Monday, June 30, 2014

The Blaze: I Used To Come For Your Guns – Now I Support Your Right to Defend Yourself

New York City in the early 1990s has been described as many things, few of them complimentary.


On the southeast corner of 181st Street and Ryer Ave in The Bronx stands the 46th Precinct, The Alamo, a place Time Magazine once called, “The Most Dangerous Square Mile In America.” So dangerous a place, that in the late 1980s that the Red Cross refused to send volunteers to help the needy.

And that was where I worked. The “four six” as we called it, was an “A House.” The busiest of the busy. The worst of the worst.

More Here

From GunsSaveLives: What is Going on at CNN Lately? Reports on Guns Are Surprisingly Fair As of Late

I caught some of this as well, and wondered what was going on.

Did CNN get bought out and no one knows about it? I’m not sure what has happened at CNN in the last few weeks, but the network referred to by many conservative Americans has taken a very sharp turn on their coverage of all things guns recently.

More Here

ATF and Sig Sauer Agree to Pause on Muzzlebrake Lawsuit

By agreement, approved by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Sig will “stay” it’s lawsuit against the ATF until Sept. 17. In the meantime, both sides agree, Sig will send the ATF a sample of its muzzle brake for review and the ATF will issue a ruling, its third, by Aug. 6.

More Here

Sunday, June 29, 2014

TX: Off Duty Officer Shoots Robber in Crowded Restaurant

My family and I were eye witnesses to this event. My husband and I were there for a late dinner with our 3 children ages 2 months, 3 years, and 7 years old. We were just getting up to leave when all this happened. We heard a gunshot that came from the kitchen then lots of screams when the brave off duty officer got up and drew his gun.

The shooter whom which was wearing a black hoodie and red bandana over his face was entering the main dining room with his handgun. All might I add 10 feet from my small children, the officer engaged the shooter and gunfire was exchanged.

More Here

AZ: Democrats Fight for 7th District Seat at Anti-Gun Event

Mary Rose Wilcox and Ruben Gallego from the Republic

There are only a couple of safe Democrat seats for Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives.   One of them is in the 7th district, a seat that is now held by the retiring Ed Pastor.   I had the unfortunate experience to be "represented" by Ed for a number of years until gerrymandering moved the borders of the district.  In retrospect, Mr. Pastor was at least not an aggressively evil anti-rights activist, more of the "follow the party line" kind of guy.  It was rumored that as long as Ed had his mistresses and easy money, he would not work super hard to deprive you of your rights.    King log is way better than king stork. 

Now Ed Pastor is retiring, and the safe seventh district is up for grabs.    There are four Democrats running in the primary.  One candidate's husband, Earl Wilcox, and candidate Ruben Gallego got into a bit of a tiff at Senator Jeff Flake's office when activists were delivering petitions calling for restrictive gun control laws.  From
Earl Wilcox called Gallego a "traitor to the cause," according to a reporter's notes of the exchange, because Gallego supported looser gun laws while serving in the Arizona Legislature and previously belonged to the National Rifle Association.

At one point, as Gallego posed with activists for a photo, Earl interrupted, saying, "NRA — NRA member over here," according to a video obtained by The Arizona Republic.
I do not know much about Gallego, but I met Jennifer  Longdon at the Phoenix "buy back" program last year.   She was pleasant to talk to, but explained that she was just a volunteer who had not participated in the planning of the event.    She defended Gallego against the attack by Wilcox:
"I'm an NRA member," replied Jennifer Longdon, a prominent activist with Arizonans for Gun Safety who uses a wheelchair because of a gunshot injury. She later clarified to The Republic that she is a former NRA member who still owns a gun.
Mary Rose Wilcox controls a powerful political machine in south Phoenix.   She was shot in the rear by a homeless citizen who was upset with the corruption that was exhibited after voters repeatedly refused to increase taxes for a new stadium.   Wilcox was instrumental in figuring out and implementing a way to thwart the will of the voters.   A local paper even wrote that she deserved the attack.   From the
 Did Wilcox the county supervisor deserve to get shot in the ass?


 Among those in the know, Wilcox is noted not for her integrity but her arrogance. South Phoenix is considered by many to be controlled by the Wilcox political machine. Comparisons with old Chicago have been drawn.
It might be an act of desperation on the part of the Wilcox machine for her husband to go to a small anti-gun event and attack an opponent as a "traitor to the cause".   I am not sure just how many of her constituents are radically for restricting the second amendment and anti-NRA, but I suspect that even in a Democrat primary in South Phoenix, it is a small number.

In politics, organization counts for a great deal.   So does sympathy in the old media.   In the article about the contretemps, I did not find a single mention of the many scandals that Mary Rose Wilcox has been involved in.

Participating in a event designed to create even more restrictive gun laws does not endear Ruben Gallego to me.   The fact that Jennifer London defended him is in his favor.   But more than that, the idea that the Wilcox machine is against him... that speaks volumes.

I do not know who will win the 7th District primary.   We Arizonans will likely have to live with them for the rest of their careers.    I can hope that someone less corrupt can win.  If I could vote in the primary, I would vote for whoever looked as though they could beat Wilcox.   At least it takes time to build a machine.

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

Dave Workman: Is Seattle mayor mimicking Bloomy group’s exaggeration, misrepresentation?

More than half of Seattle’s criminal homicides last year did not involve firearms, yet Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s focus, including his remarks last night to a community meeting in the South End, has been on gun control, and one wonders if he has taken a page from Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” playbook to exaggerate the city’s violent crime problem by misleading his constituents and misrepresenting history.

To anyone familiar with crime in Seattle and other similar-sized cities, it might appear so. Yet statistics indicate that suggestions of Seattle being caught in an “epidemic of violence” as the mayor implied Wednesday, do not pass the smell test.

More Here

American Thinker:ATF Backs Down on Gun Sale Reports

For nearly three years, federally-licensed firearms dealers (“FFLs”) in southern border states have been badgered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) to report sales of two or more rifles to the same person during any consecutive five-day period. Purporting to need this information to stop arms trafficking in and out of Mexico, ATF issued so-called “demand letters” to require indefinite reporting of multiple rifle sales by thousands of dealers, treating the independent FFL businessmen as though they were government employees.

ATF has no authority to require these reports. Although the Gun Control Act of 1968 authorizes ATF to issue demand letters, these were to be issued only when ATF is investigating certain specific buyers or specific FFLs, and this is how they were used for many years. They were not designed to impose a new permanent reporting requirement on dealers.

More Here

Colorado Restaurant Encourages Customers And Employees To Carry Guns

DENVER (CBS4) – One restaurant in Rifle, Colorado is living up to its name: customers are invited to bring their guns to Shooters Grill, reports the Post Independent.

More Here

Saturday, June 28, 2014

NC: North Carolina Repeals Gun Registration

Gun registration was never popular in North Carolina.  The only county that required that guns be registered was Durham County, but that law was passed in 1935, and had been grandfathered in when state preemption of gun laws was codified in 1995.   Just because the law only applied to Durham County did not mean that it did not affect other people in the state or around the nation.  The law required guns to be registered.   If you were passing through Durham County, and possessed guns that were not registered in the County, you could have been charged with a crime.

It does not appear that many were.   Like many antique laws, this one acted as an old, out of date, rusty landmine, waiting for the unsuspecting victim in just the wrong circumstances to go off.  The landmine has been disarmed.   Much of the work required to repeal the law came from Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC), a local nonprofit group that supports the right to keep and bear arms.

The registry consisted entirely of paper forms in alphabetical order.   It is claimed that it was never put into digital format.   As someone who has dealt with those issues, I can affirm that converting old paper forms to digital media can be time consuming and expensive.      

Paul Valone, president of GRNC, is pushing to have the old records destroyed.   From

 “We’ve got an alert going out right now to have people contact the county commission to demand these records be destroyed,” said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, a nonprofit gun rights organization.
 Repeal of the registration system is one of a continuing series of legislative wins for second amendment supporters nationwide.   In spite of support for more restrictive gun laws in the old media and vast sums spent by billionaire politicians, public support for gun control continues to drop.

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

UT: "Domestic Violence" Nightmare ends for Clark Aposhian

In a 13 month long legal battle that took significant emotional, mental, and financial resources, Clark Aposhian, the outspoken second amendment supporter and lobbyist from Utah, has finally put to rest the last of the legal barrage filed against him by his former wife and her husband.

I wrote of this case four months ago, when a judge refused to grant a protective order against Aposhian.   At the time, it seemed certain that the prominent constitutional rights advocate would have the domestic violence charges against him dropped.    On Monday, the last of the charges was laid to rest when Aposhian pled no contest to a charge of disorderly conduct stemming from honking the horn of his 2 1/2 ton truck when arriving at the residence of his former wife and her new husband.   Aposhian shares custody of his daughter with his former wife.

I was a little surprised at the vindictive, emotional, and personal attacks against Aposhian, based primarily on the fact that he owns firearms, a big truck, and that he was accused of domestic violence, even though those charges were dropped.   Here are a few examples from comments at the article:
Anyone who feels they really need to carry a concealed, loaded weapon ...
... deserves to be on a Government List of potential wackos!
 Aphosian had a bigger motivation to lie. Or should I say, a tiny motivation augmented by 300 reasons to stiffen his stance.
Another armchair psychologist:
Celia….you have ZERO idea of what was going on. This is an ex who had all the reason in the world to be fearful of her ex husband who was and is emotionally unstable. His excessive number of guns is proof of his deep inferiority complex and need to assert his manliness because of his own doubts on that subject.
Then this assertion:
 That and he is a F**#ING ego driven nut job with an ax to grind. This is another mall shooting waiting to happen..... wait for it.....
People who actually know Clark Aposian have a considerably different view of him.   From his facebook page:

Nice/Joyed to see W. Clark Aposhian fight the nasty political & corrupt processes and WIN!
 So happy for you Winton. Enjoy your time with your daughter. What a wonderful time for you and her. Love you brother.
The abuse of restraining orders and domestic violence accusations by vindictive women against innocent men has become commonplace.   It has become just another arrow in a divorce attorney's quiver.   

 Accusations in these cases are easy to make, with virtually no repercussions.   Even in cases where the accuser can be shown to have lied, I have never heard of one being charged with lying to police or filing a false report.

As the saying goes: How does W. Clark Aposhian get his reputation back?

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

Friday, June 27, 2014

Dave Workman:Murray supports UBCs; Las Vegas paper deflates myth

While Seattle Mayor Ed Murray was outlining his sweeping proposal to address so-called “gun violence” yesterday to a packed room at city hall, the Las Vegas Review-Journal was letting the air out of an idea that anti-gunners like Murray are currently embracing: The “universal background check” (UBC).

Murray, according to the Seattle Times and Seattle, does not plan to disarm law-abiding citizens. That would be a non-starter, anyway, thanks to a legal action that started more than five years ago pitting the City of Seattle against state and national gun rights organizations and the state’s 30-year-old model preemption law. That was the test case, Seattle lost and in the process, strengthened the very law the city sought to erode.

But Murray does want to pass a UBC law in this state – now facing voters in November in the form of Initiative 594, an 18-page gun control measure that expands the state’s existing pistol registry and also affects all gun transfers, not just sales – and that’s an idea that just got splashed with some editorial cold water in Las Vegas. The Review Journal took a hard, matter-of-fact look at the UBC because a similar initiative has just been filed by anti-gunners in Nevada, and found the concept wanting.

More here

VA:Charges Dropped Against Man Who Shot 2 Drunk Russians

After a lengthy hearing in Manchester General District Court, Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland ruled that Quinn E. Hazelwood was acting in self-defense when he shot the two men just after midnight May 10 on the seventh floor of the American Heritage Apartments at 1001 E. Main St.

More Here

MI:Poll Shows Support for Making Concealed Carry Easier and Cheaper is running a poll about a proposal in Michigan to make obtaining a concealed carry permit cheaper, faster and easier in the state.  The proposal would eliminate the nearly 100 year old county gun boards, which at present have little to do.   Under the proposal background checks would be run by the State Police instead of county boards.  The 83 County gun boards, which have been accused of delaying permits, would be eliminated.

The bill has passed the Senate.   It would have to pass the House and be signed by the Governor to become law.

The current question on the poll is:
Do you support the proposed gun law that would make getting a concealed carry license easier, faster, and cheaper in Michigan? 
Yes               81% 
No                16% 
I don't know   3%
 Here is the link to the poll.    While these polls are unscientific, they do measure the "intensity" of feelings about the issue.   They measure the ratio of the groups in the electorate who fee sufficient intensity about the measure to vote in an Internet poll.   It is common, as seen in this poll, for Second Amendment supporters to outnumber those who favor stricter gun control by ratios of 3-10 to 1.

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

Gun Ban Stopped by Colorado Recall Elections Aftershocks

After the immense amount of money, old media airtime, and Obama administration political capital was spent on enacting restrictive gun legislation in Colorado last year, the electorate rebelled.

Grassroots campaigns led by people who had never been involved in politics beat the establishment. Two legislators were recalled. A third, thought to be in a safe Democratic district, resigned under pressure at the last instant, in order to save the Democrat majority in the State Senate. The political establishment was shaken. That political earthquake continues to reverberate.

As part of the establishment push to disarm the population, an organization was formed to put a referendum on the ballot to ban firearms on college grounds, which the Colorado Supreme Court had recently ruled illegal.  Spearheaded by Ken Tolz, a long time proponent of citizen disarmament, Safe Campus Colorado had six months to gather 86,000 signatures for its initiative. I have not found where the funding for the signature drive came from.

The gun control group says it has gathered sufficient signatures to place the gun ban on the ballot. They also say that they will not do so. From Colorado Pubic Radio, Tolz is quoted:
“By having this on the ballot, it brings back to prominence some of the feelings that existed last year and we don’t want to get caught up in that environment,” he says.
David Kopel, who is representing 55 sheriffs in a lawsuit against the new gun laws, puts it more bluntly:
“It’s eminently sensible and prudent for the Democratic establishment in Colorado in 2014 to say we don’t want a gun ballot issue out there," Kopel says. "Whatever happens with that ballot issue, it’s going bring more pro-gun voters to the polls and then once they are at the polls to vote on the gun issue, they will probably vote also in the candidate races for the more pro-gun candidates.”
How much money was spent on the initiative, that will now be flushed down the memory hole? The recent Marijuana initiative, which was likely considerably more popular, cost $211,000.  If the same dynamics applied, this initiative would run over $200,000. A nice chunk of change for an disarmed population group, but not a huge amount for Michael Bloomberg.

That is assuming that the group's leaders are telling the truth. A truly Machiavellian political activist would claim that they had sufficient signatures, but were sacrificing their effort for the greater good of the party, even if they fell short.  What better way to gain credit with the Democrat political establishment, at little or no cost to yourself? As the signatures will not be turned in, there is no way to be sure.

Still, the failure of this initiative to be on the ballot is another one of the aftershocks to follow the recall earthquakes from the grass roots. I expect more to come in November. I do not think that the people's memories are as short as Governor Hickenlooper seems to believe.

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

Dupont Watches Gun Watch

Nice to see people in the industry watching Gun Watch.  This 10 minutes was likely on break or during lunch time on the east coast.

Dean Weingarten

Guns, Bathrooms, and Legal Consequences

One of the most legally dangerous places to carry a handgun is in the bathroom.   It may not be as legally dangerous as an airport, but it ranks high on the list for the same reason: it creates an environment where it is easy to make a legally dangerous mistake.  A church going lady in Wisconsin found this out in March.   She will recover from the error, but it has already cost her significant time, money, and stress.   From
Susan Hitchler, 66, was charged in April with negligent handling of a weapon, a misdemeanor. The complaint indicated that on March 19 she had left her handgun in a stall of the women's restroom at Elmbrook Church. A church employee found the gun within a few minutes and turned it over to security.

At a hearing late last week, Circuit Judge Lloyd V. Carter ruled on a defense motion to dismiss the case based on a lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. The motion had been argued in May.
The most common way for people to carry concealed handguns is attached to the belt or waist band in some way.    When people use a stall in a bathroom, the handgun becomes an impediment.   I can imagine the nodding of heads of those who have carried.   Nearly everyone has encountered this problem in one way or another.   Undo the belt, and the handgun is no longer supported.  If you place the handgun on the floor, even if it is still in the holster, it may be seen from outside the stall.   Some solve this dilemma by discreetly covering the holster and handgun inside the clothes at their feet.  Others detach the holstered gun and place it out of sight behind the toilet or on top the toilet paper dispenser.   Worse, some unholster the handgun and place it in a "convenient" spot. That is not a good idea.   From, a detective left his firearm:
There, perched atop a toilet paper dispenser inside a busy bathroom inside a busy movie theater, he discovered the loaded Glock 26, a small semiautomatic weapon.
 One from the Missouri Capitol:
Dave Evans, legislative assistant to Republican House Speaker Tim Jones, left a loaded 9mm pistol in a stall at Capitol in Jefferson City, Missouri
One that involves an airport bathroom :
The weapon, a .380-caliber pistol in a black case, was found by a custodian in the restroom near the security checkpoint about 6:45 p.m. Tuesday, according to a Peoria County Sheriff’s Office report on the incident.
 In Michigan, a security guard:
An armed school security officer hired in response to the Newtown shootings forgot to take his gun with him when he left the bathroom. 

The unloaded handgun was unattended in the restroom “for a few moments,” Matt Young, director of The Chatfield School in Lapeer, Mich., told Michigan Live in a statement.
 The problem is one of human nature. Humans are fallible. We all make mistakes. If you detach your handgun, distractions can occur at exactly the wrong instance, overriding your awareness of your handgun's location with something that seems more important. In that critical instant, the handgun is left in the bathroom. That error can come with considerable legal consequences. You will survive, but your pocketbook, reputation, and your constitutional right to own and carry guns may not.

Most people discover the error very quickly. I surmise that in the vast majority of cases, the handgun is retrieved without any ill effects. It is those few cases where someone else finds the firearm and reports it to the police, that consequences start spiraling out of control.

Those consequences are considerably less severe than if you manage to fumble the handgun and have a negligent discharge in the process. Here is one from Tampa:

Bliss was sitting on the toilet in a hotel bathroom when a woman in the next stall accidentally let her handgun slip out of her waist holster. The weapon discharged when it hit the ground.

It can happen. There are almost no modern handguns that will discharge when dropped. If someone grabs for them as they are falling, and contacts the trigger... that is another scenario. It is a good reason to have some form of retention device on the holster, and to keep the handgun in the holster when you are in the bathroom. If you keep the holster on your belt or waistband, you are fairly well assured of not leaving the firearm behind.

Alternatives to belt or waistband carry offer other challenges and possibilities. It is possible, if the person is carrying the firearm in a pocket, to have the gun slip out, unnoticed, as the clothes are rearranged. This is not common, but we are talking about rare events. While fannypacks may not be fashionable, they offer a fairly secure and easy way to carry concealed handguns. In the bathroom stall, it is usually necessary to detach the fannypack. The handgun remains concealed, but the possibility of leaving the fannypack is ever present. One retired officer that I know hangs the fannypack on the door coat hook to keep it in sight. It can be placed on top of lowered clothes. The same concerns apply to purses, briefcases, and non-traditional methods such as camera cases or tablet cases. Shoulder holsters offer a different approach that helps keep the firearm secure. If you remember the detective on "Barney Miller" that was always going to the bathroom, there was a reason that he used a shoulder holster. Leaving guns in bathrooms seems to be exclusive to concealed carry. I have not heard of any handguns that were left in bathrooms where the gun was openly carried. Guns carried openly tend to be better secured to belts, be in retention holsters, and are usually larger and not as easily misplaced.

I have not found any cases of handguns left in bathrooms that were stolen and used in crimes, but it could happen.

To sum up: in the bathroom, be sure to maintain control of the firearm when undoing belts or clothes. Do not inadvertently display the gun to others who might view it from outside the stall. Do not remove your gun from the holster and set it down; do not remove your holster from your belt or waistband and set it down; if using a fannypack, purse, or other detachable container, keep it in sight. Check the security of your gun when you rearrange your clothes; check the bathroom to make sure you have not left personal possessions when you leave. Consider shoulder holsters, they might work for your needs. Do not be the next person on the national news who left a gun in a public bathroom.

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

Thursday, June 26, 2014

CA: Homeowner Shoots Intruder

“Garcia was confronted by the male homeowner who, after an apparent altercation, fired several shots from a handgun,” according to the statement. “Garcia fled … but collapsed in the homeowner’s rear yard from related gunshot wounds.”

More Here

State of Florida Watches Gun Watch

Nice to see people in government informing themselves.   This one only stayed for a quarter hour.   Notice the time.   They likely found something of interest on their lunch hour. 

Welcome, come back anytime.

Dean Weingarten

Wisconsin Carry Wins Appeal: Court Orders Return of Gun

On March 13, 2012, Aaron C. Ols went to the park across the street from his house to confront a man, his fiancee, their two children and dog who were in the park after hours.   The park was closed at 8 pm.  Animals were not allowed in the park.    Sunset was at 6:56 PM, so this was after dark.

An argument ensued.  Ols retreated to his property, and was followed by the other man.    Ols repeatedly told the man to leave.  The man threatened to kill Ols, who then drew his firearm, pointed it at the ground, and called police.

The police arrived, arrested Ols, and confiscated his gun.   He was later charged with disorderly conduct while armed, which was amended to a municipal ordinance violation of disorderly conduct, to which Ols  plead no contest.    He was ordered to pay the fine.

In January of 2013, Mr. Ols asked the Milwaukee gun court to order the return of his firearm.   The court refused, claiming that it could not do so because Ols had used the gun in the commission of a crime:

WIS. STAT. § 968.20, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) Any person claiming the right to possession of property
seized ... may apply for its return .... The court shall ... hold
a hearing to hear all claims to its true ownership. If the
right to possession is proved to the court’s satisfaction, it
shall order the property, other than contraband ... returned...
(b) If the seized property is a dangerous weapon or
ammunition, the property shall not be returned to any
person who committed a crime involving the use of the
dangerous weapon or the ammunition....

Mr. Ols, with the help of Wisconsin Carry, appealed the court ruling.

 The Appeals court ruled that the City had not presented any evidence that Mr. Ols had used his firearm to commit disorderly conduct, and reversed the circuit court decision.   Mr. Ols should have his firearm returned shortly.

There is a tendency for urban courts to confiscate firearms from citizens without good reason, and a tendency for urban police to confiscate them without due process.   While it is good that there is a system in place for a citizen to petition the court for return of property, such a petition may cost more than the property is worth.     Property that is not ordered forfeited by a court should be returned promptly to the person it was taken from.    If it is not, it amounts to an extra legal punishment.

This ruling is a step in the right direction.   It may serve as a check against a bias in the courts against returning firearms to their lawful owners.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

Cheap Guns Opportunity: Jacksonville Florida 28 June 2014

There will be a gun turn in event on Saturday, 28 June, 2014 in Jacksonville, Florida. While these events are commonly labeled with the propaganda term "buyback" the guns were never owned by the people attempting to buy them.

The event will be held at North Jacksonville Baptist Church, 8531 N. Main Street.  The event will run from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

$50 will be exchanged for firearms.  In a new twist, the Police Athletic League will also recieve $50 for each firearm turned in.    People are supposed to be able to turn in firearms "no questions asked".   The Sheriff's office, which in Jacksonville is also known as the police office, will be running the event and will check firearms to determine if they are stolen.   Over the last year, 2,035 firearms have been turned in.

33 have been found to be stolen,  the thefts occurring as far back as 1969.   This percentage is slightly higher than usually seen at these events.    Private buyers have little to fear about buying stolen firearms at these events.   Florida even has a website where firearms purchasers can check to see if a firearm is listed as stolen in the State.

Another interesting difference with this program is that firearms that are considered collectibles are not destroyed.   From
Those that are considered collectables, such as antiques, are not destroyed, Rutherford said. He said others are cut apart and melted.
How these firearms are disposed of was not explained.  

Ballistic tests will not be run on all of the firearms collected.  That is easily understandable, because ballistic testing costs money, perhaps as much as was paid for the firearm, and results in little usable information.  It would be silly to run ballistic tests on every .22 rifle that is brought in, and ballistic tests on shotguns are generally useless.

Across the country, communities, police departments and churches are sponsoring gun turn-ins to get "guns off the street". At many of these events, private buyers are showing up, offering cash for the more valuable guns. These private additions to the public turn-in are effective, no doubt, in getting more guns off the street, because they add to the resources that are available to those who want to get rid of guns for something of value, be it a grocery card or a number of twenty dollar bills.

You can help make the turn-in in your area more effective by standing on the curb with your "Cash for Guns" sign, or at a folding table, willing to offer more than the gift card for firearms that are more valuable. It would be best if numerous private parties were available, as more good guns could then be transferred into responsible hands.

This action serves many useful purposes. It stretches the turn-in budget so that more guns can be taken off the street. It helps keep fearful widows from being defrauded of most of the market value of the gun they are turning in. It prevents valuable assets from being destroyed by bureaucratic inflexibility. It is a win-win-win situation.

It also dispels the pernicious message that guns are bad and should be destroyed.

Private sales are legal in Florida. Open carry of firearms is generally not legal, but it appears that brief displays of a firearm are accepted, if the display is not in a threatening manner.

Link to article with numerous examples of private sales at gun turn in events
Link to most recent article about private buyers at Milwaukee event

Link to Phoenix Article: pictures of private buyers

Some counties in Florida have a special provision to require background checks on all guns sold on property where the public has the right of way.   The ordinace has been preempted by state law for people with valid concealed carry permits.   It does not appear that Duval county has such a local ordinance, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

David Codrea: Vanderboegh ponders unpleasant truths, restoring Constitution in Texas speech

Noting Barack Obama has presided over 100 million FBI firearm sales background checks, activist and citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh spoke to enthusiastic gun owners at an Open Carry Texas “Meet and Greet” in Big Spring on Saturday.

“Now, for a guy who's only been in office for a term and a half, that's quite an accomplishment. As a firearm salesman representing the Unintended Consequences Armaments Corporation, he has managed to put even Bill Clinton in the deep shade,” Vanderboegh observed. “And we won't even mention what you've done for ammunition sales. But thanks for everything, Barack. You may go down in history as this country's worst President ever, but you are one hell of an armaments salesman.”

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

More here at Gun Rights Examiner

School Principals Use Police Against Parents with Gun Permits

Two principals in widely separated states tried to use police against parents with gun permits.   Both principals ended up on the losing side, when the parents refused to fold, and took them to court.  In the most recent case, the principal at Stratton Elementary School in Massachusetts contacted police after the father showed the principal his gun permit.   The father had come to talk to the principal about a drawing the son had made.  From

The principal said the boy had drawn a phallic symbol, but 40-year-old Robert Goodwin said his son had actually drawn a gun similar to one he’d seen in ‘Despicable Me.’

Goodwin then reportedly took out his gun permit and the principal notified police.
The police charge Goodwin with threatening the principal, suspended his gun permit, and confiscated a rifle from his home:
Officers later went to his home where they took away a hunting rifle; his gun license has also been suspended.
Under oath, the principal admitted that he did not feel threatened, and the charges were dropped.   There is no mention of whether the rifle was returned or the gun permit restored.
When questioned under oath, the principal told a clerk magistrate he did not feel threatened.
By itself, this is an interesting story:  A principal using the police to harass a gun owner.   It reminded me of another story out of Georgia that had a similar theme.  In it, the principal had contacted the police to ban the parent from school because she had a picture of her carry permit on her facebook page.   From

In what I’d call a severe case of overreacting, Army veteran Tanya Mount was banned from her disabled daughter’s elementary school after she posted a photo of her concealed weapons permit online.
The mother, who often volunteered at the school, said she was approached by a police officer near campus one day and warned that Principal Janina Dallas had filed a “no trespass order” against Mount.
Tanya Mount transferred her daughter to a different school.   The principal later claimed that the permit was not the reason for banning Ms. Mount from the school.   A settlement was reached in which the school paid $1,000 and legal fees, according to
 Tanya Mount said she'll receive $1,000 and an undisclosed amount for legal expenses.
Taken separately, these two cases might be dismissed as odd incidents.  Together they reinforce the idea of schools as intolerant, politically correct bastions of citizen disarmament orthodoxy.   How many of these cases exist, where the victim with the permit did not have the courage or wherewithal to fight the system in the courts?  How many of these cases never make the news, because most police have more sense?  I would appreciate any information about other cases.

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

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Kurt Hofmann: Judge acknowledges Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Very few politicians, no matter how rabidly hostile they are to private ownership of firearms, are willing to risk not claiming to "support the Second Amendment." Anti-gun politicians, in other words, would rather transparently lie about such support, than acknowledge that they would dearly love to gut the Constitutional guarantee of a fundamental human right.

To shore up their dubious Second Amendment "street cred," they often cite their love of hunting. Thus we the voters are subjected to tales of Hillary Clinton's hunting prowess (yeah--a true champion of the Second Amendment is Hillary), photo ops of John Kerry in his brand-spanking-new hunting duds, and Mitt Romney claiming to have been a lifelong hunter, and then when it was discovered he had never held a hunting license, hurriedly switching to billing himself as a mighty slayer of "small varmints." Joe Biden is another who tried to assure gun owners that an Obama/Biden presidency would be no threat to gun rights, because as a hunter he would not allow it, and later went on to advise women to fire shotgun blasts randomly into the air when threatened, and homeowners to fire their shotguns through the doors of their homes.

The correct response to all of these claims is, of course, "So what?" What does a politician's enthusiasm for hunting, even if genuine, have to do with his willingness to fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--or even to simply refrain from efforts to erode it? Are we to believe that the Founding Fathers devoted ten percent of the Bill of Rights to the protection of sport?

More Here at St. Louis Gun Rights examiner

The Blaze: Blind Person with Concealed Carry Permit

Carey McWilliams found himself in the national spotlight when he became the first totally blind person in the U.S. to obtain a concealed-carry permit in 2001. Since then, he has battled critics who argue he should’ve lost his Second Amendment rights along with his sight.

More Here

PA: Officer-turned-shopkeeper kills robber in Mayfair

A former Philadelphia police officer shot and killed a knife-wielding man who tried to rob her vitamin store Monday evening, police said.

More Here

ID: Husband Uses Gun To Evict Naked Stranger

"My husband grabs the gun because we have no idea who this guy is," said Tricia. "He's like, 'Get out of my house, now!' But the guy wouldn't leave. So, he puts the gun to his head, and says, 'I said, get out!'"


  "He craps on my floor, and he must have been playing in it because he streaked it down the side of my walls. The stain is gone finally, thank goodness."

More here

OH: Property Owner Wounds Suspected Burglar

The property owner told deputies that he had fired shots at three people who were allegedly breaking in.

Deputies arrested a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old at the scene. Another 17-year-old suspect was found nearby and transported to Marion General Hospital for injuries.

more here

The Constitutionalist: Open carry walk for Mark Hoffman

Here are links to previous information about the Mark Hoffman incident.  The announcement of the open carry walk is below:

The date is set!  The walk is scheduled for 12pm, June 29th.  Mark, if you're reading this...consult your lawyer before showing up!  But know this, we support you 103% (get it?  III% joke) and will be watching your case.

We will be meeting at around 11:30 to discuss the route and take a list of names should something go wrong.  There is always the risk that the police will violate one, a few, or all of our rights, but in all reality the chance of that happening is miniscule.  When faced with an armed individual, police officers rarely misbehave.  When faced with a group of armed citizens who have cameras...well, it's not going to happen.

Chris Langer has mentioned a possibility of dining arrangements at General Sam's afterwards, so don't eat!  Parking will likely be available at Inkfreak Tattoos and possibly General Sam's if we need more space but I can maybe bring two people in my vehicle from New Richmond if anyone needs a ride.

We won't be travelling past the railroad bridge over Spring Street since a few people don't have Wisconsin conceal carry licenses and would be violating the 1000' GFSZ bubble.  We will however, be taking a bit of a hike, so bring a water bottle because this is Wisconsin in June.


1. Come as you are and carry what you like, just remember: TABK! Safety is our number one concern.

2. Bring something to record with. Audio is great but video is best. The more of us recording the better. They can't delete them all. ;-). Upload at every opportunity.

3. While it is your right, please don't carry "at the ready." In a time when our civil rights are under a historically significant assault from the left, we should present a good model for others even if it is just a show. Also, were a LEO to initiate a scuffle, they could intentionally disengage any safety and cause an unintended discharge which would ricochet from that angle. I have little doubt it's happened before.  If you carry in that manner, we will ask you to leave.

4. If you have a kid that would like to participate PLEASE BRING THEM! They are the future of this nation and unfortunately glued to their television screens. An event like this should draw some of the recent graduates outdoors to watch and statistically, a third of them will vote. Maybe some will join us.

5. Lastly, bring a friend! Bring a few friends! Bring your mom, dad, sister, brother, grandfather..we have safety in numbers. We need to field enough people that any retaliation by law enforcement will be strongly discouraged. Our goal is to make our presence known to Chief Briggs and the town board, educate the public and return home with the same number we arrived with.

This is not a challenge to law enforcement, but a peaceful demonstration of a right exercised and a reminder to the crooked bureaucracy whom we allow to remain in office that We The People rule this nation and will not allow the deprivation of our civil rights by law enforcement and politicians through intimidation, kidnapping, theft or any other thuggery.

If you have any questions, feel free to call or text me at (715)222-2295.

Any threats or harassment will be reported to the proper authorities. 

Day by Day Cartoon Annual Fund Drive

Here is the link to this popular cartoon strip.  Remember, Day by Day is completely reader funded.   The old media do not allow pro-freedom cartoonists a voice.

David Codrea: Dell statement on school’s web blocking suggests low traffic on anti-gun sites

Dell’s SonicWall content filtering service did not conspire to block websites promoting gun rights from being accessed by a Connecticut school’s computers, the company’s executive director for security product management claimed Thursday on the official corporate blog.

The inability of a student to access firearms rights-related sites to do research for a debate on “gun control,” while being able to access anti-gun advocacy sites, led to a “blunt letter” from the Second Amendment Foundation’s general counsel Miko Tempski to Superintendent Jody Ian Goeler at Connecticut’s Regional School District 14, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman reported Friday.

Also reported blocked were Christian and conservative sites, while “progressive” and Islamic sites were accessible. The school put the onus on Dell, saying they would investigate the filtering service and report back when they had more information. For its part, Dell would have none of that, and returned the responsibility back to school administrators.

More Here

Monday, June 23, 2014

Greg Pollowitz: NYT Ends ‘The Gun Report’ — But Why?

I have read the NYTs 'The Gun Report' a number of times, and used it for leads to self defense shootings.  There were often a couple of them in the report, if you dug down into the the links. 

Op-Ed columnist for the Times, Joe Nocera, recently announced the end of “The Gun Report” (a daily summary of gun violence in America) writing that it had “run its course” and “was time to bid it adieu.” He added:
Day after day, week after week, there was a numbing sameness to the shootings. And to be blunt, most of those who posted comments were not getting closer to finding common ground than when we began.
Sounds like Nocera was frustrated that he wasn’t changing anyone’s mind, but that’s not the entire story.

More Here

Sunday, June 22, 2014

ID: Moscow Restaurant Encourages Open Carry of Guns

In Moscow, Idaho, a restaurant offers a discount to people who openly carry firearms.

In the vast majority of states, openly carried firearms are legal.   The right to open carry has been used in a number of states to push for the passage of "shall issue" laws to allow people to legally carry firearms concealed.  Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin are states that readily come to mind.  Texans are currently  using the legal open carry of rifles, guaranteed in their State Constitution, to push for the legal open carry of handguns.  Arizonans used the right to open carry to remove illegal regulation.  Guam had open carry before they passed a "shall issue" law this year.  The strategy  has generally worked.

41 states and a territory have "shall issue" statutes, eight states have "may issue" laws, which allow local authorities to deny carry permits without clearly stated reasons; 1 state, Vermont, does not require a permit to carry a gun and does not issue one.  Four of the "shall issue" states do not require permits, but issue them for reasons of reciprocity and special circumstances.   There are currently 45 states in which the open carry of modern, holstered pistols is generally legal, as it has been in most of nation for most of its history.  The one state that restricted open carry further, California,  has become the location of a federal court decision that states that if you restrict open carry, then you must, at minimum, have a "shall issue" concealed carry policy.  California is a weird outlier, as it is one of only six states that have no state constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

Restoration of the right to carry firearms has been met with fierce opposition in the old media.   The argument has always been that there will be "blood in the streets" and a return to "the wild, wild, west".  It never happens.  The west referred to was mostly a fiction created by the media starting with dime novels, then moving to the movie theater and then television.  The wild west was more peaceful than modern urban centers, which have become the modern frontier.

Private establishments have always had the right to bar customers from carrying arms on their property, a right that was usurped by the government in many states.  When the general right to bear arms is restored, many store owners are exhorted by the media to ban the carry of arms on their premises.  In some locations, the local governments applied some persuasion to this end, even buying "no guns" signs to "give" to store owners to "assist" them in making the decision.   After the stores start losing customers, and are told why, the signs come down

Some establishments have discovered what has long been established by various studies: gun owners tend to be better educated and more prosperous than the general public.   Crime rates tend to drop with an increase in citizens carrying legal guns.   Some of these establishments have put these facts together and come to the obvious conclusion:  It is a good idea to attract gun carriers as customers.  The value is clear.  Not only does the store or restaurant gain business, it gains a considerable increase in security for almost no cost.   Everyone understands why police bars, donut shops, and gun shops are seldom the targets of armed robberies: criminals do not wish to be shot.

Here is the notice From, located in Moscow:  
Do you offer an open carry discount?
Yes.  Since opening in 2010 we have offered a 10% discount if you open carry a handgun.  Before we opened up, we knew we wanted to offer this as an incentive to folks who carry guns.  We wanted to offer this friendly invitation to fellow members of the firearms community since not all businesses are always ‘carry friendly’.  While it may turn some heads and has sparked some interesting conversations, it has also brought CD’s a variety of very cool, very friendly regular customers. Don’t worry – all of our gun-toting fans display responsibility and safety! If you’re ever in & would like to know more about this policy or firearms related information in general, feel free to ask!

CD's Smoke Pit has hit on a business model that appears to be working well.  Other establishments have welcomed legal firearms owners, CD's goes further by working to attract them.   I suspect that we will see more of this strategy in the future.

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

NC: Cat Sanctuary Complains About Gun Range

Range 2A aims to provide gun-control training and practice for gun owners, local law enforcement and military, Atkeson said.

About 600 feet away from the back of his property, Scarpa runs Goathouse Refuge, which rescues and cares for cats from kill shelters.

She, her employees and volunteers say the nearby shooting is constant and disruptive to the felines.

More Here

Dave Workman:SAF tells Conn. school district to stop blocking pro-gun websites

The Second Amendment Foundation is vowing “prompt legal action” following reports yesterday that a Connecticut school district’s filtering system was blocking access to websites belonging to firearms rights advocacy groups, while allowing access to gun control organizations in what appears to be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

In a blunt letter to Superintendent Jody Ian Goeler at Connecticut’s Regional School District 14, SAF General Counsel Miko Tempski warned, “Once a school chooses to provide internet access, the First Amendment prohibits it from selectively censoring access to websites based on their particular viewpoints.”

“Regardless of the District’s intent in this matter,” Tempski added, “you are violating the Constitutional rights of your students and many organizations by allowing this filtering system to remain in place. If you allow the District’s censorship to continue, you could be subject to legal liability and the expense of litigation.”

More Here at Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

WA: Shooter Acted in Self Defense

The Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has declined to prosecute a man who shot another man twice in downtown Olympia on May 1 because it appears he “reasonably believed” his life was in danger, a prosecutor said Friday.


 The shooter was present at the courthouse Friday because a member of the group that had surrounded him downtown had just been sentenced to five months in jail for threatening to kill him on three different occasions in May.

More Here

Read more here:

Read more here:

Saturday, June 21, 2014

FL: Governor Scott Signs Reform of "Stand Your Ground" Law

The media coverage given to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, and the attention paid to Florida's "stand your ground" law, resulted in the legislature considering flaws in the law.   They passed a reform bill that was signed by Governor Rick Scott yesterday, 20 June, 2014.  From
The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state’s self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday.
The state mandatory sentencing law, the "10-20-life" law, was being used by some prosecutors to obtain plea bargains from people who had attempted to defend themselves, but had not shot anyone.   The case of Marissa Alexander was one that caught the media attention.   Marrisa claimed that she fired a shot that qualified under the "stand your ground" law, but a judge ruled otherwise.  She faced a mandatory 10 years in jail.

The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the "stand your ground" defense, and not be subject to the mandatory "10-20-life" sentencing.    A similar law was passed in Arizona to ensure that the defensive display of a weapon would be  legal.

The vast majority of defensive uses of firearms involve the display of the gun without a shot being fired, so it makes sense to clarify that less than lethal defensive uses are legitimate.

The Arizona law was passed because one of the first prosecutions of a person who had a concealed carry permit, involved a permit holder who defended themselves by displaying their defensive firearm.   The aggressors in the case had also called the police after being thwarted in their attack.   It is not uncommon for criminals to use the criminal justice system as a means of revenge.   They often understand the system better than most citizens, and how to manipulate it to their advantage.

Fortunately, in the Arizona case, there was a third 911 call that was independent of the two involved parties.   It confirmed the version of events given by the permit holder, but was not revealed by the prosecution until just before the trial was to begin.

The aggressors in the incident were never charged.

The reform signed into law by Governor Scott has a good chance of saving lives.  It confirms that citizens have the legal option of using the deterrent effect of a firearm instead of a black and white choice of no use of the firearm or full use of deadly force.    In this, it conforms to reality.  Firearms are used for deterrence by defenders about 1000 times as often as they are used to kill.  Most aggressors do not want to be shot, and most attacks stop when a firearm is displayed.  Ensuring that law abiding citizens have and understand that option is a good thing.

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

MS: Man Shoots Robbery Suspect in Chest

 They say the guest was approached by a man asking for cigarettes.


The man began to walk away, when Officer Colendula Green said, "At that time the complainant advised he didn't. As the unknown male proceeded to turn around he turned back towards the complainant advising the complainant "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction. At that point the complainant pulled out his weapon and began firing shots."

More Here

MT: Senator Wants to Protect Pot Users Second Amendment Rights

If you use marijuana in a state that has legalized pot for medicinal purposes, Sen. John Walsh wants to make sure you don’t lose your guns.

The Democratic senator from Montana, appointed earlier this year and facing a difficult race on Nov. 4, has filed an amendment to a spending package being considered on the Senate floor.

Walsh joins libertarian leaning Sen. Rand Paul in attaching a marijuana-related provision to the broad spending bill that includes funding for Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture-FDA. But questions are arising over whether the Senate can complete work on the package because an agreement on amendments remains elusive.

More Here

TX: Stepfather Shoots Stepson in Self Defense

Around 10:30 a.m., Sunday, June 8, 51-year-old Charles Glenn Harper was shot in the leg by his step-father, 69-year-old Carl Scott, after beating Scott for refusing to loan him money.

Chief Deputy John Depresca said Scott, 69, took a severe beating before grabbing a gun for protection.

More Here

TN: Man Shoots Mothers Boyfriend to save her

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A man shot his mother’s boyfriend to save her from an alleged attack. Now the boyfriend faces several aggravated assault charges.

The attack on the family also sparked terror for neighbors on the street.

More Here

Kansas Follows Principles and Texas on Concealed Guns in Statehouse

Kansas legislators have decided to live by the same law and principles that they have required of communities around the State.   They welcome armed people who have obtained concealed carry permits into the Statehouse.  It is not as if there is any serious risk involved.   People who go to the trouble of obtaining concealed carry permits have repeatedly shown themselves to be many times more law abiding than the general population.   They commit murder at only a fraction of the rate that police officers do.   If the legislature trusts armed police officers in their Statehouse, they certainly should trust armed people who have concealed carry permits.  From

“There will be no one in the Capitol who doesn't have a license to carry,” Wagle said. “A license to carry requires a background check and education.”
She said renovation of the domed structure resulted in security upgrades that should make employees and the public feel safer, but the new conceal-and-carry status should promote peace of mind.

The Statehouse shouldn’t be viewed any differently than other state buildings, county courthouses or university facilities across the state in terms of concealed weapon law, she said.

"We can't be hypocritical," Wagle said. "We either believe that it increases safety and that anyone who has a license is a legitimate individual who seeks not to harm anyone else or you don't believe it."
 People opposed to an armed population have often accused legislators of hypocrisy.  This comment is from the huffingtonpost, commenter Bob B:

Since the gun lobby and their politicians think its such a great idea to have guns in schools, restaurants etc, why dont they start by allowing people to bring guns into the senate, congress and federal buildings.
 This one is from   Commenter NUFF SAID! writes:

If the legislators are so convinced that guns are the solution, I would suggest that they allow guns in the legislative sessions. They are eager for everyone else to have the "benefits" of carrying, why not apply the logic to themselves?
This one is concerning the Kansas situation directly.  Fred Ziffel comments from from about a year ago:

If C.C is so safe, what happened to C.C. (even open carry) in the capitol building? It was there in the House version. Could legislators be hypocrites?
Those opposed to an armed population are not giving the legislators any credit for acting responsibly in accordance with the principles that they have espoused.    The AP story frames the issue as the legislatures "failure to exercise the power granted to them":
Visitors will be allowed to bring concealed guns into the Kansas Statehouse starting in July because legislative leaders on Thursday refused to exercise the power granted to them by state law to prevent it.
 Commenter Patty Nolte from the UMKC writes:
Isn't it hypocritical to have preventative measures in place to disarm a suspicious member of the public? To be fair, the Capitol police should only be able to intervene when there is an obvious attempt to fire a gun, the same as for everyone else.
The measure that she is referring to is only one proposed by the minority leader in the article, not one included in the law:

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley said he’s concerned about the change. The Topeka Democrat said he'll work on a policy to allow the Capitol police to confiscate weapons from visitors they mistrust or who appear “agitated” when they enter the building.

Read more here:
Texas already has a law in effect that is similar to the Kansas law, and has not had any problems with it.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan allow guns in their state capitols in the Midwest.   It appears that at least eight states follow the practice, as reported by the huffingtonpost a year ago.

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

the The

Read more here:

Friday, June 20, 2014

MO: First and Second Amendment Linked Again; Court Settlement

Lt. Jerry Bledsoe as shown on video

Second Amendment supporters continue to use the First Amendment to support their rights.   It was only a few weeks ago that a New York Times blogger, Patrick Blanchfield, linked to Gun Watch to bolster his compelling case that open carry of firearms is protected political speech under the First Amendment.  Here is a case where the ACLU in Missouri has obtained a settlement against a police officer and department for suppressing First Amendment rights that were used to support Second Amendment rights.  From the ACLU in MO:

CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO—Police Officer Jerry Bledsoe sent a written apology to Second Amendment advocate Jordan Klaffer, and agreed to pay damages,  court costs and attorneys’ fees. The Village of Kelso, where Bledsoe works, also assured Klaffer in writing that they will instruct police officers to not seek court orders to censor individuals who are critical of police officers’ actions. In response, today Klaffer and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri asked the United States District Court to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit filed in February on Klaffer’s behalf.
Klaffer is a gun rights advocate who frequently fires his weapons at objects on private property. On May 1, 2013, Jerry Bledsoe, a police officer, confronted Klaffer while responding to a noise complaint.
Klaffer videotaped the interaction, where Bledsoe issued an ultimatum to Klaffer to surrender his guns or be arrested. Klaffer refused to give up his guns and was arrested for disturbing the peace.
Admittedly, this is an extreme case, where a police officer blatantly suppressed someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights, then compounded the error by using the color of law to suppress the citizen's use of the First Amendment to expose and criticize the officer's actions.   Officer Bledsoe went so far as to obtain a court order that forbid Mr. Klaffer from publishing video and text about the incident.   This is in direct contradiction to court rulings that the recording of police officers in the public performance of their duties is a right protected under the First Amendment freedom of the press.
To express his opinion that Officer Bledsoe was using his position to harass him for exercising his Second Amendment rights, Klaffer posted recordings of the encounter on social media and Officer Bledsoe retaliated by obtaining a court order that prevented Mr. Klaffer from posting videos, pictures, and text data criticizing Officer Bledsoe on the Internet.
 Here is the video on YouTube.

It appears that Lt. Bledsoe, who was not in uniform, believed that any neighbor had the ability to stop any other neighbor from shooting guns on their own property, if they merely stated that the firing was "disturbing the peace".  This gives anyone a veto on any other persons ability to use their property, without benefit of due process of law.   Certainly the firing of guns can disturb the peace; a neighbor in a quiet suburban neighborhood could have a case if their neighbor fired off magnum rounds after midnight, without reasonable justification.   That was not the case here.   I have repeatedly read of accounts were people who do not like guns try to close down shooting ranges.   Often the range was there long before the people complaining moved into the area.

The amendments in the Bill of Rights support and enhance each other.  A video/audio recorder, whether part of a cell phone, security system or dedicated gear, has proved to be a valuable piece of defensive equipment.   It may not stop bullets; but it can stop lawsuits and court actions.

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

Dave Workman: EW candidate’s gun giveaway offer pays off with publicity

There are more than a few raised eyebrows in Eastern Washington over Congressional candidate Clint Didier’s offer to give away three firearms, reported yesterday by the Tri-City Herald and today by the Yakima Herald-Republic.

Didier, a former NFL player whose team, the Washington Redskins, just had their trademark of that name cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, is a conservative Republican living in Eltopia. Nowadays, Didier is a farmer, and only one of several people running to succeed retiring Congressman Doc Hastings this fall.

However, he’s the only one offering to give away guns. In this case, two are Ruger LC9 pistols and the third is an AR-15 type rifle with a 30-round magazine and ammunition. Both newspapers noted that winners will have to follow all laws, including passing a background check.

If this is a publicity stunt, it’s a good one and it is already paying off. The Tri-City Herald reached out to other candidates running in the Aug. 5 primary, and Democrat Estakio Beltran of Yakima reportedly had this to say: “I am a strong upholder of the Constitution and fully support the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. However, as a congressional candidate, I am sensitive to the grief that many here in Washington may be feeling as a result of recent tragedies.”

More Here at Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

John Lott: Making up facts about guns

President Obama just can't seem to help himself. Over and over again, he makes exaggerated or false claims about guns and crime.

Last year Obama kept asserting the bogus numbers such as “40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check.”  Besides the study being based on a tiny survey it was started before the Federal background check law went into effect.  Moreover, the 40 percent figure referred to all transfers, not just sales, and the vast majority of transfers took place within families through gifts and inheritances. Then, for good measure, Obama added an extra 4 percentage points to increase the number from 36 to 40 percent.

More Here