of judges wants it to mean, at any given time.  Words mean whatever they wish them to mean. In the view of Progressives, the Constitution is an impediment to government power, which can easily be "worked around" with sufficient legislative wordsmithing.

The corrosive effect of the Supreme Court refusing to correct obvious error by the lower courts is well illustrated by the opinion in Teter v. Connors, citing of the N.Y.S.R.P.A. case.  All parties understood N.Y.S.R.P.A. was a terrible decision, obviously violating Second Amendment protections. 

By refusing to hear the case after the City and State went to great lengths to make it moot, the case is now being cited to restrict and degrade Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit case in Hawaii.

The appellate courts showing open hostility to the Second Amendment must be corrected. Teter v. Connors may be a way for the court to correct them. The case involves knives, not guns. The court was willing to hear Caetano, which was about electric stun guns, not firearms.  

It is possible a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit will reverse Teter. 

Both avenues of redress become moot if President Trump loses the election. Supreme Court justices hostile to the Second Amendment will be added to the Supreme Court. The court will start hearing Second Amendment cases, in order to reverse Heller.

If the Senate is flipped to Democrat, the court will likely be packed with six more Progressive judges to bring the total to 15 justices. Both the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and the electoral college will be effectively destroyed.

Unfortunately, our liberties rest on the outcome of the election. 

This is what happens when a philosophy hostile to the idea of limited government has been taught in the schools for three generations. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IN: Juvenal Shoots Man in Defense of his Mother

Officers responded to Canterbury Apartments at approximately 8 a.m. to find the deceased man shot in the chest.

Witnesses at the scene told investigators the juvenile shot the man, who was allegedly armed with a knife and attacking the juvenile's mother.


More Here

NC: After gunfight, Suspect Feigns Compliance, Shoots Deputy



When the people in the home looked outside after the noise, they saw a man breaking into a car with a crow bar.

A man in the house retrieved a gun from in the house and confronted the suspect, Lowell said. The suspect had also got his hands on a gun that was in the car and the two men were involved in a shootout.

The man retreated into the home and when deputies arrived, they found the suspect inside a pickup truck in a driveway across the street.

Griffin said that suspect, now identified as Robert Ray Doss Jr. initially complied with deputies' commands to put his hands up, but then quickly grabbed the gun and shot Deputy Ryan Hendrix in the face.


More Here

Monday, September 14, 2020

Bump Stock Ban Back in Contention


 

Bump stocks have faded from the headlines. Most in the firearms community have been outraged that a federal administrative agency could make such a radical change in the law, as to ban items the agency previous ruled were perfectly legal, without any action by Congress or the President.

In the Tenth Circuit, a legal challenge has been percolating.

On March 26 of 2018, the BATFE reversed its previous rulings on bump stocks and issued a rule change that bump stocks would be considered automatic firearms. Over half a million bump stocks had been legaly sold and owned. The new rule did not allow for grandfathering of existing stocks, or for compensation for the devices.

In the Tenth Circuit, Clark Aposhian, of Salt Lake City, Utah, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming the BATFE did not have the authority to change a law which had been made by Congress, and which they had been upholding for decades. The suit was backed by the New Civil Liberties alliance (NCLA). The NCLA frames the case this way: 

May a federal agency rewrite a federal statute? May that rewrite turn otherwise innocent Americans into criminals? Those questions are what this case is about.

The case was filed on 16 January, 2019.  On 15 March, 2019, the Circuit court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion was appealed to the Tenth Circuit. 

The three judge panel issued a split decision on 7 May,2020, against Aposian. 

Aposian petitioned for a rehearing of the case by the Tenth Circuit, en banc. Aposian made the case the Tenth Circuit was violating their own previous precedent.

On 4 September, 2020, the Tenth Circuit agreed to re-hear the case, en banc.

The effect is the bump stock ban rule change by the BATFE is in play, and may be ruled to be unconstitutional, in the form of a preliminary injunction against the law. 

When a circuit court agrees to review a case en banc, the odds are a majority of the judges do not agree with the District Court decision. Thus, the odds are the Circuit Court will reverse the District Court decision. It is not certain, of course. But that is the way to bet. 

Will the bump stock ban be ruled unconstitutional? 

No one knows. But the chances for a ruling against the ban just got a lot better. 

The case does not address the takings clause of the Constitution, at least not yet.  The Supreme Court has discredited regulatory "takings" since the Roosevelt revolution in the Courts, which eliminated Constitutional rights to property, except as those rights were established by positive law. As positive law can be changed at any time by statute, those rights have no protection from regulatory takings. 

Most people intuitively reject that argument, which is one of the things driving civil forfeiture reform in the United States. Having rejected natural property rights in the late 1930's, the Court could re-establish them in the 2030s. It has not done so yet. 

If the Tenth Circuit finds the bump stock ban regulation to be unconstitutional, the finding would be valid in the Tenth Circuit. It seems likely the Administration would appeal the finding to the Supreme Court. 

As a co-equal branch of the Federal Government, the court would not be required to take the case.  By court precedent, however, this would be a prime candidate for consideration, because it creates a clear split in the circuit courts and is an opportunity to clear up questions about how much power the Congress can give to the administrative state. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch





 


MT: Pizza Guy Shoots Man During Robbery Attempt



One man is in the hospital with a gunshot wound after apparently trying to rob a worker delivering a pizza on the South Side Friday night.

Multiple Billings Police Department cruisers responded around 8:20 p.m. to the 300 block of South 28th Street, blocking off a portion of the road between Third and Fourth Avenue South. The condition of the man is unknown, and police are still conducting an investigation.

“The pizza delivery guy was attempting to deliver pizzas, when he claims that he was robbed. While in the process of being robbed, in self-defense he’s claiming, he fired a weapon, striking the suspect,” said Billings Police Sgt. Clyde Reid.


More Here

MD: Resident Shoots, Kills 20-Year-Old Home Invader at 2:09 a.m. in Baltimore

BALTIMORE (WBFF) - A resident shot and killed an intruder during a home invasion in northeast Baltimore early this morning, confirmed city police.

It happened at about 2:09 a.m. on Marx Avenue near Simms Avenue, in the Moravia/Belair Road area.


More Here

Sunday, September 13, 2020

Alabama Sheriff Praises Armed Homeowner, Second Amendment

 



In the early morning hours of 17 August, 2020, the residents of a home in Garden City, Alabama woke to the sounds of four home invaders breaking into the house. The invaders did not expect what happened next: armed homeowners confronted them with firearms.

The invaders fled the scene, pursued by the homeowner(s).

In an exchange of gunfire, one of the four suspects was wounded. The wounding greatly aided the Sheriff's office in the investigation of the home invasion. Over the next three days, all four suspects were identified and arrested. Culman County Sheriff lauded the homeowners.Cullman County Sheriff's Office:

 https://www.facebook.com/cullman.sheriff/

“This is a great example of citizens utilizing their second amendment rights and protecting themselves and their family. I have often stated that law enforcement can be minutes away when you only have seconds to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we at the sheriff’s office are proponents of not only having a weapon for self defense but also being proficient in how to use it,” said Sheriff Matt Gentry.

Sheriff Matt Gentry supports an armed citizenry with more than mere words.

The Cullman County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) offers Women's Self Defense classes for free, throughout the year, because of demand from the citizens

 http://www.cullmansheriff.org/self-defense-classes.php

Sheriff Matt Gentry is pleased to announce that the Cullman County Sheriff's Office is now offering Women's Self-Defense Classes. Our deputies developed these courses in response to the high volume of requests from citizens regarding self-defense classes for the public. Our safety courses are free of charge and will be offered throughout the year.

Deputy Chad Whaley will be instructor for the classes. Deputy Whaley has been with the Cullman County Sheriff's Office for more than ten years. He has helped train police officers and deputies throughout Cullman County and looks forward to assisting the public in safety awareness and women's self-defense.

 Citizens'  Firearms Classes are held twice a year, at no charge. The classes teach firearms safety and Alabama firearms law. The classes include both classroom and range work. From cullmansheriff.org:

http://www.cullmansheriff.org/citizens-firearms-classes.php

We believe that it is the responsibility of every gun owner to be as educated and as safe as possible. This course is designed for anyone that wants to enhance their knowledge on firearms, their safe handling, and the safe storage of guns, and understanding of Alabama gun laws.


The CCSO has a unique program which could be valuable in all the United States. It is the Citizen's Academy. From cullmansheriff.org

 http://www.cullmansheriff.org/citizens-academy.php

The Cullman County Sheriff's Office Citizens' Academy offers a different and exciting program unique to our area. Typically, the students attracted to the academy are a culturally diverse group of people including bankers, businessmen and women, housewives, school teachers, retirees, former military, college students, farmers, and citizens from all walks of life.

Participants meet on Tuesday evening once a week for nine weeks. They learn about virtually every aspect of a deputy's job including patrol, administration, dispatch, communications, criminal law, SWAT, crime scene investigations, jail operations,  and many other areas.

The Citizen's Academy doesn't limit participants to just classroom training. Students are also given the opportunity to:

  • Ride with a deputy during a tour of duty.
  • Tour the Cullman County Detention Center .
  • Attend a SWAT demonstration.
  • Shoot some of the weapons used by Deputies.

Although graduates of the Citizen's Academy are not qualified for daily street duty, they do acquire a better understanding of the Cullman County Sheriff's Office operations and responsibilities.

When sworn officers and the citizenry work together, crime rates are greatly reduced.  Cullman County is in rural northern Alabama. 

A program like this would be valuable anywhere in the country, I believe. Any program that promotes understanding between the police and the residents they serve, is a good idea. Even criminals benefit if they understand the rule of law and the process better. 

Many criminals do not know the law, or how it is administered. There cannot be deterrence if the potential perpetrator has no knowledge of the potential punishment. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

LA: Shots Fired, Burglary Suspect Arrested, Home Owner Investigated



“We did arrest a burglary suspect with a lengthy criminal history,” Sheriff Guidroz adds.

He says the investigation is ongoing due to shots fired from the homeowner at the suspect. The suspect was not hit.


More Here

TX: 77-Year-Old Gun Shop Owner Shoots 1 of 4 Robbers



RICHARDSON, Texas - A group of armed men robbed a Richardson gun store Thursday, but one of them didn't get away from the scene.

Mike Brown runs Mike's Gun Room by himself. The 77-year-old says the group of masked men first acted like shoppers and then made it clear they came to rob the place.

Brown pretended he was having heart trouble. It bought him enough time to grab a gun and shoot one of the suspects.

More Here

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Another Record of NICS Checks and Gun Sales for August 2020


The National Instant background Checks System (NICS) numbers are in for August of 2020. As expected, they are another record. Every month so far in 2020 has been a record month for NICS.

August is a record both for the background checks and for firearm sales. In August, gun sales were a bit less than 54% of the total NICS numbers. The total NICS checks were 3,115,063, but many of those are for permits and permit rechecks. 

According to our formula of handgun sales + long gun sales + other gun sales + 2.5 x multiple guns on one NICS check sales, there were 1,669,115 gun sales on the NICS system in August of 2020. 

That number is the highest number of gun sales in any August on record in NICS. It brings the total of gun sales in the NICS system in 2020 to over 13.5 million firearms sold in the first eight months of 2020.  The sales are trending to reach 21 million sales by the end of the year, a record far surpassing the 16.26 million guns added to the private stock in 2016, the previous record. 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation  (NSSF) has estimated that 40% of the sales in 2020 are to new gun owners. That translates into more than five million new gun owners so far, and more than eight million new gun owners by the rest of the year.   

https://www.nssf.org/

We can only produce and sell this level of firearms because of the run-up in gun manufacturing and ammunition manufacturing which occurred under President Barack Obama.

He was the greatest gun salesman, ever - until the present.
According to my calculations, 97.206 million guns were sold from 2009 through 2016, inclusive.


It the trend continues through the end of President Trump's first term, there will have been about 60 million firearms added to the private stock in four years. With about a hundred million gun owners previously in the United States, an increase of eight percent is significant.

No one knows with precision exactly how many gun owners exist in the United States. Many gunowners are reluctant to tell people conducting surveys whether they own firearms or not. There is no overall list of firearms owners or registration of firearms in the United States. 

The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is now over 456 million, according to my calculations, based on the method pioneered by Newton and Zimring. Firearms manufactured before 1899 are not included.

Gary Kleck expanded on those numbers, using the same methodology in his award winning book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". Point Blank received the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993.

Will all the new gun owners vote for President Trump, because he is campaigning in favor of people exercising their Second Amendment rights, while his opponents have committed to the most anti-Second Amendment rights platform in history? 

No one knows.

A great many gun owners have been complacent. In 2020, with the numerous riots, the push to defund the police, the attempt to delegitimize the police, and the Supreme Court refusing to hear Second Amendment cases, it is harder to ignore the utility of firearms ownership and the threats to the Republic. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


IL: Gunfight, Carjackers shoot, wound Armed Victim


The victim, who police said has a concealed carry license, took out his gun and shots were exchanged.

The man was shot several times in the chest, Illinois State Police said. The suspects then drove off in his Toyota Highlander.


More Here

Friday, September 11, 2020

SAF and Defense Distributed win Critical Fifth Circuit case on First Amendment and 3D Printing

 


On 19 August, 2020, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Federal District court. The three judge panel of the Fith Circuit found the Attorney General of New Jersey is under Texas jurisdiction for this case. The case is Defense Distributed v. Grewal

The finding allows a lawsuit filed against the New Jersey AG for violation of Defense Distributed First Amendment rights to publish computer code for 3D printed guns, to go forward.

Presumably, discovery of Grewal's records on any discussion relevant to stopping Defense Distributed from publishing will be allowed to continue.

AG Grewal can ask for a en blanc hearing at the Fifth circuit. Failing that, he can appeal the ruling of the three judge panel to the Supreme Court. 

The ruling is a highly technical discussion about whether Grewal's conduct is sufficient to generate jurisdiction in Texas. All three judges agree that it is.

The dissent argues that Grewal, as an Attorney General, should be exempt from being sued in such a case. 

The case will continue. 

With the resources of the State of New Jersey at his command, it is expected AG Grewal will use every opportunity to delay and derail this case. 

There will probably be a request for an en banc ruling; 

It will probably be denied and the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

That will buy another years delay for Grewal in his scheme to deny Defense Distributed  First Amendment rights. 

A presidential election will take place before then. 

 If President Trump wins, Grewal's scheme will likely fail. AG Grewal has consistently worked to stop the settlement which was hammered out between the Trump Administration and Defense Distributed.

If President Trump loses, a Biden-Harris administration will do everything they can to reinforce Grewal in his bid to stop Defense Distributed from exercising their First Amendment rights.  A Biden-Harris administration will stop the settlement from going into effect, if it has not already been put in place.

The Fifth Circuit is saying AG Grewal of New Jersey may be personally liable for attacking the First Amendment rights of Defense Distributed. 

It is an important finding. We will not know the results before the election, but the results may be of great significance for the nation.

Here is a timeline of Defense Distributed attempt to exercise its rights:

3 May, 2013, Defense Distributed plans to releases 3D printer firearm code on the Internet.   DD releases the plans on 5 May.

9 May, 2013, State Department orders Defense Distributed distribution of 3D printer files on firearms to stop.

 6 May, 2015, SAF and Defense Distributed bring suit against the State Departement for violating First, Second and Fifth Amendment rights.

10 July, 2018, SAF and Defense Distributed reach settlement with Department of Justice, to allow publishing of 3D printed firearms code.

31 July, 2018, Defense Distributed and SAF sue  New Jersey AG Grewal and the Los Angeles City Attorney.

 27 August, 2018, Senior Judge Lasnik comes out of retirement to issue injunction against settlement of Defense Distributed First Amendment lawsuit against the State Department.

12 November, 2019, Judge Lasnik rules Department of State violated administrative procedure.

 January, 2020 Lawsuit filed to stop settlement between Defense Distributed and State Department, Department of Commerce, with Senior Judge Lasnik

The precedent for the protection of computer code as a freedom of speech issue is fairly clear, established in the encryption debates in 1995, in the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the issue. At some point, a Supreme Court ruling is almost sure to happen. 

You cannot stop people from obtaining guns unless you stop them from having the information on how to make guns.

The First Amendment says the government is not allowed to do that.

 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch





FL: CCW holder Shoots Man who Confronted him in Parking Lot

FORT PIERCE— Fearing for his life, a Fort Pierce man fatally shot a Port St. Lucie man in a bank parking lot, Fort Pierce Police said.

On Friday afternoon around 3:51 p.m., officers said they got a call about a shooting outside the Wells Fargo Bank Branch, located at 2597 South U.S. Highway 1.


More Here

PA: Home invader shot, Just Before Midnight


Investigators said one person barged into the home where five people were at the time.

Gunfire was exchanged but police said it's still unclear as to who shot first.

Police believe the person who broke into the home was shot.


More Here

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyers Release Statement of Kyle's Actions on 25 August, 2020

Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten.


As the news and video of Kyle Rittenhouse defending himself with an Smith and Wesson AR15 style rifle against several attackers circulated on the Internet, numerous attempts were made to start accounts for people to contribute to his legal defense. Both Gofundme and Fundly accounts and others were started, only to be taken down by corporate owners almost immediately. Accounts used to fund bailfor Antifa and BLM were left up.

Well known tort lawyer Lin Woods, represented Nicholas Sandman, and prominent criminal attorney Pierce Bainbride stepped up and said thy would aid Kyle and family pro-bono, without charge. Numerous other lawyers also agreed to help.

Lin Woods also established a 501c(3) means to collect funds for Kyle's defense. 

Kyle's lawyers have released this statement of what happened on 25 August in Kenosha, Wisconsin. 

Of particular interest are facts that Kyle Rittenhouse was already working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha on 25 August, and that the rifle he used was from Wisconsin, and was not brought from Illinois. The entire statement is copied below.  From twitter.com:

VERNON HILLS, ILLINOIS/  August 28, 2020/ Pierce Bainbridge is honored to represent 17-year old Antioch, Illinois resident Kyle Rittenhouse, who has suddenly found himself at the center of a national firestorm and charged with murder after defending himself from a relentless, vicious and potentially deadly mob attack in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

On August 25th, 2020, Kenosha spiraled into chaos following the Jacob Blake shooting. The Kenosha Mayor and Wisconsin Governor failed to provide a basic degree of law and order to protect the citizens and community buildings in Kenosha. The city burned as mobs destroyed buildings and property, and looters stole whatever they wanted. Rioters defaced storefronts, the courthouse, and many other public and private locations across the city.

After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters. Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.

Upon arrival, Kyle and others stood guard at the mechanic’s shop across from the auto dealership to prevent further damage or destruction. Later that night, substantially after the city’s 8:00 p.m. curfew expired without consequence, the police finally started to attempt to disperse a group of rioters. In doing so, they maneuvered a mass of individuals down the street towards the auto shops. Kyle and others on the premises were verbally threatened and taunted multiple times as the rioters passed by, but Kyle never reacted. His intent was not to incite violence, but simply to deter property damage and use his training to provide first aid to injured community members.

After the crowd passed the premises and Kyle believed the threat of further destruction had passed, he became increasingly concerned with the injured protestors and bystanders congregating at a nearby gas station with no immediate access to medical assistance or help from law enforcement. Kyle headed in that direction with a first aid kit. He sought out injured persons, rendered aid, and tried to guide people to others who could assist to the extent he could do so amid the chaos. By the final time Kyle returned to the gas station and confirmed there were no more injured individuals who needed assistance, police had advanced their formation and blocked what would have been his path back to the mechanic’s shop. Kyle then complied with the police instructions not to go back there. Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby.

As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker.

Kyle stopped to ensure care for the wounded attacker but faced a growing mob gesturing towards him. He realized he needed to flee for his safety and his survival. Another attacker struck Kyle from behind as he fled down the street. Kyle turned as the mob pressed in on him and he fell to the ground. One attacker kicked Kyle on the ground while he was on the ground. Yet another bashed him over the head with a skateboard. Several rioters tried to disarm Kyle. In fear for his life and concerned the crowd would either continue to shoot at him or even use his own weapon against him, Kyle had no choice but to fire multiple rounds towards his immediate attackers, striking two, including one armed attacker. The rest of the mob began to disperse upon hearing the additional gunshots.

Kyle got up and continued down the street in the direction of police with his hands in the air. He attempted to contact multiple police officers, but they were more concerned with the wounded attackers. The police did not take Kyle into custody at that time, but instead they indicated he should keep moving. He fully cooperated, both then and later that night when he turned himself in to the police in his hometown, Antioch, Illinois.

Kyle did nothing wrong. He exercised his God-given, Constitutional, common law and statutory law right to self-defense.

However, in a reactionary rush to appease the divisive, destructive forces currently roiling this country, prosecutors in Kenosha did not engage in any meaningful analysis of the facts, or any in-depth review of available video footage (some of which shows that a critical state’s witness was not even at the area where the shots were fired); this was not a serious investigation. Rather, after learning Kyle may have had conservative political viewpoints, they immediately saw him as a convenient target who they could use as a scapegoat to distract from the Jacob Blake shooting and the government’s abject failure to ensure basic law and order to citizens. Within 24-36 hours, he was charged with multiple homicide counts.

Kyle now has the best legal representation in the country. With help from Nicholas Sandmann attorney L. Lin Wood, Pierce Bainbridge and multiple top-tier criminal defense lawyers in Wisconsin immediately offered representation to Kyle.

Today, his legal team was successful in working with the public defender to obtain a several-week continuance of his extradition hearing to September 25th. This at least partially slows down the rush to judgment by a government and media that is determined to assassinate his character and destroy his life.

Kyle, his family, the team at Pierce Bainbridge and his other lawyers intend to fight these charges every step of the way, take the case to trial and win an acquittal on the grounds of self-defense before a jury of his peers.

The legal fees and other costs of Kyle’s defense will be provided through donations to #FightBack Foundation Inc., a Texas 501(c)(4) foundation created by John Pierce and Lin Wood to protect lawabiding American citizens whose rights are being trampled on by state and local governments that are more concerned with appeasing mobs than protecting those rights.

Pierce Bainbridge founder John Pierce praised Kyle’s strength and resilience. “A 17-year old child should not have to take up arms in America to protect life and property. That is the job of state and local governments. However, those governments have failed, and law-abiding citizens have no choice but to protect their own communities as their forefathers did at Lexington and Concord in 1775. Kyle is not a racist or a white supremacist. He is a brave, patriotic, compassionate law-abiding American who loves his country and his community. He did nothing wrong. He defended himself, which is a fundamental right of all Americans given by God and protected by law. He is now in the crosshairs of institutional forces that are much more powerful than him. But he will stand up to them and fight not only for himself, but for all Americans and their beloved Constitution. We will never leave his side until he is victorious in that fight.”

Further updates will be provided as the investigation and legal proceedings unfold.

#FightBack

Contact :

John M. Pierce

(818) 918-8328

jpierce@piercebainbridge.com


©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


MO: Carjack Suspects Charged with Felony Murder after Armed Victim Shoots, Kills Accomplice

A man and woman have been charged with murder after an armed carjacking victim shot and killed their 18-year-old accomplice in self defense at a South County car wash over the weekend.

Police officers found Brandon Whitfield, 18, of the 1700 block of Rosado in Spanish Lake, 63138, dying of at least one gunshot wound when they responded to the scene at the Classic Car Wash in the 4800 block of Lemay Ferry Road around 1:17 a.m. Sunday. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

More Here

FL: Followup, No Charges for Homeowner who Shot 17-Year-Old

SANFORD, Fla. — The Sanford homeowner who shot and killed a 17-year-old who was trying to break into his car in May will not face charges, State Attorney Phil Archer announced Tuesday.


More Here

Tuesday, September 08, 2020

Bear Spray Failure in Alaska, 46-Year-Old Killed Clearing Trail

 

 


Image of grizzly bear  by Troy Nemitz


On 29 July, 2020, Daniel Schilling went to clear trail about a mile from his cabin in Alaska. His dog returned home without him. His wife was very concerned. Searchers found his body, killed by a bear, where he was working. An empty can of bear spray, with the safety off, which had been discharged at the site, was also found.

From adfg.alaska.gov:

August 6, 2020 (Anchorage) - Employees of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) responded to the location of a fatal bear attack that occurred Wednesday, July 29, near the community of Hope, to collect samples and gather information. Hair collected during the initial investigation appeared to be from a brown bear. DNA was able to be extracted from some of the hair and from additional samples collected. Preliminary results identified female brown bear and female black bear DNA associated with the attack site and the victim, Daniel Schilling.

“Our deepest sympathies go out to Mr. Schilling’s family and friends during this very sad time,” said Cyndi Wardlow, Southcentral Regional Supervisor.

“While we may never know the full circumstances, we are trying to learn everything we can about what happened to help people stay safe around wildlife in Alaska.”
There were no witnesses to the events that led to the attack. An empty bear spray canister with the safety removed was found at the location of the attack, and it appeared that bear spray had been discharged at the site. No attractants, such as a dead moose or a food cache, were found in a search of the area during the investigation.

The attack may have been a predatory attack. Daniel Schilling was an avid hunter who had carried a revolver in a chest holster on a previous hunt. 

 https://www.huntinfool.com/articles/topic/diy/the-after-work-bull

Shilling had a dog with him. It seems unlikely Daniel was caught by surprise.  It appears he did not have the revolver with him when he was attacked.  From the picture in the hunt article, the revolver was a Smith & Wesson 629.

How much of his decision to take bear spray, and not a revolver, was made because of the hyped claims of bear spray effectiveness? 

Consider how researchers Herrero and Smith have treated bear spray and firearms. 

Bear spray and firearms were treated much differently in the original papers by Herrero and Smith. It may not have been intentional when the papers were written.

It is misleading to compare the two studies and make the claim that bear spray is more effective than firearms.

In the study of bear spray effectiveness, only cases where bear spray was actually used were recorded.  In the study involving firearms, cases of bear and human conflict "involving" firearms were considered. Cases where the firearm was not fired were included. Cases where the bear was missed were included. Cases where there was mechanical failure were included. Many cases where firearms were used to successfully stop bears were excluded, depending on the authors determination of whether the people were at risk. No cases where bear spray was successfully used to alter aggressive bear behavior were excluded, as closely as I can read in the original papers.

When the calculations for the successful use of bear spray were done, the percentage is between the number of people injured in human bear encounters where bear spray is used.  In the firearms study, the percentage of firearms cases were those which resulted in success in human-bear conflicts where firearms are involved.

These differences render the comparison of the two studies nearly worthless. Unfortunately, Herrero and Smith invite comparison of the two methods in their 2018 paper. Significant differences in the studies of the two methods are easily missed by the casual reader.

Human-bear encounters are defined by Herrero and Smith as:

A “human–bear interaction” (also known as an “encounter”),
occurs when a person and bear are mutually aware of each
other (Smith et al. 2005).

Human-bear conflicts are defined by Herrero and Smith as below:

“Human–bear conflict” occurs when a bear has exhibited
stress-related or curious behavior such that a person took
evasive action, a bear made physical contact with a person,
exhibited predatory behavior, or was intentionally harmed or
killed (not including legal harvests) by a person.

The percentage of success with bear spray was determined as the number of people involved in encounters where bear spray was used (75 encounters, 197 people, 4 injured) as 98% not injured. As carefully as I can read the studies, the 98% figure is for the number of people involved, not the number of people who used bear spray. Incidents where people were not at risk were included. Notice the large number of people involved in these encounters, an average of more than 2.6 people per encounter.  Herrero and Smith could clear this up. Were the bear spray encounters also human-bear conflicts?  Were the four people injured in four separate incidents, or only 1 incident?

The percentage of success with firearms was determined by incident. The total number of people involved was not used.  Incidents where people were not at risk were excluded.

In any fair comparison of deterrent methods, if incidents when a person who shoots at a bear and misses, or when a firearm malfunctions, are counted as firearm failures when the attack is not stopped, then spraying at a bear and missing or where the spray malfunctions, when the attack is not stopped, should be counted as a bear spray failure.

Popular writer about bears in Alaska, Craig Medred, had these comments. 

He is reluctant to call this a case of bear spray failure.  From craigmedred.com:

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game today revealed the safety trigger on the spray had been removed, the canister itself was intact, and there was evidence of pepper residue in the area.

All of those things would lead to the conclusion Schilling discharged the spray, but there is no way of knowing whether the spray hit the bear or how much aerosol was in the can to propel the active ingredient –  capsaicin – toward the animal.

Canisters of bear spray, like fire extinguishers, can lose pressure over time. Some companies now put expiration dates on their containers. A woman in the Yukon Territory, Canada, a few years ago reported a nasty experience with an expired canister that oozed fluid instead of spraying it at the troublesome black bear she encountered.

Consider if the situation involved a revolver instead of bear spray. The analogous situation would be if Daniel Schilling was found with a revolver with a cylinder full of discharged cartridges, and there was evidence of shots fired in the area.  Perhaps Craig Medred would be as reluctant to call that a firearms failure.  

Researchers Herrero and Smith, whom Craig cites, are not reluctant to place the widely different results from the previous papers, next to each other, inviting comparison. From the 2018 paper's insights, page 11.

11. Bear spray was highly effective in Alaska, with 98% of
persons using spray avoiding any injury.


12. Firearms were effective 76% of the time when used as
bear deterrents. Only skilled firearms users should rely
primarily on firearms for bear protection.

In the insights, the 76% figure of effectiveness for firearms is mentioned.  it appears these figures apply to human-bear conflicts.  In the insights, it is claimed 98% of persons using bear spray ( not simply involved) avoided injury.  It appears these numbers apply to human bear encounters. It is not clear if there are different definitions for bear spray and firearms encounters/conflicts.

Herrero and Smith should explain the differences. The differences seem to make bear spray appear more effective and firearms appear less effective.

In the firearms numbers, handguns are somewhat more effective than long guns. (84% v 76% in the 2012 paper, 81% v 75% in the 2018 paper)

AmmoLand has published the latest collections of all cases which we have been able to document, where handguns were used to defend against bears. Those numbers show 93 cases. Handguns were 97% effective. 

Only cases where a handgun was actually fired were included in the AmmoLand data. Those cases were not limited to Alaska. Both of those differences could explain the difference between the AmmoLand data and Herrero and Smith data.

The 2008 bear spray paper and the 2012 firearms paper are referenced. A reader who is not extremely diligent will compare the firearms and bear spray numbers, without realizing how much different the definitions in the two studies are.  Herrero and Smith could clear this up by telling us if the numbers produced in the 2018 totals of the 682 human-bear conflict data use different definitions of success for bear spray and for firearms. 

The 2018 study tells us 328 of the 682 incidents involved firarms, but only 246 are listed as successful or not successful for long guns or handguns. Perhaps the numbers did not vary much for the other 82 cases; perhaps they were inconclusive, or the type of firearm was not mentioned. It would be nice to know.

Bear spray is a useful tool, for those areas where people are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms.  It is better than hands and feet for those people unwilling to carry firearms. It can be effective in hazing bears which are not a threat. 

Bear spray has not been shown to be more effective at stopping a human-bear conflict than firearms, particularly handguns.

A significant problem with bear spray, in human-bear conflicts, is the bear is not killed. The bear is free to go on to the next human-bear conflict, or when the bear spray can is emptied, the bear may simply attack again. 

Bears in North America are not endangered. There are plenty of bears. Bear populations are expanding. The small number of bears that come into direct conflict with humans can be shot and killed without any danger to the overall bear population, whether it be black, grizzly or polar bear.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

MI: Armed Homeowner shoots Man who Charged him

The homeowner confronted the 25-year-old Bangor man at his home in the 27000 block of 66th Street on Sept. 2, 2020.

The suspect then became aggressive and charged at the homeowner, Misane said. During the fight the suspect was shot in the foot.


More Here

TX: Home Invader Assaults Woman, is Shot by her Son

A man was shot and wounded early Wednesday after he kicked in the front door of a Fort Worth home in what police say was a possible attempt to steal guns from the residence, police said.

The wounded suspect fled the scene and police continued their search for him Wednesday.


Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/article245431905.html#storylink=cpy


More Here

Monday, September 07, 2020

Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

 


Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten.

One of the questions involving the Kyle Rittenhouse defensive engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin, just before midnight on the 25th of August, 2020, is if Kyle was forbiden from carrying an AR15 rifle, because Kyle was, at that time, four months short of his 18th birthday. 

Writing about it, I mentioned Wisconsin statutes 948.60, which forbids the carry of dangerous weapons by people under the age of 18. The law has exceptions and cutouts and definitions which need to be taken into account. 

There is an excellent tactical and legal analysis of the two defensive engagements by Kyle Rittenhouse at the ar15.com forum. In that analysis, the author explains that Wisconsin does not have a general prohibition on people carrying dangerous weapons if they are under 18, but does prohibit people under 16 from carrying dangerous weapons, again, with exceptions.

The explanation of the law at ar15.com is very good. However, I thought it could profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively. 

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539. 

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

 (2)No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or which have an over all length less than 26 inches. 

The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type, does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 948.60 only forbids people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

While a casual reading of Wisconsin Statutes seems to indicate people under the age of 18 are forbidden from carrying rifles or shotguns, that is not the case under Wisconsin law, in general. 

The general prohibition is for those under the age of 16.  

Kyle is reported to be more than 17 years old. 

This is consistent with Wisconsin's Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25. Wisconsin added the clear wording of Section 25 to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998.  

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Wisconsin_Constitution

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[1]

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle because he was less than 18 years of age.

The law is clear, if a bit convoluted. Lawyers are supposed to be experts at unwinding the convolutions of the law.

Kyle's defense team is correct. The criminal complaint against Kyle appears to have been rushed and ill conceived.


©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch