Texas Challenge to Federal Tax on Homemade Silencers Scheduled for Oral Arguments

The lawsuit by the State of Texas, challenging the federal requirement to pay taxes and register homemade silencers, is moving forward in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 29, 2024. The case is now known as Paxton v Dettelbach.

On February 24, 2022, Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, filed suit against the acting head of the ATF, then Marvin Richardson. The lawsuit was required by Texas law. HB 957 became law in Texas on September 1, 2021. On July 15, 2022, Paxton, acting for the State of Texas, amended the lawsuit to include arguments mandated by the Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, published on June 22, 2022. On July 18, 2023, Judge Pittman of the District Court dismissed the case with the claim the State of Texas had no standing. Standing is a controversial method which federal courts often use to dismiss cases they do not wish to adjudicate. From the previous AmmoLand article :

The guidance from our high court on standing continues to be “a morass of imprecision.”1N.H. Rt. to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1996). At best, standing is now “unsettled in nature [and] beset with difficulties.” Thompson v. Cnty. of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 247 (2nd Cir. 1994). But luckily for this Court, though no one can pinpoint the height of the doctrine’s “amorphous” bar, it is easy to determine that these Plaintiffs have fallen short of it.

The issue presented to the appeals court is whether the State of Texas and/or the individual appellants have standing before the courts. The question is, does Texas have an interest in protecting the constitutional freedoms of its citizens?  Does Texas have an interest in challenging federal restrictions on the State's application of law passed by the State of Texas? Do individual citizens who are required to pay federal taxes and who must undergo a lengthy process to exercise their right to arms, have a concrete injury which can be brought before the courts? From the Appellants brief:

Before a Texan may make a firearm suppressor for non-commercial, personal use in Texas, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”), as amended, requires him or her to apply for permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“BATFE”) and pay a $200 tax (refunded if permission is denied). If permission is granted, the firearm suppressor still cannot be made unless it has a serial number, and the firearm suppressor is registered in a national database.This case warrants oral argument because it raises issues of exceptional constitutional importance: Do Texans have standing to challenge the constitutionality of those statutory requirements before applying for permission and paying the tax, and does Texas also have standing to vindicate its quasi-sovereign interests in its citizens’ health and safety? Oral argument will assist the Court in evaluating these questions.

The Biden administration put forward arguments claiming the District Court was correct in ruling the individuals in the lawsuit and the State of Texas do not have standing.  The Biden administration states they are willing to present oral arguments if the court requires it.

Oral arguments are currently scheduled for April 29, 2024. Other courts have ruled a deprivation of constitutional rights, for however short a duration, constitutes an irreparable harm. The relationship of the States to the Federal government is an area of law which has been given short shrift since Progressive judges took over the federal courts after the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration in the 1930's extending, by the Truman administration until President Eisenhower was elected in 1952.

The scheduling of oral arguments in the case is a positive sign. It indicates the three judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is taking the issues seriously.

The issue of whether silencers are arms covered by the Second Amendment is being litigated in the State of Illinois, which categorically bans the possession of silencers.

 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

MO: St. Louis Gunfight Between Resident and Burglary Suspect

A burglar shot a resident during an attempted break-in at around 1:57 a.m. Sunday in the 5800 block of Wise Avenue.

The victim, a 34-year-old man, told police an unknown man attempted to enter the residence through a rear window and the victim confronted the suspect. The suspect shot the victim and the victim returned fire, according to the report.

The suspect fled the scene and the victim was transported to a local hospital for treatment.

More Here

Bias in Studies of the Efficacy of Firearms and Bear Spray

 

Attempting to quantify the effectiveness of defensive methods for use against bears suffers from significant selection bias. It is impractical to enlist large numbers of volunteers, randomly select half, give half a method of protection, leave the others as a control group and place both in equal chances of being attacked. Instead we rely on gathering data from people who were attacked, who had various types of defensive weapons. Obtaining a valid sample is nearly impossible, because successful defenses have a strong bias of not being reported. The more spectacularly a defense fails, the more likely it is to come to the attention of the media and to make headlines. It will be collected when people search for "bear attacks". Researchers collecting data may exhibit bias in their selection of what incidents to include.

In the most famous of the firearms and bear studies, "Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska" (1883 to 2009) the purpose was not to determine how effective firearms are in defense against bears. It was to find ways in which firearms did not work in defense against bears. From an interview of Tom Smith by Wes Siler in Outside online:

The point of “Efficacy of Firearms” wasn’t to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not firearms work but, rather, to analyze the reasons why they didn’t—“poor aim, no time to use them, jammed, etc.,” elaborates Smith.

When you are looking for ways in which firearms do not work, you will tend to find more of them. In "Efficacy of Firearms" Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero openly admit their selection bias. From Efficacy of Firearms" p. 5:

Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries. Second, including more DLP records would have increased the number of bears killed by firearms. Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.

From the above, it is clear "Efficacy of Firearms" selected incidents to include as many incidents with human injury as possible. The authors considered the inclusion of incidents which would have improved firearm success rates, to be unimportant. From wikipedia:

Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed.^[1] It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples.

Such bias is not always conscious. Tom Smith loves bears. From Tom Smith:

You can take an entire wilderness with no bears and there’s just something fundamentally different about it. We love these animals; they’re wonderful.

Tom Smith is an ardent bear spray proponent. Published by the official Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee:

 "Smith is an ardent advocate of using bear spray over firearms."

One of the main purposes of bear spray is to prevent people from killing bears. Emotional attachments tend to bias a persons judgement in ways which are difficult to guard against.

Researchers also need to guard against Confirmation bias. Here is the definition:

confirmation bias, people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs.

In our ongoing study of the efficacy of handguns for defense against bears, I and colleagues did not start with an assumption of how effective handguns were. We were looking for cases where handguns failed. If handguns were ineffective, there should be many documented cases of handgun failures when fired in defense against bears. This sounds similar to what Tom Smith wrote. The difference is, guard against selection bias, it was decided to include all cases in which a handgun was fired in defense against a bear.  This eliminated subjective bias as to whether a handgun in a backpack or cabin, which was never fired, constituted a handgun failure.

Failure to draw and use a handgun or to draw and use bear spray is a user failure, not a weapons failure. It can be addressed with training, practice, and technique. We used a criteria similar to Smith & Herrero in "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska". In their bear spray papers they only included cases where bear spray was sprayed.  They excluded cases where it was not sprayed. One critique of the Smith & Herrero firearms study was it included cases where the firearms were not fired. Of the 71 incidents in the bear spray study, only 9 involved charging grizzly bears. Bear spray worked to stop three of those charges.

Smith & Herrero limited their efficacy studies to Alaska. Choosing to limit the data pool is another way selection bias may come into play.

The failure of a weapon system, whether bear spray or firearms, results in much more news coverage than a successful defensive use. Studies which rely on public information sources are necessarily biased toward a lower  success rate.  When researchers deliberately work to find failures over successes, selection bias is unavoidable.

An important way to check for selection bias is to look at the raw data. If raw data is not available to the public, the research cannot be checked.  What one person might have concluded was a success, another might conclude was a failure.

In our studies of the efficacy of handguns used as a defense against bears, all the incidents and sources are available to the public. This is not the case in the Smith & Herrero studies. It would be illuminating to compare incidents in our different approaches, to see if they were graded differently. Someday, the raw data for the Smith & Herrero studies may be released.

An important part of research is the ability to falsify a hypothesis. The hypothesis that handguns are effective as a defense against bears is easily falsifiable. The way to do this is to document cases where a handgun was fired in defense against a bear, and the bear attack was not stopped, because the bear was not killed or did not leave the scene in response to the gunfire. In the last seven years we have documented three failures out of 143 cases where handguns were fired in defense against bears. It is a success rate of 98%.  In the soon to be published update, a fourth failure has been found. The success rate continues at 98%.

In 1930, it was plausible a person could use a pistol against a bear, be killed, and never be found. By 1960, it became highly unlikely. The wide availability of aircraft, motorized transport, expansion of radio, television and print media had changed the landscape.  76% of documented cases of handguns fired in defense against bears have happened since 2000. In our soon to be published update, 96% occurred after 1960. People killed or mauled by bears are news. They make headlines around the world. Successful defenses against bears are not news. They tend to not be reported, be relegated to official reports, brief mentions in a local media outlet, a diary, or briefly mentioned online.  Of documented cases, only one failure involved a fatality. One person was killed when a .22 handgun was fired in defense against a polar bear, In 1995.

Nine people have been killed where bear spray has been sprayed in defense against a bear, in eight incidents from 2003 to 2023. Because of the geographic limitation and timing of the Smith and Herrero bear spray studies, none of those eight incidents are included in their statistics. The original "Efficacy of Bear Deterrence Spray" study involved data collected from 1985 to 2006. In the followup study for both bear spray and firearms "Human-bear conflict in Alaska: 1880-2015: Alaska Human-Bear Conflict", published in 2018, four additional bear spray incidents were added from 2006 to 2015, increasing the original 71 incidents to 75. Of the 75 incidents, at least 21 of them were by bear management personnel to harass bears. 70 of the incidents were deemed successful, or 93%.  In the 75 incidents, 4 people were injured. The number of firearms incidents increased from 269 to 328, an addition of 57. The number of handgun incidents increased by 6, from 37 to 43. The total number of incidents is given as 682. The number of incidents where firearms were not present or bear spray was not sprayed appears to be 279. The criteria used does not appear to have changed from previous studies. Tom Smith confirmed the data from previous studies was included in the numbers for the latest paper.

Readers are urged to send documented cases of handgun failures to AmmoLand. Any documented case where a handgun is fired in defense against a bear is welcome as an addition to our growing database.  So far, successful defensive uses of handguns outnumber failures by roughly 50 to 1.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

GA : Domestic Defense? 32-Year- Old Felon Shot Multiple Times

Person Shot: 1469 Campbellton Road SW

241172293

Post Date:04/27/2024 12:22 PM

Preliminary Statement: On April 26th, 2024, at approximately 11:11PM, officers responded to 1469 Campbellton Road SW in reference to a person shot. Upon arrival, officers located a 32-year-old male who sustained multiple apparent gunshot wounds to his torso. The male was alert, conscious, and breathing, and was transported to the hospital for treatment. Preliminary investigation indicates that the male who was shot was the primary aggressor involved in the incident. Investigators with the Aggravated Assault Unit responded to the scene and assisted with charging the 32-year-old male with Possession of a Firearm By a Convicted Felon and Cruelty to Children (3^rd Degree). The male will be transported to the Fulton County Jail following a medical clearance.

Please keep in mind that the information released is preliminary in nature and could change as the investigation progresses or new information comes to light.

Link  Here

Used in Tennessee - Orwellian Phrase: "Arming Teachers"

The phrase "Arming teachers" has  standard meanings: To provide teachers with arms or to force teachers to carry arms.  "Arming teachers" puts teachers in a passive role, with someone else "arming" them. It is being used to oppose a mild gun law reform bill in Tennessee.

The phrase is being used in an Orwellian way by those opposed to an armed population. It is used by the left to prevent teachers from being allowed to protect themselves and the children in their care.  The phrase "arming teachers" has become equated with removing restrictions on the ability of teachers to arm themselves. 

This is standard causation reversal by leftists.  Teachers are not armed because school administrators and governments have prevented them from being armed. 

The Orwellian phrase "arming teachers"  is being used used to stop a mild reform law in Tennessee, which would allow some volunteer teachers, under severe restrictions, to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves and their students. From the tennessean.com:

How would Tennessee's law arming teachers work?

Tennessee’s law would allow facilities or staff to carry concealed guns on their respective campuses.

Later the article mentions the extreme restrictions on carrying by teachers in Tennessee schools.

• They have to have to obtain permission from the school administration
• The must obtain permission from a law enforcement agency
• They must have obtain a concealed carry permit,
• They must undergo a separate background check,
• They must complete 40 hours of extra instruction, and pass a psychological evaluation.

From actionnews5.com:

If passed, this bill would arm school staff members upon completing training, background checks and a psychological evaluation.

The idea that teachers should not be armed is a recent one in American history, along with the idea of schools being controlled by a state or national bureaucracy instead of by parents.

According to usconcealed carry, 32 states allow for staff to be armed at school, with a multitude of restrictions, while 18 states ban the practice.

A year ago, District Administration wrote there were 33 states which allowed teachers to be armed, with various degrees of permission required.  This CBS News article claims eight states allow school staff to be armed if they have a concealed carry permit.

The reality is two thirds of the states in the union allow teachers to be armed, generally with fewer restrictions than is being proposed in the Tennessee reform bill.

In practice, many administrations place barriers on teachers ability to carry in school. Eight states allow teachers with concealed carry permits to carry in schools without further restrictions and training. Those states may require the permission of the school administration.

People with concealed carry permits have far fewer problems with firearms than do police officers.

The ability of armed defenders to stop mass murderers has been demonstrated over  and over and over.

The Bill passed the Senate, 26 to 5. It was sent to the House on April 11. The Tennessee legislature is scheduled to adjourn on April 25, 2024. If SB1325 is not voted on by April 25, it will have been killed.  Republicans in Tennessee hold the Senate, 27-6, the House, 75-23, and have Republican Bill Lee in the Governor's mansion.

The Democrats only hold 6 seats in the Senate and 23 seats in the House. However they have the vast majority of media in Tennessee proclaiming this bill is a serious danger to students because it "Arms Teachers".  The argument is, essentially, "Guns are Bad".

Update: HB1202/SB1325 has passed the House, 68-28, and will be sent to Governor Bill Lee for his signature.  Once the Bill is sent to Governor Lee, he will have 10 days to sign the bill, veto the bill, or allow the bill to take effect without his signature. The 10 day period excludes Sundays. The bill has to engrossed (printed in its final form) and signed by both speakers before it is sent to the governor.

 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TX: More People Using Guns to Stop Crime in San Antonio

SAN ANTONIO – Would-be victims of two separate crimes Thursday morning reacted in a way that one San Antonio police sergeant said he has been seeing more often lately.

In both cases, police say those victims used a gun to stop a crime, shooting and wounding the suspects.

“It does seem there is a spike in these types of activities,” said Sgt. Andrew Valle, as he investigated the second shooting of the morning.

In that case, Valle said a man who lives in an apartment in the 8700 block of Marbach told officers he used a gun to stop an intruder.

More Here

Why Progressives Refuse to Support School Protectors

 

 

This correspondent was talking to an Australian the other day, attempting to explain to him how it is American Progressives view simple solutions to rampage school shootings, such as allowing armed military and police veterans to protect schools, as they do in Israel, to be "Off the table".

This hypothetical exchange between an "Naive Progressive" and an "Old Hand Progressive" was the result:

Naive Progressive:

I am concerned about Trump talking about allowing teachers with police and military experience to be armed to protect schools. Should we get ahead of this by adopting it as our policy, and requiring them to be highly regulated? Then they could become part of the government, and on our side.

Old Hand Progressive:

That sounds plausible. It is not politically correct. Remember, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. You have to look long term. The idea of allowing armed teachers to defend schools works against us in many important ways.

It undermines our hard fought for creation of gun free zones in schools. We have the Supreme Court on our side there! We have managed to extend gun free zones to a thousand feet from the boundary of every school! It makes the carry of guns illegitimate in nearly every city in the nation. We are building from that base to extend gun free zones to parks, day care centers, public buildings.  It is far too important a goal to undermine with a policy that allows non-police to be armed in schools.  Can you understand the terrible danger to impressionable minds when students know their role models are carrying guns to defend them? 

It subverts the important principle that defense through the use of force is not legitimate. If we are to disarm the people, they must be convinced that using force is never the answer. Only the government can be trusted with armed force. Using force in self defense creates the illusion: some peoples' lives are more valuable than others. More guns is always the wrong answer. Only the government has the wisdom to know who should be protected and who should not.

What if one of these "school protectors" got lucky, and stopped a school shooting? We already have problems with that. I can tell you, confidentially, there have been one or two bizarre cases. They are appropriately downgraded and ignored by most of the media, most of the time. But if many schools had armed protectors, the examples would be harder and harder to suppress. The rubes are notoriously gullible.  What if there was video of an armed old white man stopping a school shooter? It could destroy decades of progress.

Consider the message it sends about the military and police. We have made gains in showing how police and military veterans are not to be trusted. This undercuts that important goal. The current military and police are notorious bastions of toxic masculinity and racism. Retired military and police are much worse! To allow them to carry weapons shows they are trusted in an unequivocal way. It sends exactly the wrong message. 

Retired military and police tend to be old white men. They cannot be trusted to be politically correct. Retired police and military are the last people we should allow to be armed.

Mass murder in schools is one of the strongest points we have to push to increase gun safety by disarming the people. The emotions are strong. The optics are great.  If we allow the NRA to win on this front, it will be immeasurably harder to pass sensible gun safety laws.

To obtain a Progressive government, we have to "break a few eggs". The lives of a few mostly white school children are minuscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives we will save by disarming the population.

In a sense, the whole planet is at stake. If Progressive values are undercut, billions will die from climate change.  Only strong, centrally manged world government can manage climate change in an effective way. The toxic masculinity of the United States stands in the way of saving the planet. The Second Amendment is a manifestation of that toxic masculinity.

From a long term view, a few pampered white first world children are a small price to pay for saving the planet.

This is the way those of the Progressive, Leftist, or cultural Marxist persuasion look at the issue. A few lives today are a small price to pay for obtaining Leftist power. Once they are in power, everyone will become much better off .... even if they have to kill a few million people in the process.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

AR: Little Rock Armored Vehicle Security Guard Shoots Defense Attorney

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Little Rock police have identified the man accused of attempting a robbery at a Bank of America Wednesday.

In a police report released by the Little Rock Police Department, officers identified the man as 47-year-old Chad Green. A reporter with KARK says Green is a well-known defense attorney based out of Maumelle/Little Rock.

 

More Here

 

Border Ranch Hung Jury Delivers Mistrail

 Kelly Residence, about 150 yards from the border with Mexico, image from Zillow

Border rancher, George Allen Kelly, 75-years-old was on trial, charged with the death of an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times. The body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea (48) had been found in the mesquite about 115 yards from the rural home of George Allen Kelly and his wife, Wanda. The husband and wife had retired to Arizona in 2002 after careers as a state fisheries biologist and a school teacher in Lincoln, Montana.

On  January 30, 2023, George Allen Kelly called Border Patrol and said he heard a shot, he might have to return fire. Investigators come out. They don't find anything. Late in the evening, Kelly finds the body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea, about 115 yards from the house. He calls Border patrol again. The authorities investigate. The put the body in a freezer. Because the authorities put the body in a freezer, the exact time of death could not be determined by the medical examiner.

There was no ballistic evidence to connect Kelly's rifle to the body. Several spent shell casings were found on the Kelly's porch.  No bullet was ever recovered. Butimea's body was wearing tactical boots, tan pants, a hoodie sweat shirt and a camouflage top. He had a two way radio in one pocket. A picture on his phone, in those clothes, showed him with binoculars, but no binoculars were found with the body.

One of the detectives investigating the case went to Mexico to interview a person who claimed to be with Buitemea at the time he was shot and killed.  Daniel Ruiz Ramirez, shown on a court evidence slide as being from Honduras, was a key witness for the prosecution.

Both Daniel Ruiz Ramirez (Varela) and Gabriel Cuen Buitimea had long records of illegal border crossings.  His testimony had several inconsistencies, conducted through a translator.  Ramirez has been reported as an Honduran citizen and as a citizen of Ecuador in different media reports.  Ruiz spoke at the trial through interpreters.

Investigators found texts sent between Kelly and a friend which showed Kelly's frustration with all the illegal activity he was having to deal with. Some of the texts implied a willingness to use his rifle.

When the county prosecutor decided to charge Kelly with first degree murder, the case went viral. As evidence accumulated, the prosecution reduced the charge to second-degree murder.

Several GoFundMe accounts were started. GoFundMe removed a number took down the fundraisers set to aid George Allen Kelly.

Fox News Digital confirmed that GoFundMe removed multiple fundraisers set up to help 73-year-old George Alan Kelly.

GiveSendGo has proved to be less political and more reliable than GoFundMe, which defunded both Kyle Rittenhouse and the Canadian trucker. Here is the statement at the Give SendGo fundraising site. From GiveSendGo.com:

My name is Wanda Correll Kelly.  George Alan Kelly (I call him "Alan") is my husband of 53 years.  Alan is a man devoted to his family, animals, and home.  In his 75 years, he has been an upstanding member of his community and, more importantly, a rock to our family.  He is a humble person with simple needs.  He likes socks.  He is an animal lover.   Alan and I are living a nightmare.  He has been accused of a serious crime, killing a Cartel member on our property  and he is innocent.  We are private people and are horrified about some of things being said about him in the media.  We need funds for his legal defense and other related expenses that have arisen as a result of this terrible situation.  Please help keep Alan home with me.

From spotfund.com:

GOFUNDME has taken down all fundraising sites for George.  I chose Spotfund as they allow freedom of speech.

As the trial proceeded, what Kelly told investigators, and what the words meant, were disputed. It appears some of Kelly's statements were contradictory.

The Epoch Times reports a defense attorney said one juror was a hold out for conviction, and could not be persuaded, resulting in a hung jury.

 ©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TN: Gunfight in Memphis, Victim Shot, Attacker Arrested

It all started when a woman and her boyfriend were "relaxing" in the driveway of their home on the 3000 block of Boone Street on April 24, according to the Memphis Police Department (MPD). That was when someone the couple both knew walked up and started arguing with the man.

"I'm going to make your mother cry," Davian Walker told the man, according to police.

Walker, 37, then took out a gun and fired several shots at the man, who produced his own weapon and fired back, police said.

More Here

IL: Chicago, 1 of 2 Home Invaders Shot

Two suspects entered a home by force around 1:54 p.m. in the 8000 block of South Carpenter Street that was inhabited by one man and two women, police told FOX32.

Both of the men attacked the man inside the house before stealing items from the house, according to authorities.

They left on foot and soon after the incident one of them was shot in the body. The injured suspect was later taken to an area hospital in critical condition, officials said.

More Here

 

Unclear how the suspect was shot. 

AZ: Surprise Homeowner shoots 1 of 2 Suspects

Surprise Police say two suspects attempted to break into a home. The homeowner opened fire, striking one of the suspects.

Officers arrived at the scene and took both suspects into custody, one of whom was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

One of the suspects was identified as 19-year-old Kason Nelson. The second suspect is a juvenile.

On April 24, police released more information on this case, saying, "During the investigation, detectives learned that the homeowner involved is currently renting to a tenant who knows the suspects. The suspects told investigators, under Miranda Warnings, that they came to visit the tenant. However, Surprise Police detectives, with assistance from the K-9 unit, located a firearm and other items indicating the suspects were intending to commit a burglary."

More Here

GA: Atlanta Gunfight with Bouncers, Suspect Loses

Atlanta investigators learned the man was reportedly asked to leave the lounge but came back with a gun and fired shots into the building.

APD said security at the lounge then shot back, hitting the suspect. 

More Here

AR: Supreme Court - Officers of the Court (Lawyers) have the Right to Bear Arms in Courthouses

On April 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Arkansas delivered a significant opinion impacting the restoration of the right to keep and bear arms. In particular, the court re-affirmed the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. The denial of the right is a harm which confers standing to those denied, and the procedural powers of the state judiciary, as a separate, constitutionally created branch of the state government, do not necessarily extend beyond the courtroom to the courthouse.

The issue was whether Arkansas state statute § 5-73-122 - b, as modified in 2017, violated the Arkansas state constitution. The state constitution grants separate powers to the state judiciary. Before 2017, the statute limited who could possess handguns in courtrooms. Officers of the court (lawyers) were allowed. Here is the relevant statute from 2015:

(b) (1) Any person other than a law enforcement officer, officer of the court, or bailiff, acting in the line of duty, or any other person authorized by the court, who possesses a handgun in the courtroom of any court of this state is guilty of a Class D felony.

The law was changed in 2017. It is significant the statute now adds courthouse as well as courtroom. Courthouses have many functions. Some of those functions are not administrated by the judiciary. Courthouses often house other administrative offices. Here is the current law (2024)

(b) However, a law enforcement officer, either on-duty or off-duty, officer of the court, bailiff, or other person authorized by the court is permitted to possess a handgun in the courtroom of any court or a courthouse of this state.

In 2020, a lawyer, Mr. Corbit, was prevented from bringing a firearm into the Pulaski County District Courthouse.  The case became complicated. The Supreme Court ruled against him. Other attorneys joined the case in a second attempt. They abandoned the argument regarding courtrooms and limited their case to courthouses. The second case went to the Supreme Court again. Because the first case had gone to conclusion with Corbit, he was precluded from bring a second case. The other attorneys still had standing. From the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling:

 When a plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct 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.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973). It then becomes evident that the remaining appellants possess a vested and ongoing interest in the matter. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it barred their claims for lack of standing.

This is a critical understanding of "standing" for Second Amendment lawsuits. The credible threat of prosecution for exercising a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is itself a significant and irrevocable harm.

Under the Supreme Court guidance as given in the Bruen decision on June 22, 2022. It is understood there were three "sensitive areas" where the right to bear arms could be limited when the  Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. As mentioned in an article by prominent Second Amendment scholars Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, there were only three locations which were considered "sensitive places in 1791:

And the types of laws in place at the Founding tell us that sensitive places are limited, and they are areas where the government has taken on a particular responsibility for providing for the care and safety of individuals in the location. This is plainly true of legislative assemblies, court houses, and polling places.

Court houses are included. It appears the legislature has the authority to determine who may possess guns in court houses. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the legislature had authorized attorneys to do so:

 We further hold that attorneys, as officers of the court, are authorized by statute to possess handguns in courthouses. We reverse the circuit court’s denial of the petition for a declaratory judgment as it pertains to the remaining plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded they would address the issue of lawyers carrying weapons into courtrooms if the issue were to come up in a future case.

Analysis:

The most important part of this case is the recognition of standing for people who are threatened with criminal prosecution for exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment. In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made crystal clear the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. It is to be afforded the same respect as other parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is not to be treated as a second class member of the Bill of Rights.

The secondary part of this is the normalization of the right to self defense and the right to carry. When lawyers are demanding to be able to carry where they work, as a fundamental right, it is hard for them to argue others should be denied the same right where they work.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

LA: Victim and Attacker both Hit, no Charges for Defender

When a woman's estranged husband angrily broke into a Marrero home early Sunday morning looking to confront her and her current boyfriend, authorities say the boyfriend opened fire to defend himself, wounding the ex and accidentally shooting her in the process. 

The woman, 33, was taken to a hospital in stable condition after she was shot in the abdomen, according to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. 

Her estranged husband, Derrick Miller, 35, was shot multiple times and also transported to a hospital, said Sgt. Brandon Veal, sheriff's spokesperson.

More Here

TX: Dallas Private Investigator Shoots Suspect

On April 21, 2024, at about 9:40 p.m., Dallas Police responded to an assist call in the 700 block of Cantregral Street.

The preliminary investigation determined a private investigator was attempting to take the suspect, Kaland Spencer, 29, into custody for outstanding warrants.   The investigator fired his gun and shot Spencer after he stole a bystander’s car and was driving away from the location. 

Spencer was taken to a local hospital for medical treatment and arrested for his warrants, Assault on a Security Guard, and UUMV.   

This investigation is ongoing and has been referred to the Dallas County Grand Jury.

More Here

NM: Domestic Defense, Son Shoots Mother's EX

The Albuquerque Police Department was called to investigate separate fatal shootings late Friday and Saturday morning, including one in which a young man allegedly killed his mother’s ex-boyfriend in self-defense.

APD spokesperson Franchesca Perdue said the Saturday shooting is being investigated as a justifiable homicide.

 

More Here

LA: Pre-emption Bill Passes Senate, 28-11, on to House

Louisiana State Capitol, from wikimedia CC 2.5, 18 Oct, 2006, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten 

 

The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current Louisiana preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments, seeking to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, have been shown to be clever about finding ways to restrict peoples right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws.  For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales.  In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city.  In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.

Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown at the Louisiana legislature web site. They are shown below. From the Bill SB 124,

Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.

The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact ordinances or regulations . The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action. 

The list of things which may not be regulated is expanded to include: manufacture, carrying, storage, and  taxation, the items protected are expanded to include firearms accessories, knives, edged weapons, or any combination thereof.

When local governments work hard to find ways to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, responsible legislatures are finding ways to specifically prohibit them from doing so. Some states, such as Florida, have imposed financial penalties for government entities and personal liabilities for local politicians who enact ordinances which violate the preemption laws.

Bill 124 in Louisiana still has to pass the house. It seems likely to pass the house and be sent to the Governor for signature.

In spite of clear guidance from the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision, a few repressive states continue to defy the court and illegally restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Commentary:

The United States is bifurcating into a few states (8-9) defying the Supreme Court, and the vast majority which respect the Second Amendment.

This is not a healthy situation for a constitutional republic. Eventually, either the Constitution will be enforced for the entire nation, or the Republic will fall apart.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

TN: Nashville Homeowners Shoots Armed Home Invader

The homeowner retrieved his firearm and gave Cosby repeated commands to leave. He told Cosby he would fire his weapon, according to police. Cosby then allegedly broke the kitchen window and began to climb through when the homeowner shot him once in the arm.

Police said Cosby dropped his revolver near the kitchen sink and ran away. Officers say they found him nearby. When they attempted to render aid, Cosby became combative. He was transported to Skyline Medical Center for treatment of his non-critical gunshot wound.

 

More Here

IN: Muncie Pawn Shop Employee Shoots Attacker

City police were sent to KT Pawn, 424 E. 13th St., after dispatchers received a related call at 9:17 a.m. Friday.

According to Deputy Police Chief Melissa Criswell, the caller reported a man entered the business "armed with a blunt instrument and attacked the two employees, injuring both."

One of the employees then shot the alleged intruder, Criswell said.

 

More Here

FL: Volusia Sheriff's Department Investigates Road Rage Self Defense Shooting

Deputies shared that the shooter remained on the scene and told officials that he had passed a white Dodge Charger that slowed down in front of him on DeBary Avenue. After passing, the Charger began following him closely with its high beams on.

The Charger then backed off and continued on his way but reappeared later on Providence Boulevard, going onto Fisher Drive before cutting off the eventual shooter, according to the sheriff's office.

Witnesses also corroborated the same testimony of the shooter, said the sheriff's office.

The deceased driver was identified as 37-year-old Kenyon Ashley of Deltona.

More Here

MA: South Hadley Smoke Shop Robbery Suspect Shot, Killed

Once at the scene, officers discovered two adult men, one of whom was suffering from a gunshot wound. Initial reports found Papalardo was believed to have attempted to rob the store when the gun shots were fired, according to the DA’s office. He was taken to the hospital.

More Here

D.C. Man Drives off Violent Burglars with Gunfire

One of the two burglars choked him, prompting James to shoot at him with his personal gun out of self defense, James explained. No serious injuries were reported.

“I’ve always had tough jobs and I work really hard for what I have. It was never my intention to try to kill, but what they did was not ok,” James said. 

The bullet did not hit the robber, but it did hit some plumbing James shares with his neighbors. Residents in the area told DC News Now off camera they are distraught and are afraid that similar incidents may occur again. 

 

More Here

 

 

FPC Files Lawsuit: Ban on Non-Resident Carry Challenged in Court

Mural in US Capitol shows traveling with arms was common

On April 11, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against Rob Bonta in his capacity at the Attorney General of California. The lawsuit contends California infringes on the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill  of Rights by prohibiting United States citizens who are not residents of California, from exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment, in California. From the lawsuit:

2. California, however, prevents law-abiding citizens of the United States who do not reside in California from exercising their constitutionally protected right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public. State law generally prohibits individuals from carrying firearms either openly or concealed in public, and non-residents are not eligible for a license to carry a firearm in public. Indeed, California’s unconstitutionally restrictive scheme provides no path for non-residents to carry a firearm lawfully in public at all. As a result, individuals like Plaintiffs Hoffman, Orrin,and Sensiba, who have been issued carry licenses in their respective home states (and are allowed by other states that either do not require a license, or which offer reciprocity based upon the license(s) they hold), are barred from lawfully carrying a firearm in public for self-defense when they visit California.

The lawsuit contends the ban on carry by non-residents is unconstitutional. U.S. citizens do not lose the protection of the Bill of Rights when they cross state lines. They do not lose the right to free speech, the right to practice their religion, or the protection from unreasonable searches or seizures.

This is not the first case which challenges the power of states to block the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment by non-residents. In the early challenge to highly restrictive California law on carry permits, in the Peruta case, Peruta contended he had a right to be issued a California permit because he resided in the state part of the time.  Peruta did not prevail, in part, because the case occurred before the current Supreme Court ruling in Bruen clarified how inferior courts were to apply the Heller decision.

Another case, CRPA v LASD, is ongoing. Among other issues, it challenges the power of
California to infringe on the rights of non-residents, which are protected by the Second Amendment. In a Massachusetts case, decided in 2023, a local judge ruled laws which prevent non-residents from carrying are infringements on rights protected by the Second Amendment. The decision in Massachusetts is not a precedential decision. It only applied to the person involved in the case.

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, there were no prohibitions on carrying arms across state lines. Even the strictest colonial law, from 1686, made an exception for travelers. From the Bruen decision, in the amici curiae:

In 1686, East New Jersey enacted a law providing that no person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol, skeines, stilettoes, daggers or dirks, or other unusual or unlawful weapons,”  and that “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol or dagger” except certain officials and “strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions through this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”3

There are many examples in statutes, in the history of the United States, which specifically exempt travelers from state weapons laws.  From the Bruen decision, p. 4: 

A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added)

Analysis: The state of California will counter these arguments. They will claim the Second Amendment only applies to residents of their home state, as residents are not allowed to vote in another state. They will claim it is particularly dangerous to allow residents of other states to carry in California. They will claim other states do not have the burdensome training and fee requirements which California requires to obtain a carry permit.  They will claim the usual Progressive arguments of "that was then, this is now", and "limitations on government power are bad". None of those arguments are valid.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being hostile to the free exercise of the Second Amendment. If the District Court rules for the plaintiffs, expect the state to appeal to a Ninth Circuit three judge panel. If the three judge panel rules for the plaintiffs, expect the ruling to be re-heard by an en banc panel. The only appeal after an en banc panel is to the Supreme Court.

 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

PA: Beaver Falls Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder in Her Home

BEAVER FALLS, Pa. (KDKA) — A Beaver County woman shot and killed a man who broke into her home in the middle of the night, police said. 

"The door to her basement opened and there stands this guy who she had no idea who he was, and she ended up shooting him three times and killing him," Beaver County District Attorney Nate Bible said. 

The district attorney described the terrifying moments inside the home on 10th Avenue in Beaver Falls on Wednesday. The homeowner showed KDKA-TV the basement window the man busted open to get inside the home.

More Here

KY: Gunfight, Teen and Home Invader

Christian County Sheriff’s Office Spokesman Chris Miller says they were called by a teenager who says he woke up to an odd noise in the home and grabbed a gun to search the house and was shot at by someone leading him to returned fire causing the suspect to flee the area. 

At this time there is no description of a possible suspect but Miller says there were several shots fired in the exchange.

More Here

Unlicensed Dealers Account for less than 1 of 10,000 Firearms Sold in USA

The Department of Justice has issued a press release showing, over five years, from January 1 of 2017 to December 31 of 2021, the number of firearms sold by unlicensed dealers in the USA was less than 1 of 10,000 sold in the National Instant background Check System (NICS).

During the five year period, the number of firearms sold through the NICS system was; 14 million in 2017, 13.5 million in 2018, 13.6 million in 2019, 21.1 million in 2020, and 18.5 million in 2021, for a total of 80.7 million over the five years.  (according to the National Shooting Sports adjusted calculations)

The number of firearms sold by unlicensed dealers during the five year period was 68,388 firearms. They were uncovered in 3,403 cases. 68,388 may sound like a great deal, but it is less than 1 firearm for every 10,000 legally sold through the NICS system, or .084%. The Justice Department prefers to use the term "trafficked". It may be more correct, because some of the firearms may be traded or gifted rather than sold. Of the 68,388 firearms "trafficked" by unlicensed dealers, there were 368 cases where the firearms were used in shootings. There were 265 cases where they were used in homicides. This is over the entire five year period. The press releases gives us cases, but a case might involve more than one or more firearms. It is not clear if a case would involve more than one homicide, but it is possible.

The vast majority of the cases of unlicensed firearms dealing, 58%,  involved a mean of 2.3 firearms, the the number of firearms ranging from one to five.

There is little to indicate the investigation of the unlicensed sales prevented any homicides, or any violent crime. The homicides mentioned may have been the initial event which brought the unlicensed dealer to the attention of the authorities. Tracing firearms is almost never used to prevent violent crimes such as murder, rape, or assault. Those prosecuted are involved in "process" crimes, selling firearms without the approval of the federal government.

According to statistica, there were  about 97,000 homicides in the USA from 2017 to 2021. The number of homicides associated with  (not caused) by firearms which were sold by unlicensed dealers, according to the ATF, during the five years, were 265.  265 is about .27 of one percent of the homicides committed over the five years. The clearance rate for homicides in many US cities is getting lower and lower. When you have fewer police, who are less willing to investigate crimes, fewer murders get solved. About 35 million dollars a year is wasted on a firearms tracing system which does essentially nothing to prevent violent crimes. It would be much better spend investigating actual murders. The ATF criminal division was funded in 2019 with about 1 billion dollars. Over the five year period of the study, the number would be about 5 billion dollars. Most of that money goes to investigating unlicensed dealers and straw purchasers. The misplaced focus is on firearms when it should be on people who commit violent crime.

The  National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Firearms Trafficking Investigations - Volume Three, has  eleven parts, plus a Director's Forward and Acknowledgement. In virtually every part, a critical reader can find evidence of a very small return for the national treasure expended. For example, in part X, National Illegal Firearm Recoveries, most of the "firearms" recovered are parts kits which could be used to convert an existing firearm into an illegal firearm. You will also see 75% of the cases over the five years happened in 2019. It is clear something anomalous happened in 2019.  It could be as simple as defining an object as illegal, which was previously considered legal. The eleven parts contain a large amount of information.  Much of what is revealed is the relative small number of cases. Read the statistics critically, and you will be amazed at the information available.

Analysis:

The number of people who commit most murders in a given city are a tiny percentage of the population. From David Kennedy, the renowned criminal justice professor and co-chair of the National Network for safe communities:

 “We now know that homicide and gun violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under half of one percent of a city's population who commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”

The money thrown away in absurd bureaucratic exercises such as keeping, maintaining, and attempting to expand gun traces and gun trace databases, could be used to keep track of hyper violent criminals. Those who are known to be the most at risk for murder, or being murdered, are a tiny percentage of the population, much smaller than the number of firearms in society. The basic misunderstanding by the left is their confusion about cause and effect. Guns do not cause crime. Criminals only need a tiny number of guns to commit enormous numbers of crimes. Those who are prone to commit crime must be removed from the general population. There are know ways to help people, especially young men, to refrain from the temptations of violent crime. They are:

1. A stable family structure, with a strong male providing for the family.

2. A strong moral structure in the community, particularly Christianity, where violence against others is discouraged. It is important for illegitimate violence to be stigmatized.

3. A criminal justice system which is viewed as legitimate and appropriate. In communities where the police are respected, crime is low.

Much of the focus of Marxists/Leftists/Progressives, is to remove responsibility from individuals and focus on inanimate objects. This is a recipe for disaster.

 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

Il: Chicago Attempted Disarm, Victim Wounded

A 49-year-old male was standing near a tree in a park, when an unknown male approached, produced a handgun and announced a robbery. The victim grabbed the weapon, discharging the firearm and was struck.  The victim was dropped off at St. Joseph by a friend and transferred to Ill Masonic hospital where he is listed in fair condition with a gsw to the torso.  There is no one in custody and the circumstances surrounding the incident are being investigated by Area Three detectives.

 

Link Here

As Faith in Police Drops, so Do Arrest Rates

Graphic from CPRC report, 2024

A paper at the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), founded by researcher John Lott, shows how faith in the police, arrest rates, and crime reporting are all interrelated. The paper is titled " The Collapse in Law Enforcement: As Arrest Rates Plummet, People Have Been Less Willing to Report Crime", published on April 5, 2024.

As faith in the police collapses, reporting of crime drops, and so do arrest rates and clearance rates for both violent crimes and property crimes.  This has the classic look of a positive feedback loop. The consequences are far from positive.  It is not a clear case of simple cause and effect. Faith in the police, reporting of crimes, and arrest rates are all interconnected in complex ways. From the paper:

But, there is a big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report most crimes. More importantly, the number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police. While the violent crime rate reported to police fell by 1.7% between 2021 and 2022, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows that total violent crime (reported and non-reported) rose from 16.5 to 23.5 per 100,000. Violent crime in 2022 was above the rate the last year before the pandemic in 2019 and above the average for the five years from 2015 to 2019.

Not only does the arrest rate fall when most crimes are not reported, a falling arrest rate makes faith in the system decline even more, which results in a lower reporting of crimes. This explains a phenomena mentioned in the paper. While the official statistics of crime may be lower, people's perception of the crime they experience tells them the crime rate is worse. 

Reality can overcome image as portrayed by the mass media, especially as trust in mass media has been eroded over decades. In the United States, the government-media complex does not have enough control over the narrative to convince people reality is what the media says, rather than what they experience. In George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, the government controls all media, all the time. In the book, the government confidently proclaims  the chocolate ration has been increased, when in fact, it has been reduced. From 1984: 

For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff  that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.

Even in Orwell's dystopian universe, where all information flow is controlled by government censors, not everyone was willing to believe the government over their own senses.  In present day America, there are alternate sources of information, which contest the government-media complex narrative. 

Analysis: 

In high trust societies, crime rates are low because crimes are not tolerated by the culture; because crimes are diligently reported; and because citizen and police co-operation is high.  Trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild, but it can be done. First, there has to be a general acceptance of crime as wrong by society. In the United States, a consensus exists. Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Self Defense is legitimate. Even in large cities where cultural Marxism has been relentlessly pushed in education and government, the vast majority of people believe in private property and the right to self defense. They do not want to tolerate rampant theft, assault, and high murder rates. Cultural Marxist theory states when conditions become bad enough, people will turn to Marxist solutions. As with much of Marxist theory, this is based on a false assumption about reality. Most people do not value "equity" more than stability and safety. Human nature is not infinitely malleable. In many places, people are rebelling against Marxist theory rather than rebelling against the Constitution and the rule of law.  The downward spiral of lower arrests and lower trust in the police can be reversed, but it takes leadership which is willing to identify the problem and which categorically rejects cultural Marxism.

 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

NC: Raleigh Homeowner Shoots Home Invader

A man is in the hospital after being shot by a homeowner during a potential home invasion on Saturday evening, according to Raleigh police.

The incident took place shortly before 7 p.m. on the 1000 block of New Bern Ave.

More Here

OR: Coos Bay Resident Shoots Intruder

COOS BAY, Ore. — A North Bend man was shot early Friday morning after he broke into a Coos Bay home armed with a golf club, according to Coos Bay Police.

Around 12:55 a.m., April 12, 2024, officials say the North Coos 9-1-1 Center received a call from a resident in the 700 block of Johnson Avenue in Coos Bay.

Officials say the caller reported that a man had been shot after breaking into their home and requested police and medical personnel for assistance.

More Here

FL: Domestic Defense, Disarm Failure, Assailant Killed

"This is an ex-boyfriend (Rueda) that she’s had problems with in the past, restraining orders, stalking," Rodriguez said. "As he arrived at the home, he happens to see a male exiting the house."

Rueda confronted the man, identified as 23-year-old Omar Jamal Huggins, and they started arguing.

“During the fight, the ex-boyfriend continues to attack this male. The male advises him several times that he is armed and to stop the attack, and (Rueda) continues to attack this male that’s leaving the house," Rodriguez said. "The male takes out a firearm and the ex-boyfriend grabs the firearm, and now they’re wrestling for this firearm. They’re wrestling back and forth when the gun goes off."

Rueda was shot in the chest, killing him, police said.

 

More Here

PA: Fairmount Gunfight, Security Guard Injured, Assailant Killed

It happened around 7 p.m. at the Phillips 66 gas station on the 900 block of College Avenue by Poplar.

In the video, you can see Harrison walk into the store. The 30-year-old private security guard is then seen telling him to leave and pushing him back.

Next, you see Harrison pull a gun from his waistband. There is an exchange of heated words before a barrage of gunfire.

 The security guard, who works at the gas station for the private company Pennsylvania S.I.T.E. State Agents and is licensed to carry, was shot in the leg. He was taken to Temple University Hospital in stable condition.

 "After shooting the guy, the guy then still shoots at him and he does what he has to do, and you have to take care of the business and neutralize the threat or he will still hurt other people in the store," said Andre Boyer, the owner of Pennsylvania S.I.T.E. State Agents.

More Here

Update in Louisiana Silencer Case: Plea Agreement with Right to Appeal

 

President Teddy Roosevelt's unregulated silencer.

 

On February 15, 2024 a plea agreement was reached in the silencer case in the Western District of Louisiana. In the case, Brennan James Comeaux had been charged with possession of five homemade silencers, two silver colored and three black colored. A warrant had been issued to search Comeax's home to find the silencers, based on probable cause.  A motion to dismiss had been filed in the case, contending the portions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and later statues violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution based on the guidance of the Bruen decision published by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2022.

The federal prosecution argued silencers were not "arms" but accessories, thus not covered under the Second Amendment, that requirements for serialization and registration were par to federal power as allowed by the commerce clause, and there is a history of regulationg "dangerous and unusual" weapons while contending silencers are "dangerously unusual". From the government brief in the previous article:

In short, under Heller, even assuming that silencers are “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, they remain unusually dangerous and thus fall permissibly within this nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

Astute readers will see Silencers cannot both not be "arms" and also be "dangerously unusual. It is not unusual to see lawyerly arguments covering all bases this way. Essentially, the prosecution is saying: Our first argument is correct, but if the court does not accept the first argument, then our backup argument is this. It is not quite contradictory. As in the Metcalf Gun Free School Zone case, the plea agreement preserves the right to appeal the judges denial of the motion to dismiss on the grounds the federal law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. From the plea agreement:

3. The United States acknowledges that this is a conditional plea pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ll(a)(2), and that Brennan Comeaux reserved his right to appeal the Court s adverse ruling as to his Motion to Dismiss and, should such appeal be successful, Brennan Comeaux shall be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

In the plea agreement, Brennan Comeaux pleads guilty to the first count of the indictment.  Count one is for possession of unregistered firearm(s). In the definition of the NFA, silencers are defined as "firearms".

 

COUNT ONE

 

POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARM(S)

 

[26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)]

 

On or about June 2, 2022, in the Western District of Louisiana, the defendant,BRENNAN JAMES COMEAUX, knowingly received and possessed a firearm, to wit: two silver and three black firearm silencers, not registered to him in the National FirearmsRegistration and Transfer Record.All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. [26U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) and 5871].

As part of the plea agreement, Brennan Comeaux agreed to pay $100, forfeit the silencers, and receive a term of supervised release of not more than three years. The maximum penalty would be ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. You can see why nearly all federal defendants accept plea agreements. In this case, the fact of Comeaux's possession of the items was not contested.

No appeal has yet been applied for. There are other silencer cases in the courts which could bear on this case. One is in the Fifth Circuit, the same Circuit as this case. It is the lawsuit by AG Paxton for the State of Texas. The case is Paxton v. Richardson. The appeal of the Paxton case has been filed for the Fifth Circuit. This correspondent has not found and documents filed at the appeals court level.

If the Paxton case is successful, then Brennan Comeaux's appeal would be greatly enhanced.

There is a challenge to the ban on silencers by the state of Illinois which is ongoing. It is not a challenge to the federal law, but a challenge to the state ban. One of the contentions is whether silencers are included as arms under the Second Amendment. It the court find they are arms, it could be helpful to a Comeaux appeal.

Silencers are one of the weakest points in the National Firearms Act and its successor statutes. It remains to be seen if legislative or judicial attempts to remove them from the NFA will be the first to succeed.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

CA: Homeowner Drives off 4 Intruders with Gunfire

Los Angeles Police Department officers responded to a home in the 14000 block of Calvert Street, near Hazeltine Avenue, at approximately 9:45 p.m. regarding reports of a shooting, according to a report from NBC 4.

When they arrived, officers learned the man discovered four men inside his home and fired one shot at the suspects, who then fled the residence.

More Here

GA: Vehicle Occupant Shoots man Attempting Entry at 3 a.m.

MACON, Georgia (41NBC/WMGT) – The Bibb County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting that took place in the 200 block of Broadway on Tuesday at 3:01 a.m.

Deputies found an unresponsive male with a gunshot wound at the Riverview Hotel.

According to an incident report, a male was attempting to enter into a parked vehicle and was shot by the occupant who was asleep inside.

 

More Here

NM: Domestic Defense at Construction Site

At around 12:45 PM, officers from the Albuquerque Police Department were dispatched to a shooting at a construction site for new, single floor apartments on the 120 block of La Plata Rd NW. When APD officers arrived, they reportedly discovered a male who had been shot at least once, he was critically injured, and allegedly died at the scene.

We observed neighbors standing out in their yards watching the incident unfold. A witness on scene told our reporter that the shooting purportedly stemmed from a domestic incident.

Homicide detectives and investigators are being called out to the scene.

UPDATE:

APD is telling us, after a preliminary investigation, homicide detectives are considering this shooting as a possible justifiable homicide. A woman appears to have acted in self-defense during an act of domestic violence by her boyfriend. Detectives will continue to investigate the shooting.

More Here

MS: Defense Claimed in Shooting of Lloyd Ashley Jr.

Martin accused Ashley of breaking into the home on Cliffwood Drive and pointing a gun at her.

"In fear for her life, Valencia defensively fired a weapon, striking Mr. Ashley," Martin said. "The absolute privilege under Mississippi's Castle Law doctrine applies in this matter, and the charges filed against Ms. Valencia Jones should be dismissed immediately."

Martin said the home is owned by Alanda L. Jones, Valencia Jones' mother. Both women live at the home. Martin said Alanda L. Jones called 911 "at least three times" to report that Ashley was in her home without permission before her daughter came home.

 

More Here

FL: Lauderdale Lakes Fight turns Deadly, two killed

Detectives with the Broward Sheriff’s Office Homicide Unit are investigating the circumstances surrounding a deadly shooting in Lauderdale Lakes.  

 

At approximately 11 a.m. on Sunday, April 7, BSO deputies and Broward Sheriff Fire Rescue responded to a shooting call near the 3100 block of Northwest 41st Street. On scene, emergency crews located Justys Whittle and Shakeif Brown suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Paramedics pronounced Whittle deceased on scene and transported Brown to an area hospital, where he died. 

 

According to witnesses, Whittle attempted to fight Brown over an ongoing feud. During the altercation, another subject attempted to defuse the fight when Whittle pulled out a gun and fired multiple shots. The subject, who was also armed, then pulled out his weapon and returned fire.

 

The subject was taken into custody for questioning and later released. Detectives say, upon completion of their investigation, the case will be presented to the Broward County State Attorney's Office for review.

 

More Here

MO: Domestic Defense, Woman Shoots Ex who Threatened Her

At around 8:30 a.m. Saturday, police said Montez chased her around on the 7000 block of Morgan Ford Road while holding his hand in his pocket "to make it look like he had a gun" while her son was in a car waiting for her, police said. 

"While she was trying to get away from him, and was screaming, 'No! No!' he continued to approach her on her porch. Terrified that he would kill her, as he threatened to do over and over again, (the victim) shot him in his leg," the probable cause statement said.

The shooting was captured on a home security camera. 

Police said Hopgood has a history of domestic violence arrests and has threatened the woman in the past, including an incident several months ago where he kidnapped her and her child for several hours until they escaped and ran for help.

 

More Here

NRA Members Protected Against Pistol Brace Enforcement (video of judge)

Judge Sam A. Lindsay, Dallas, Texas

Link to Youtube video of Judge Sam A. Lindsay

On March 29, 2024, United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, ordered a preliminary injunction stopping the  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the final rule as it applies to pistol braces and NRA members. Once Joe Biden was elected President, the ATF had radically changed course, reversed fifteen years of previous administrative measures, and declared once legal pistol braces as re-defined "short barreled rifles.

The "final rule" claimed to be implementing measures approved by Congress in the 1934 National Firearms Act.  The court found the ATF had gone to far. In effect, the ATF created legislation, usurping the function of the Congress.  From the opinion by Judge Sam A. Linday United States District Judge of the Northern District of Texas in the Fifth Circuit:

The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA” or “Plaintiff”) brought this action on July 3, 2023, against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General (collectively, “Defendants”), for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, the NRA challenges the ATF’s January 31, 2023 issuance of an administrative rule titled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’ ” 88 Fed. Reg. 6,478 (“Final Rule”), which created a framework for determining whether firearms equipped with a stabilizing brace qualify as a short-barreled rifle (“SBR”), a category of firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”).

The controversial NFA had passed in 1934 after the primary purpose of the law, to require registration and licensing of all handguns, had been stripped from the measure because of lobbying by the NRA. What remained was mainly irrelevant and irrational at the time. Confiscatory taxes and registration of machineguns, of which only a few hundred were privately owned, registration of silencers on guns but not on automobiles,  registration of short barreled shotguns, seen as both crime weapons and homeowner's defensive tools, and registration of short barreled rifles, added to the bill at the insistence of an addled, drunk, or Machiavellian Minnestota Congressman, Harold Knutson. At the time, the bill and tax only applied to items which crossed state lines. By 2016, much of the NFA was already under attack. The law was full of contradictions and irrational requirements. The Hearing Protection Act would have removed silencers from the NFA. It would have passed in the First Trump administration except for the machinations of Paul Ryan, a peculiar opponent of a Republican president. 

In the conclusion and preliminary injunction, Judge Lindsay stops the ATF from enforcing the final rule, as it applies to pistol braces owned by NRA members, until the court case is adjudicated. This will likely come after the Supreme Court rules on the matter. From the opinion:  

III.Conclusion and Preliminary Injunction 

For the reasons explained, the court concludes that the NRA has associational standing to sue on behalf of its members and has met its burden of establishing each of the four requirements for a preliminary injunction. The court, therefore, grants the NRA’s Motion (Doc. 8) and request for a preliminary injunction, and it enjoins the ATF; Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General from enforcing the Final Rule against the NRA’s members pending the final resolution of this action on the merits. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), this preliminary injunction order enjoins and applies with equal force to Defendants’ “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B),” and Defendants shall provide notice to all such persons of this preliminary injunction order.

The court ruling strikes at the heart of the ATF and other bureaucracies to create and define law as they so wish and a particular administration desires, even reversing policies of long standing. Such flagrant abuse of power is the exact opposite of the rule of law. The "Progressives" are exactly the opposite of what the claim. They wish to regress to the rule of the ruling class, where an ultimate ruler changes the rules at whim, favoring those in the ruling class. The Progressives oppose any limitation on government power. The Constitution was created, in large part, to limit government power. 

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch