On 27 October, 2020, Judge Christopher Murray, at the Michigan Court of Claims, issued an opinion striking down Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's edict banning the open carry of guns at all polling places on election day. The edict was issued on 16 October. Tom Lambert and several right to bear arms groups sued to stop the order extral-legal order on 22 October, 2020. From freep.com:
"The court’s duty is not to act as an overseer of the Department of State, nor is it to impose its view on the wisdom of openly carrying firearms at polling places or other election locations," he said. "More importantly, its constitutional role is properly limited to only declaring what the law is, not what it should be."
Murray handed down his ruling the same day the Detroit branch of the NAACP said its members and area attorneys will monitor polls across the city and state on Election Day and will report to police and prosecutors any instances of voter intimidation or voter suppression, including voters feeling threatened by gun-carrying individuals “watching” the polls.
Radical leftist Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and elected in the anti-Trump wave in 2018, and Attorney General Dana Nessel, issued statements saying they will appeal the decision.
There is already a state law banning voter intimidation at the polls. Benson's ban on open carry is a blanket statement which defines open carry as voter intimidation.
Groups pushing for citizen disarmament have been trying to define open carry as illegitimate for decades. During the last three decades, organized open carry groups and civic minded open carry individuals have been demonstrating exactly the opposite.
Open carry demonstrations have been some of the most peaceful and law abiding, in spite of predictions of violence.
Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast claimed the Secretary of State can issued an edict banning open carry at the polls because there is no state law specifically allowing open carry at the polls.
The Michigan Constitution limits the powers of the Secretary of State. The ability of the Secretary of State of issue regulations is covered by the Administrative Proceedures Act (APA) of Michigan, as acknowledged by Judge Murry. Secretary of State Benson did not follow the APA, which renders the ban on open carry void, according to the lawsuit and the court opinion.
For the last hundred years, the ability of officials to issue law by dictat has been part of the power grab by Progressives, in their mostly successful attempt to move legislative power from the legislatures to administrative agencies. Requiring specific rule making procedures has been one method used to restrict the abuse of the authority.
In this case, there is a direct conflict because of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch. Republican Speaker of the House, Lee Chatfield applauded the Judge Murray's decision. From tribuneledgernews.com:
“Time after time the courts have struck down this administration when it overreaches,” Chatfield wrote on Twitter. “Firearms. Line 5. Redistricting. Vaping. Emergency powers. Nobody is above the law. It can’t be sidestepped. We have a democratic process. It needs to be followed.”
In his decision, Murray noted that the Democratic secretary of state’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms at polling places appeared to be more than an interpretation of existing statute. It was a rule that should be subjected to the rule-making process, he wrote.
The judicial branch (the court) has ruled the Secretary of State overstepped her authority. The Attorney General, Dana Nessel and Benson are appealing the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
It is unknown if the appeal will be heard before the election, which is scheduled one week from the date the appeal was made.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
One of the residents reportedly retrieved a firearm and then confronted the man. Police say shots were fired during the confrontation, resulting in Santos-Esqueda reportedly fleeing the scene in a white Jeep.
TPD said "detectives believe Silva was driving the white Jeep and was
parked
several yards away waiting for Santos-Esqueda." Silva was allegedly
shot when during the confrontation between Santos-Esquda and the
resident.
Santos-Esquda was also located and detained nearby the home at 1700 block of E. Holladay St.
He was later arrested for attempted theft of means of transportation, attempted third-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and first-degree felony murder.
A man was critically injured in a shooting. A property owner checked on some property which had sheds on it. The owner shot someone who he says was breaking into a shed.
Deputies said Ramos was found shot to death around 10:45 p.m. on Lake Pleasant Road in northern Orange County. Investigators said Ramos was among several people involved in a home invasion robbery attempt around 10:10 p.m. on the 100 block of South Lake Pleasant Road.
Image from lawsuit, public document, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
Michigan Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson has taken the dictatorial step of banning open carry at all polling places on election day in Michigan.
Open carry, in accordance with Michigan law, has been legal in Michigan for the entire history of the state.
It appears, by caprice or for political purposes, Benson has decided to change the long precedent for the 2020 elections. Benson is acting as a dictator, imposing restrictions the legislator and governor have refused to pass, although they have had numerous opportunities to do so.
Benson's stated excuse is that people seeing others exercise their Second Amendment rights, might feel intimidated, and thus not vote. No other Michigan Secretary has issued such an order.
Thomas Lambert, Michigan Open Carry, Inc., Michigan Gun Owners, and Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners have all joined in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and the Director of State Police Col. Joe Gasper, to obtain a declaratory injunction against the illegal order.
4. The Secretary of State's pronouncement has created a Hobson's choice for those wishing to exercise both their 2nd Amendment right to self-protection and their fundamental right to vote. Under the pronouncement and associated threat of arrest, one mus choose on right or the other, but not both. If one wishes to vote, one must surrender their 2nd Amendment and Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6 rights. If one wishes to exercise the right of self-protection, one must surrender their right to vote. The practical effect of the pronouncement is to disenfranchise 2nd Amendment and Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6 supporting voters.
5. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the secretary of State's pronouncement, regulation, directive, or edict is an ultra vires act. Further, Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the secretary of State's pronouncement, regulation, directive, or edict is in violation of Michigan law, an ultra vires act, and void. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relieve with immediate consideration thereof.
The leader of a group representing 385 Michigan police chiefs says the edict prohibiting open carry at all polling places is contrary to existing law. From detroitnews.com:
The head of the group that represents 385 Michigan police chiefs warned Monday that officers won't be able to enforce Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's ban on openly carrying firearms at polling places on Election Day because the edict is not based in law.
Several Michigan Sheriffs are refusing to enforce the illegal order, saying there is no law to enforce. From whml.com:
Murphy stated Livingston County Prosecutor Bill Vailliencourt has concurred the ban is unenforceable. He noted that people can’t point or wave guns or anything else, which would constitute intimidation or even felonious assault. Murphy said someone simply having a gun strapped to their hip or a long gun strapped on their chest or back is open carry and as long as it stays there, there’s nothing that can be done. As for the intimidation factor, Murphy says they can take enforcement if someone is being intimidated at the polls. But he clarified that someone just open carrying is not intimidation and not illegal. Murphy said if someone is open carrying a pistol or a long gun and they were to approach someone and make comments about who someone should vote for – that would put it into the category of intimidation.
State Officials say they will use State Police to enforce the order. From bridgemi.com:
Michigan Sheriffs Association executive director Matt Saxton called the order “a solution in search of a problem” and Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck said the “legally ambiguous guidance … could incite others to challenge it on Election Day.”
If local law enforcement doesn’t enforce the rule, the Michigan State Police will, Benson said.
Over the weekend, Nessel told Showtime’s “The Circus” that the state police would patrol polling locations where they believe sheriffs won’t enforce voter intimidation laws to ensure compliance.
Joycelyn Benson is a lifelong radical Democrat. She was aided in her run for Secretary of State by the SOS project funded by George Soros. The SOS project is dedicated to elect radical leftists so they can influence the administration of election law.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A 40-year-old male was pumping gas at the BP Gas Station located at 1204 Franklin Street when he heard a popping sound and immediately felt stings on his body from an unknown projectile. The male subject then saw someone out of the passenger side window of a passing vehicle with what appeared to be a gun. The male subject, thinking that he was being shot at by the passenger in this vehicle, drew his concealed firearm and fired several shots at the vehicle.
An Anne Arundel County jury on Monday acquitted a Pasadena man of murder, manslaughter and felony firearms charges, agreeing that he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot an acquaintance who drove to his home despite warnings and then charged him.
The homeowner got a call from her neighbor, alerting her that someone was breaking into her garage in the 7100 block of South Mozart Street, according to Chicago police spokeswoman Sally Bown.
The woman told investigators she went outside with a gun and found the man exiting a side door of the garage, holding some of her belongings, Bown said. She shot him in the chest.
On 23 September, 2020, Judge Roger T. Benitez issued another impressive order in a case involving the Second Amendment.
A number of California residents, firearm businesses, special interest groups, foundations, and a political action committee have organized to sue California AG Xavier Becerra et al, to challenge the Constitutionality of California's complex net of regulations for the ownership and use of various firearms the state deems to be "assault weapons". The lawsuit has been winding its way through the federal legal system in the Ninth Circuit.
In Miller v. Becerra, the defendants moved to summarily dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of lack of standing, and for a failure to claim relief.
The judge in this case is Roger T. Benitez, of the United States District Court, Southern District of California. Judge Benitez has become well known for his superb, well reasoned and exquisitely written opinions in Second Amendment cases.
Judge Benitez has created another splendid example of his command of logic and rhetoric in the order denying summary judgement to AG Becerra and the other plaintiffs.
The order was issued on 23 September, 2020.
Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that plantiffs have no standing, because they have not suffered an injury. The chilling of the exercise of a Constitutional right *is* an injury in federal jurisprudence. Judge Benitez gives example after example in case law. From the order:
It has long been the case that a plaintiff possesses Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state statute which regulates the exercise of a federal constitutional right and threatens a criminal penalty. “When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he ‘should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.’” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (quoting Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973)). “[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974). “In Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn. Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988), we held that booksellers could seek preenforcement review of a law making it a crime to ‘knowingly display for commercial purpose’ material that is ‘harmful to juveniles’ as defined by the statute.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 160 (2014). Of course, “[s]uch challenges can proceed only when the plaintiff ‘faces a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the law’s operation or enforcement.’” Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Dep’t of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). But the simple continued existence of the criminal penalty provision together with an absence of a defendant’s disavowal of prosecution satisfies the requirement of a credible threat of prosecution. Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 164 (threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial with history of past enforcement).
Then Judge Benitez shows several recent examples where federal courts within the Ninth Circuit have granted standing on orders to thwart the Trump administration:
The bar for standing is not particularly high. For example, organizations that have been “perceptibly impaired” by a government rule “in their ability to perform the services they were formed to provide” is sufficient for organizational standing. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1266–67 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Organizations are not required to demonstrate some threshold magnitude of their injuries; one less client that they may have had but-for the Rule’s issuance is enough. In other words, plaintiffs who suffer concrete, redressable harms that amount to pennies are still entitled to relief.”). An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members when “the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose.” Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874, 883 (9th Cir. 2020) (also noting individual’s standing to challenge border wall construction based on: “concern[] that the wall ‘would disrupt the desert views and inhibit him from fully appreciating the area,’ and that the additional presence of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents ‘would further diminish his enjoyment of these areas’ and ‘deter him from further exploring certain areas’ [while] worrie[d] that ‘construction and maintenance of the border wall will limit or entirely cut off his access to fishing spots’ along the border, where he has fished for more than 50 years.”).
There are several others. The reader can access the order on line to read in depth. Judge Benitez is using the Ninth Circuit's over the top precedent to allow any lawsuit against the current administration by applying the basic judicial principle of reciprocity. What is good for one plaintiff is to be applied to all plaintiffs.
The stakes are high. The plaintiffs are challenging California's byzantine network of complicated laws which make owning many common firearms a legal minefield in the state.
A divided Supreme Court has punted on enforcing Second Amendment rights for a decade. With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the likely confirmation of Amy Coney Barret to the Supreme Court, the time seems ripe for the Court to take on Second Amendment cases, and clarify obvious infringements such as effective bans on the carry of firearms outside the home; bans on magazines, bans on semi-automatic rifles, and lifelong bans on the exercise of Second Amendment rights for people who are not a danger to the community.
If President Trump wins re-election, he is likely to flip the Ninth Circuit with a majority of originalist and textualist judges.
Judge Benitez was born in Cuba, in 1950. He understands oppression.
Perhaps Judge Benitez will be elevated to the Court of Appeals. He is an obvious choice.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Police say the 14-year-old and two others approached the 26-year-old man on the front porch of his home. The 14-year-old allegedly pointed a gun at the man, who retrieved his own gun and shot the teenager in the legs.
“He sounded like an older man,” she said. Once in the closet, where her pistol was located, the woman says the man tried to open the closet door and was speaking aggressively to her.
That’s when she says she fired two shots through the closet door, scaring the man off.
One of the very few Second Amendment cases heard by the supreme Court in the last decade was Caetano v. Massachusettes, decided March 21, 2016.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and held that all bearable arms were protected by the Second Amendment, with rare exceptions.
Bearable arms which are in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned, under the Second Amendment. Some enterprising Second Amendment supporters sued the Attorney General of California, because the state of California bans blackjacks, billy clubs and batons for nearly everyone in all circumstances.
Given the Supreme Court decisions of Heller, McDonald, and Caetano, it is hard to see how California AG Becerra can expect to prevail in Fouts v. Becerra (3:19-cv-01662), filed on 1 September, 2019. From sandiegouniontribune.com:
Fouts was licensed in Oregon to carry a baton in his role as a private security contractor. Additionally, a 1980 Oregon Supreme Court decision found possession of a billy club in the home is constitutional, describing the weapon as “the first personal weapon fashioned by humans.”
His co-plaintiff is Tan Miguel Tolentino, an honorably discharged airman who carried a baton as a law enforcement specialist in the U.S. Air Force. Tolentino now works as an information technology specialist.
Second Amendment attorney Alan Beck, who filed the lawsuit with Mississippi-based co-counsel Stephen Stamboulieh, said the time was ripe for such a challenge.
The case has been wending its way through the court system. A hearing on the motion for summary judgement for Fouts and Tolentino was scheduled for September 11, 2020.
Plaintiffs bring this motion because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of all law-abiding citizens to possess and acquire billies/batons which are typically possessed for lawful purposes and that California cannot establish the required reasonable fit between its complete ban on billies/batons and its interest in public safety. The State’s ban on billies/batons cannot survive constitutional scrutiny and thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
This motion is based on this notice, as well as the memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Stephen D. Stamboulieh and attached exhibits, and the declarations of Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino, filed herewith. This motion is also based on thepapers and pleadings already on file in this motion and such matters as may be presented to the Court at the hearing.1DATED: September 11, 2020
The hearing on the motion for summary judgement has been re-scheduled for 7 December, 2020. Numerous precedents in other states are cited. A particularly appropriate example comes from the Oregon Supreme Court:
44. In State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 614 P.2d 94, 1980 Ore. LEXIS 1031 the Oregon Supreme Court found: The club is considered the first personal weapon fashioned by humans. O. Hogg, Clubs to Cannon 19 (1968). The club is still used today as a personal weapon, commonly carried by the police. ORS 166.510 prohibits posession of a "billy;" however, ORS 166.520 states that peace officers are not prohibited from carrying or possessing a weapon commonly known as a "blackjack" or "billy." The statute in this case, ORS 166.510, prohibits the mere possession of a club. The defendant concedes that the legislature could prohibi carrying a club in a public place in a concealed manner, but the defendant maintains that the legislature cannot prohibit all persons from possessing a club in the home. The defendant argued that a person may prefer to keep in his home a billy club rather than a firearm to defend against intruders.
Our historical analysis of Article I, section 27, indicates that the drafters intended "arms" to include the hand-carried weapons commonly used by individuals for personal defense. The club is an effective, hand-carried weapon which cannot logically be excluded from this term. We hold that the defendant's possession of a billy club in his home is protected by Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution.
As noted in the Complaint for Declaratory Injunction and Relief by the plaintiffs, Fouts and Tolentino, numerous other state governments have eliminated other, similar laws already, rather than go to court on the merits. It is hard to see what AG Becerra has to gain. He may hope for protection in the notoriously anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit. But with 10 judges appointed by President Trump, the Ninth is nowhere as far left as it used to be. In addition, the likelyhood of an Amy Coney Barett justice of the Supreme Court is high.
Perhaps he is banking on a Supreme Court packed with far left justices by a Biden administration. It could happen.
Judge Roger T. Benitez has shown he takes the Second Amendment seriously, as a fundamental right, due as much deference as any other fundamental right in the Bill of Rights. The case is so one sided, Judge Benitez may simply grant summary judgement. We will not know until well after the election, as the hearing for summary judgement is scheduled for December 7th.
It seems appropriate it will be on Pearl Harbor day.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Walker said she was sleeping when she heard someone knocking on the door early in the morning. It was her ex-boyfriend, Wickam, who was demanding his cell phone after he was told it was at Walker’s home. Her current boyfriend answered the door, but that’s when a fight broke out just near the doorway.
“They were fighting and the dogs attacked,” Walker said.
(snip)
Police responded to a gun-shot that was heard in the area. We’re told it was Walker's neighbor attempting to break up the attack by firing his weapon. Police then found the Wickham and an ambulance took him to the hospital where he later died.
Officers determined a physical altercation occurred between 41-year-old Randy Haney, of West Liberty and Deloris Haney, of West Liberty.
During the altercation, a juvenile got a gun and shot Randy Haney, who was pronounced dead by Morgan County Coroner Raymond Vancleave at Appalachian Regional Healthcare in West Liberty
Tuesday 22 September, 2020.
Bear shot with .22 rifle to "scare it" killed in Connecticut.
The two cubs climbed up a tree and the black bear stood facing and making noises at the dog, the police said.
O’Connor got a .22 caliber rifle and shot at the bear to scare it.
“The shot struck the bear, which moved about 30 yards to a neighboring property’s driveway, collapsed, and eventually died,” Will Healey, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told the newspaper.
Image from La Crosse County website, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
La Crosse County, Wisconsin may have engineered a new event, the cheap
ammunition event. Ammunition has often been accepted at gun turn-in
events, though it is not paid for. Some excellent deals have been found
for ammunition at these events.
The event will be held at 3202 Berlin Drive, La Crosse. It appears to be the local landfill, from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday, the 24th of October, 2020.
The La Crosse event is specifically organized to collect unwanted ammunition. The county states it often receives requests to dispose of unwanted ammunition. Someone in La Crosse County organized this event to collect unwanted ammunition. They promised all ammunition collected would be incinerated!
Private parties can do better. They can promise the ammunition will be disposed of properly, which gives much greater and more frugal options. From lacrossecounty.org:
Residential ammunition disposal is a service frequently requested by our customers. We are happy to announce that the La Crosse County Hazardous Materials Facility will be hosting its first ammunition drop-off event on Saturday, October 24th from 8 a.m. to noon. This is a great opportunity for La Crosse County residents to dispose of unwanted or unneeded ammunition in a safe and responsible manner. All collected ammunition will be shipped to a licensed hazardous waste facility where it will be incinerated.
WXOW gives a bit more information. People who dispose of ammunition at the disposal site (near a landfill) must remain in their vehicles. Any ammunition greater than five pounds (Two boxes of 12 gauge or 650 rounds of .22 LR) will be required to pay a disposal fee of $5 per pound. ($12.50 per box of 12 gauge or $5.75 per 150 rounds of .22 LR.) The county will not accept reloads. It is not clear if they will accept smokeless powder or primers. They would probably take empty cases From wxow.com:
The drive-through event is open to La Crosse County residents only. Anyone who comes to the event must remain in their vehicles.
Disposing of the first five pounds of ammunition is free and $5 per pound after that.
They are accepting only factory rounds of .50 caliber and 8-gauge or less. No black powder, military munitions, fireworks, or explosives are accepted. No other waste materials are accepted during the event.
This presents an interesting scenario. After the first five pounds, the county will charge people more than the ammunition costs at retail to dispose of it by destroying it.
Might some widow, knowing nothing of ammunition, but wanting to get rid of it, turn in some boxes of 7mm magnums? .45-70? .455 Webley? Perhaps they will wish to rid themselves of cases of 5.56, or 7.62x39, which was purchased cheaply 20 years ago?
Enterprising Second Amendment types could make signs and advertise to properly dispose of the ammunition for free, or to pay for unwanted ammunition. They might even agree to dispose of black powder and reloading supplies. At gun turn-in events, folding tables have been handy.
I have heard of widows turning in many thousands of dollars of ammunition to police to dispose of it.
There appear to be only two entrances to the land fill. Perhaps it is a one way road. It would not be difficult to find a place where people could park and a deal could be made. If there are two entrances, Second Amendment enthusiasts who wish to perform a public service could arrange to cover both entrances.
Those disposing of ammunition could be asked if they had any firearms they wished to dispose of as well.
Wisconsin does not have any laws forbidding the purchase of ammunition or reloading supplies, or firearms, which I know of, by private parties. Felons are forbidden to purchase firearms, generally. This is not legal advise; readers should make their own inquiries.
If any readers attend the event on Saturday, the 24th of October, please take numerous pictures. You can contact the author at AmmoLand.
Pictures and a personal account of the action would be an excellent candidate for an AmmoLand article, but nothing can be promised or guaranteed.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
An Instagram model may have saved her family when she grabbed a firearm and engaged in a gunfight with masked intruders who stormed into her Florida home, reports said.
Ansley Pacheco, 26, was at home in Miami-Dade County earlier this month when armed intruders ambushed her husband, 7-year-old son and their friends while they were watching the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, according to Local 10 News.
Police were called to the 13400 block of Photo Drive just before 4 p.m. for a report of a vicious animal. The caller told officers he was walking his mixed-breed dog when a pit bull terrier ran up behind him and began attacking his dog.
At that point, the caller pulled out a handgun and fired one round towards the attacking dog, striking it in the back, Prince William County police 1st Sgt. Jonathan Perok said.
An off-duty Paterson police officer shot and injured a man who allegedly tried to rob him at gunpoint near his home in the city’s 5th Ward on Sunday night, multiple law enforcement sources said.
The officer was getting out of his vehicle near Pearl Street at about 10 p.m. when he was confronted by a group of four armed robbers, sources said.
ST. LOUIS — A 29-year-old woman who told police she was robbed and carjacked in St. Louis Monday shot and killed her attacker, 5 On Your Side has learned.
"He kept pushing his way in, he kept saying, 'You know why I'm here,'” said Traci.
Traci said the man then grabbed her, she screamed for help, and that's when her husband ran to the door and took over.
He went outside and held the man at gunpoint until police came.
One of President Trump's most consequential actions has been the appointment of Originalist and Textualist judges
on the Article III courts. Judge Amy Coney Barret is the latest
example. She is likely to make a critical difference for the Second
Amendment on the Supreme Court.
That will come to a halt if the Republicans lose control of the Senate.
A group in Arizona, which was organized in part by Second Amendment rock star Doug Ritter and his wife, Sue, has started informing Arizonans about the danger to the Second Amendment which McSally's opponent, Mark Kelly, represents. Here is a very recent release of the campaign they are starting:
Sue and I wanted to let you know about a very critical project here in Arizona to help protect our Second Amendment. The new "AZ 2A For McSally" Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/
AZ2A4MCSALLY @AZ2A4MCSALLY features a pair of videos supporting pro-Second Amendment Republican Senator Martha McSally. These videos spotlight the stark contrast between staunchly pro-2A McSally and Democrat Mark "Gun Grabber" Kelly on the issues of gun control and the Second Amendment.
Please pass this along to all your friends. Share this @AZ2A4MCSALLY FB page and videos on social media and anywhere you can.
The videos being run on social media can also be viewed/downloaded at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/umyw4w6z659yiba/McSally2A-2. mp4?dl=0 These videos are not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Arizona is a strongly pro-Second Amendment state, rated by Guns & Ammo Magazine as having the best gun laws in the nation since 2013. Despite a long anti-gun record and support from the Godfather of gun control, Michael Bloomberg, Kelly has tried to avoid the issue and portray himself as a centrist. We all know that is B.S.
Senator McSally has a perfect Second Amendment voting record and a perfect record of supporting President Trump's nominees to the Federal Courts. These over-200 appointments have started to tip the balance in these courts from activist anti-Second Amendment Judges and Justices to support for Second Amendment rights. McSally has pledged to vote to confirm constitutionalist and pro-Second Amendment Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.This is one of the most highly contested elections this year. Control of the Senate may hang in the balance. A Kelly win could swing the Senate to a Democratic majority under anti-gun Senator Charles Schumer who is committed to enacting the Democratic Party's radical anti-gun platform.Senator Martha McSally is the only choice for pro-Second Amendment voters. Senator McSally is a vote to save our republic and our freedoms.Please pass this along to all your friends. Share this page and these videos on social media and anywhere you can.Most gun owners in Arizona know they don't want Kelly, but many are unsure or skeptical about McSally. That can come back to bite us. Gun owners stayed home in Virginia in 2018 and in just two years gun rights in that state have gone down the tubes. Let's make sure that doesn't happen to Arizona and America!
Any Arizona gun owner who doesn't vote has effectively cast their ballot FOR gun control! Any Arizona gun owner who doesn't vote for Trump, McSally and the Republicans running for Congress and our state legislature is casting their vote FOR gun control. It's that simple.Sue and I beg you to help us turn out the 2A vote. We, the gun owners of Arizona, can make the difference in this election. We just have to get out the vote and we can win!Thanks for your support!
The campaign ads for the Senate in Arizona have not been showing much information about Second Amendment issues from either side. Now, there is coverage, but it is from independents such as AZ2AMCSAALY and the NRAILA. The information is important to get out, if the people of Arizona are to make an informed decision. The gun control groups are funding ads for Mark Kelly. They are careful to avoid any mention of guns. Everytown (Bloomberg's group) is said to have budgeted $5 million for Arizona, primarily against Senator McSally and President Trump.
Senator McSally has done much better on the Second Amendment than originally thought. Many Arizonan's worried about what she would do, once in office. As with President Trump, she has been a pleasant surprise. She is much better than Senator McCain was on the Second Amendment. Her opponent is much worse.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Philadelphia Police say a man was shot and killed by a person he was trying to rob in the Strawberry Mansion section of the city on Tuesday morning. The shooting happened on the 2600 block of North Napa Street, shortly before 10 a.m.
CHICAGO - A licensed gun owner shot someone who allegedly broke into his home Wednesday in Albany Park on the Northwest Side.
The 46-year-old man heard what appeared to be someone breaking into his home at 4:52 p.m. in the 4800 block of North Kenneth Avenue, according to Chicago police. He went to investigate and was confronted by a 58-year-old man who doesn’t live there.
AKRON, Ohio — A 34-year-old man is dead following a shooting at an Akron liquor store Friday evening, and authorities are still trying to piece together what happened.
Preliminary information indicates a 38-year-old man had arrived in a Nissan and was later leaving the Country Market on East South Street when he got into an altercation with the victim. The 34-year-old then drew a gun and shot the 38-year-old in the hand, and apparently the 26-year-old driver of the Nissan then exchanged gunfire with the 34-year-old and shot him before fleeing the scene.
BATON ROUGE - Authorities say a 20-year-old man was killed and three people were injured during a home invasion late Monday night.
According to a representative with the Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD), 20-year-old Marcus Hayes Jr. was allegedly committing an armed robbery at a home in the 900 block of West McKinley Street around 11:10 p.m., Monday.
Six people were apparently home during the incident and police say one of them grabbed a gun and shot Hayes.
Officials say Hayes died at the scene of the crime.
Police say during the home invasion, two of the robbery victims were also shot and sustained non-life-threatening injuries.
State police said Kwesi Skerritt, 38, of the Bronx, New York, was worried a gang was after him. Snyder had him wait outside on his front steps as he called 911.
"I called the state police, called 911, and I'm talking to them. I'm in the garage, and I hear this crash in the house," Snyder said.
Snyder said Skerritt crashed through a window into his home. The man didn't get any farther than that.
"I had the pistol cocked and ready, and he was standing there in the kitchen," Snyder said.
Skerritt was held at gunpoint by the 72-year-old Vietnam vet for 10 minutes until state police arrived. Snyder said he was able to keep his composure because of his experience in the war.
A 24-year-old Carson City man was arrested early Saturday for suspicion of felony home invasion after being shot in the foot by a homeowner who had attempted to scare the suspect away, according to a sheriff's office booking report.
Moses Aristides Sandoval was arrested at 5:14 a.m. in the 300 block of Corbett Street. According to the booking report, deputies were dispatched to the area for a report of a home invasion in progress. The homeowner informed dispatch they had the suspect on the ground at gunpoint and that they were in the backyard.
At about 1:30 in the morning of 2 January, 2019, four people attempted a home invasion/burglary in Yuma County, Arizona.
I remember the incident as it was reported. Very few details were given. Four people were shot. The location was not revealed. It was not in the City of Yuma, because the Sheriff department was the responding department. The identity of the defender was not revealed. The firearm or firearms were not identified. Deputies involved were not identified. From foxnews.com, at the time:
The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call at approximately 1:38 a.m. Thursday and discovered that four individuals were shot after breaking into a home.
According to a news release, Edith Guerrero, 36, Jaden James, 18, Leonardo Gonzalez, 27, and Jessica Aynes, 28, woke the sleeping occupants as they entered.
The unidentified occupant with the gun fired several rounds, hitting all four suspects and ultimately killing one.
I suspected a semi-automatic rifle might have been used. They are especially well suited to repelling multiple home invaders. The investigation was ongoing. More information did not surface until a few days ago.
A local radio show had a guest, a conservative woman who was explaining how anti-Second Amendment Presidential Candidate Joe Biden and Senatorial Candidate Mark Kelly were. She casually mentioned they wished to outlaw the sale of semi-automatic rifles. She said the gun used in the incident in January of 2019 would have been outlawed if Biden and Kelly had their preferences.
The host of the show is a friend of mine.
He helped to refresh my recollection of the incident.
By October, 2020 most of the cases stemming from the incident had made their way through the criminal justice system.
I contacted the Sheriff's department. A few inquiries lead to the revelation the firearm used to defend the Yuma County home was an clone of the AKM, chambered in 7.62x39.
Image AKM from Swedish Museum, CC 4.0 wikimedia
The AKM is a later version of the AK47, made for simplified manufacture. It is one of the iconic military rifles of the 20th century. Semi-automatic versions have become popular in the United States. It is well suited for home defense in a sparsely populated area.
The incident shows many uses of semi-automatic rifles, perhaps most incidents, are never revealed in the media.
I heard of the incident when it happened. I actively look for these situations, to document them. I routinely live in Yuma County, Arizona. I suspected a semi-automatic rifle was used.
It was only by chance the type of firearm involved in the incident was revealed. If I had not heard the chance comment on the radio show, no one outside of the people directly involved, and a few in the Yuma County government, would ever have known a semi-automatic rifle had been successfully used in home defense.
The reporting of firearm types in the media is abysmal. Reporters are seldom knowledgeable about different types of firearms. They are not curious about firearms or calibers. Consequently, we seldom know what firearms are used in self defense incidents.
Many have claimed that semi-automatic rifles are not useful for self defense. Incidents such as this one serve as useful counterexamples to show they are mistaken.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
According to a preliminary investigation James Robellard shot his
estranged wife, Lagina Lynn Robellard, and a 47-year-old man who lived
at the house. The other man, fearing for his life, was able to retrieve a
firearm and shot James Robellard in self-defense, investigators
believe.
The other man who was shot was taken to TidalHealth Peninsula Regional for treatment of his injuries. After consultation with the Somerset County State's Attorney's Office, no charges have been filed at this time against male victim, who has been treated and released from the hospital.
Rodney Darrell Mitchell, 21, of Tallulah, was arrested Tuesday and booked into Ouachita Correctional Center on a charge of aggravated burglary and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Mitchell was identified as one of three armed men who forcefully entered a Monroe home on Oct. 11. Two men reportedly threatened the male resident, demanded money and hit him with their guns. The female resident woke up, grabbed her firearm and shot at the burglars after one reportedly pointed a gun at her.
A 38-year-old Montgomery man who police accused of committing a robbery was fatally shot during the robbery attempt early Friday, according to a Montgomery police news release.
Surveillance video shows the moment when a San Francisco business owner jumps in to stop an assault on a tourist from escalating by showing his concealed carry weapon and scaring the suspect away
When researching incidents of firearms used to defend against bears, the surprising deadly potential of the common .22 rimfire cartridge becomes apparent. The most famous incident involving the .22 rimfire cartridge and bears is the 1953 world record grizzly bear.
It was collected by Bella Twin of Slave Lake in Alberta Canada. From my article at ammoland.com:
On 10 May, 1953, Bella Twin was hunting small game with her partner, Dave Auger, along an oil exploration cutline south of Slave Lake, in Alberta, Canada. She was 63 years old.
They saw a large grizzly bear coming toward them. Wishing to avoid an encounter, they hid off the side of the cut.
But the bear kept coming closer and closer. The bear got so close that Bella Twin thought it less risky to shoot the bear than to not shoot it. It was probably only a few yards away. Some accounts say 30 feet. Perhaps she saw it stop and start to sniff, as if it had caught their scent. We may never know.
She shot at the side of the bears head. Knowing animal anatomy very well (she was an experienced trapper, and had skinned hundreds, perhaps thousands of animals) she knew exactly where to aim to penetrate the skull at its weakest point.
She shot, the bear dropped. It was huge. She went to the bear and fired the rest of the .22 long cartridges that she had, loading the single shot rifle repeatedly, to “pay the insurance” as Peter Hathaway Capstick said. She made sure the bear was dead, and not just stunned. My father taught me the same lesson when I was 13.
There are other stories of very large bears being taken with .22 rimfire by native hunters. Here is an anecdote from a hunting forum. It sounds plausible, but is not documented as is the Bella Twin incident. From longrangehunting.com:
I just thought others might be interested in this account. A local Eskimo hunter in Wales AK took a ten foot Polar Bear with a 22LR rimfire with one shot behind the ear at 20 feet. Killed it instantly. There is no doubt as to the credibility of this story. I know the guy and he is for real. This is the largest animal I have ever heard of being taken with a rimfire. I think the 22 is the most underrated killer in the world.
Jerry
Much of the research I have done on bears has centered around the use of handguns for defense against bears. One failure has been documented where the use of a .22 pistol did not stop the attack.
The case is highly unusual, and worth reading. It happened to crew of the adventure cruise ship Origo, taking tourists into the Svalbard archipelago.
Another five people of the crew set out separately with only a .22 pistol and a flare gun. After an hour's march, the second party were met by a bear, 75m away and openly aggressive. The bear was distracted neither by warning shot nor flare and attacked one of the party. As he did so, he was shot, from a range of only 15m and turned against the man who had fired at him. This man tossed the gun to the first, who shot again. The process was repeated, with first one man being attacked and then the other. By the time the pistol was emptied and a knife drawn, one man was dead and another badly injured. The survivors retreated to the ship.(snip)
On examination, three shots to the head were discovered, none of them piercing the cranium.
The victim had three years experience with the Origo, with many bear observations, and there were sufficient weapons on board to equip everybody.Those stories are the exceptions. The most common experience with bears and .22 rimfire firearms involve black bears causing trouble, who are dispatched with the ubiquitous .22 rimfire Long Rifle cartridge. Here are several incidents.
A black bear with cubs had chased Mr. Nutter up a tree. When the sow came after him, he was able to shoot and kill it with a .22 pistol.
Johnson picked up a stick, and pummeled the brute, and the bear dropped the woman and charged him. It was waylaid by the lunch, which it began to devour.I suspect it was not a casual stroll to the plane, or a slow walk back to the bear.
In the meantime, Fletcher got a .22 pistol from the plane, walked to within a few feet of the animal, and killed it.
She climbed up and walked straight down the trunk toward me and my pea shooter.
Her head swaying and teeth popping, I held my shot. From behind the flimsy barracade of twigs, I took aim for her throat, and yelled for the dogs to take her. They moved by didn't answer the challenge.
She stood 20 feet away, with all her attention focused on my throat. I had, in a way, brought a knife to a gunfight.
With eight rounds left in my 10 round clip, I pulled the trigger with my sights on the swaying bruin's throat.
One. Two. Three. Four. If anything, these rounds just angered her more.
Five. Six. Seven. Eight.
Click...
On the eight shot, something happened. Rocket, that old redbone hound, charged up into the bear, sinking his teeth into the sow's side. They both went flying. from the log, claws flying and teeth snapping in midair.
As the dogs fought the sow, Earl reloaded. Then, as the sow came at him again, he fired 10 more shots from his Ruger .22 pistol.
The dogs distracted the sow once more. The fight moved into a thicket.
The sow was found there, dead from two .22 rounds that had reached her
vitals. There were 14 .22 caliber holes in her. A bio of Walt Earl is included at the end of the book.
In a bizarre case from 1992 in Alaska, the .22 pistol was only used as a noisemaker to scare off the bear. When the husband left to get help, taking the pistol with him, the bear returned and killed his wife.
July 8, 1992, Glennallen Alaska .22 black bear
Thirty-three-year-old Darcy Staver and her husband, Army Capt. Michael Staver, were vacationing at a cabin off the Glenn Highway about 160 miles northeast of Anchorage near the community of Glennallen when they were confronted by a black bear in 1992. It broke a window to get into the cabin where they were staying and drove them out.
The couple sought safety on the roof. Michael fired several shots at the bear with a .22-caliber handgun to try to scare it away. It left. When it did, he jumped down from the roof and took off to get help. He took the gun to defend himself, thinking his wife would be safe on the roof. She wasn't. While he was gone, the bear climbed a spruce tree next to the cabin, got onto the roof and killed Darcy.
When Michael returned with help, she was on the ground dead with the bear trying to eat her. The animal was shot and killed.
Larry Kanuit reports that Michael was very careful *not* to hit the bear, for fear of enraging it. P. 251 "Some Bears Kill"
In Missouri, a man defended his dog with his .22 rifle. The man/dog/rifle combination is deadly.
Bear killed with .22 rifle in Marquand 400 lb. black bear may 17 2005
The man said the bear stood up on its hind legs as the man's dog advanced. Standing up, the bear was 6 feet tall.
"He was afraid the bear was going to tear up his dog," West said. "So apparently he shot the bear three times."
The man used a .22-caliber rifle. The wounded bear ran into the woods, West said, and the man called the Bollinger County Sheriff's Department, which contacted the Department of Conservation.
The bear couldn't be located that night. The next morning, the man called the agency and said he'd found the bear dead 150 yards from the shed.
Monday morning, conservation agents retrieved the bear, a male, and stored the carcass in the walk-in freezer of a Fredericktown, Mo., taxidermist.
In Ohio, a "tame" bear escaped. A neighbor shot the bear with a .22, above the eye. On a bear, that shot will miss the brain. The bear ran off.
2008 Marengo Ohio, black bear:
November 24, 2008/Marengo, Ohio:One of three pet black bears escaped a chain-link enclosure and went to the home of a neighbor, who encountered the bear on his porch. The bear’s owner shot the bear with a .22 caliber rifle when the 300- to 400-pound animal reared up and charged him. The bear was hit above the eye and fled into the woods. Deputies and an Ohio Division of Wildlife officer using night-vision goggles searched for the bear, who was shot and killed approximately an hour and a half later.
In Arizona, a black bear invaded a tent and attacked a man who was inside with his family. Fortunately, another camper was armed, and drove off the bear with his .22 handgun.
The bear had entered the man’s tent and attacked him. His fiance’ and a one-year-old child were also in the tent and were able to escape unharmed and sound the alarm to other campers in the nearby area.
Reports indicate that another camper at a nearby campsite shot at the bear several times with a handgun at close range after the attack. The bear left the area, and it is unknown at this time if or how many times the bear was hit.
.22 caliber mentioned at fox10phoenix story
A week later, on the other side of the country, in New York State, a father protected his family from a black bear. The bear was killed.
30 June, 2012, black bear killed with .22 rifle. From patch.com:
A Stony Point resident hosting a family barbecue shot a black bear he deemed a threat to his guests when the bear would not leave his property Saturday afternoon.
The incident took place at approximately 1 p.m. at 567 Willow Grove Road, Stony Point Police Sgt. John Wood told Patch. Guests, including children, were outside when the bear came onto the property and at the time of the shooting, but police did not know how many.
More details were revealed in "The Bullet" read by Firearm Pop in a video .
The bear was killed with one shot, and weighed about 160 to 175 pounds.
A year after the black bears were shot on opposite coasts, another black bear was shot with a .22 in New York State.
A surprising number of people shoot at bears with .22 rimfires to scare or harass the bears. They are surprised when the bears die.
The retired New York State Trooper in the story does not have much respect for the .22 rimfire.
According to court papers, Hazimof told game officers he shot the bear outside his home because he wanted to scare the bear out of his yard. Hazimof shot the bear with his .22 caliber rifle.
Ralph Huebner lives near where the big black bear was found dead. The retired New York State Trooper says killing a bear with a .22 isn’t easy.
"Pretty unlikely he had to make a specific shot in a very vital spot in order to hit it because a .22 doesn't have that penetration, doesn't have the impact,” said Huebner.
A Montana man was having trouble with young grizzly bears killing his chickens and presenting a danger to his children. He says he shot at them to scare them off, with his .22 rifle. All three grizzlies died.
May 28, 2015, Three Grizzlies with a .22 rifle, From flatheadbeacon.com:
Bartos interviewed Wallen about the second dead bear, and Wallen stated that he had chased away and later shot at the bears during a previous night when the animals had approached his chicken coop while family and friends were around. Wallen stated two grizzlies had arrived and he first drove them off with his pickup truck. After they came back, he told Bartos he fired several shots at the bears and they fled. Another grizzly later emerged to pursue the chickens and Wallen said it was the bear he shot at and Clark eventually killed.
On June 4, another neighbor of Wallen’s returned home from vacation and discovered a dead grizzly bear that had decomposed in the grass near her home. Bartos responded to the report and an investigation discovered the animal had been dead for roughly one week.
Court records state that investigators determined each of the three grizzlies was killed by bullets from a gun consistent with Wallen’s rifle.
A year later, in New Mexico, a husband who was defending his wife and their dogs, said he fired a shot "in the bear's direction". The bear collapsed after running a short distance.
The startled cubs bawled out for their mother, which came running around the corner. The woman fled into her house, but her dogs slipped out the open door. A fight ensued between the adult bear and the dogs, during which the woman attempted to scare the bear away. The woman’s husband arrived armed with a .22-caliber pistol and fired a single shot in the bear’s direction, Peralta said.
The bear ran off and collapsed about 40 yards away, dead from the gunshot wound, Peralta said. One of the cubs was found near the house and the other was found in a tree.
Another shooter in Wyoming claimed he was only trying to scare off a grizzly bear by shooting it in the rump. The bear turned, the bullet went between the ribs and into the liver. The bear died.
October, 2017 Casper Wyoming Grizzly Killed with a .22 from powelltribune.com:
Attempting to scare off a grizzly bear with a gunshot turned out to be a costly mistake for a Casper man, as the round from his .22 caliber rifle wound up killing the animal.(snip)
“I had multiple encounters with the bear that day and the last time it came in, it started circling me,” Stalkup said in court. “And rather than trying to kill it, I tried to scare it off with a .22 by shooting it in the rump.”
However, according to Stalkup, the bear turned when he fired. The bullet went through the grizzly’s ribs and fatally injured the animal, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department concluded, after Stalkup called the agency to the scene.
On 22 September, 2020, a man tried to scare a black bear in Connecticut. He shot at it with a .22 rifle. It died. From apnews.com:
The two cubs climbed up a tree and the black bear stood facing and making noises at the dog, the police said.
O’Connor got a .22 caliber rifle and shot at the bear to scare it.
“The shot struck the bear, which moved about 30 yards to a neighboring property’s driveway, collapsed, and eventually died,” Will Healey, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told the newspaper.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Lee Anderson does not recommend hazing bears with firearms. From mt.gov:
“I don’t recommend shooting towards bears with firearms or even BB-guns to scare them out of your trash,” FWP Warden Captain Lee Anderson said. “It is often an ineffective hazing tool and depending on the circumstances, it can be illegal. We have investigated cases of people intending to scare bears and inadvertently killing them with small caliber rifles (.22), birdshot from shotguns or ricochets from other firearms.”
For many years trappers have used .22 firearms to dispatch trapped bears and other animals. Here is a video of a trapped black bear shot with .22 pistol on Youtube
A persistent joke on the internet is a .22 or .25 pistol is sufficient for bear defense.
The jokers say, "just shoot your partner in the leg, then you can run faster to escape the bear".
It is a bad joke. As seen from the above examples, a .22 rimfire has enough energy to kill bears, if the shooter does their part.
I do not recommend .22 rimfires as the preferred firearm for defense against bears. However, a .22 rimfire is much better than a pocket knife, a stick, or a rock. It has enough energy to do the job, if the shot placement is precise and/or the shooter has a means of preventing the bear from getting to him while the shot/shots take effect.
Do not underestimate the lethality of .22 rimfire.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Monday night, the homeowner, 26-year-old Ansley Pacheco, showed 7News where the chaotic chain of events unfolded.
“Everybody got onto the ground. My son just stayed there on the couch,” she said, referring to her 7-year-old son. “I grabbed him, and I ran straight to the bathroom.”
The homeowner said one of the armed subjects discharged his firearm.
“He started shooting at me,” she said. “They shot at me about seven times, six, seven times.”
When asked whether she considers herself fortunate to be alive, Pacheco replied, “Yeah, I do.”
#/media/File:Edinburgh_police_truncheons_(19thC).JPG){kind=link}
