Rittenhouse Trial, Day Nine: Jury Instructions on Gun Charge make Conviction Unlikely!

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

Update: (the gun possession charges were dismissed by Judge Schroeder just before final arguments, on 15 November)

Early in the course of the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the prosecution decided to charge Rittenhouse with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18, Wisconsin statute 948.60. Several commentators immediately noted the prosecution was misapplying the law. By the letter of the law, Rittenhouse fell under the exception in 948.60  3(c). From the statute:

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

Statute 941.28 applies to short barreled rifles and shotguns. It is a legal definition. The rifle Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying was not a short barreled rifle under the law. 

SS 29.304 only applies to people who are less than 16 years of age. SS 29.593 requires a person who is hunting to possess a valid hunter safety certificate.  Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old. Kyle Rittenhouse was not hunting.

The Rittenhouse defense team attempted to have the weapons charge dismissed at the initial hearing. Then Rittenhouse changed his defense team. 

The new defense team filed motions to have the weapons charge dismissed prior to the trial. During hearings on the jury instructions, Judge Schroeder was considering dismissing the charge, based on the defense motion. There was a later motion to re-consider, by the Defense, based on extensive research involving the legislative history of the law. 

Judge Schroeder did not dismiss the charge. He said he would wait until later to decide. On the first day of the Rittenhouse trial, Judge Schroeder said he would delay his decision further.

On November 9, more than a week into the trial, Judge Schroeder gives his decision. It is terse, at the very start of the Rittenhouse trial that day. He says: 

For reasons related in the brief which was filed by Mr. Kraus (one of the prosecutors), the motion for reconsideration on count six is denied.

Count six is the weapons charge. Judge Schroeder refused to dismiss the charge.

On the next day, Kyle Rittenhouse gives testimony. There is a brief exchange about the issue between DA Binger and Rittenhouse during extensive cross examination.

A 1:19 in this video, Kyle Rittenhouse is asked, by DA Binger, why he bought an AR15 instead of some other rifle or shotgun or pistol. From the video:

Why did you pick or want Dominick Black, to buy for you, an AR15, as opposed to a pistol a shotgun or some other type of rifle?

Rittenhouse: 

I cannot legally possess or carry a pistol because I am not 18. In Wisconsin, I believe its 18 in Wisconsin for a pistol. But with the law, with the rifle, I knew I could possess that rifle, I knew I couldn't buy it,  but I knew I could like, take it to the shooting range or possess it. And with shotguns, they didn't have any shotguns in stock. That was my original plan to get a shotgun for trapshooting. But there weren't any at that Ladysmith store, and I didn't want to go to Walmart and buy one.

DA Binger:

So you're understanding at that time, was that Wisconsin law prohibited you from having a pistol but you could have an AR15?

Kyle: Yes. 

After a bit more of back and forth between DA Binger and Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle says officers in northern Wisconsin told him he could not carry a pistol, but could carry a rifle or shotgun.

DA Binger asks the judge to strike that testimony as hearsay. Judge Schroeder says, "you asked him". Then Judge Schroeder gives an explanation that only He is allowed to tell the jury what the law is. Not the defendant, not the prosecutor, not the defense. Then he gives this instruction: 

Judge Schroeder:

I will tell you, when I instruct you what the law of Wisconsin is pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a person under 18, and that will be the source of your knowledge.

Judge Schroeder, a little later:

It is quite complicated, hopefully it will sort out when I instruct you at the end.

After the prosecution and the defense have rested their cases, and all evidence has been submitted, Judge Schroeder schedules Friday, November 12, for the prosecution, the defense, and the Judge, to work out the jury instructions. He anticipates the instructions for charge six will be the most time consuming.

On the morning of November 12, there are some unanticipated motions by the prosecutor to add additional lesser charges. This is allowed under the law if elements of the lesser charge can be found to be relevant, independent of the greater charge. Then they start considering the weapons possession charge, charge 6. 

The prosecutors spring a surprise. 

They say, ordinary jury instructions will do. They did not prepare any special instructions, because the defense never presented any evidence of a weapons charge defense! Therefore the defense has no say in jury instructions in the matter! 

Ordinary Wisconsin jury instructions for the charge do not mention any exceptions to the law.

Judge Schroeder says, is that true?, directed at the defense. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi, responds. He says, we did bring up the defense on that issue! He asked a detective if he thought the rifle barrel was of legal length. Later, he says they brought up the age issue of Kyle Rittenhouse being under age 18 but more than 16.

No one seems to remember that Kyle himself brought up the affirmative defense (I would argue it is an exception in the law) in his own testimony, and the judge remarked on it!

Judge Schroeder tells everyone, ordinary people are expected to be able to read the law and understand what it means. 

Defense Attorney Chirafisi reminds Judge Schroeder of the motion to reconsider, and of all the legislative history and research.  He expounds on how the exception in 3(c) applies to Kyle. The only way it does not apply, is if he violates the short barreled rifle statute or both the hunting certificate statute and 29.304, the age restriction statute. As he is 17, he cannot violate 29.304, which is all about age restrictions.

Judge Schroeder states he denied the motion to reconsider because the charge was properly made by the prosecutors office. Therefore, he could not dismiss it out of hand.

Judge Schroeder waxes eloquent, in the video, for some time, on how important it is that ordinary citizens be able to understand the law.  Judge Schroeder in the video, about 1:16:

I have been wrestling with this, and I know there's  a lot brighter  judges in this world  than me; I have been wrestling with this  statue, I hate to count the hours I have put into it.  And, I am still trying to figure out what it says, what is prohibited?  Now, I have the good fortune to have some experience, and a liberal education. How is the ordinary person supposed to acquaint themselves with what this law says.

In the ensuing exchange, DA Kraus says, speaking of a part of SS 648:60: 

2(a) is very clear.

Judge Schroeder says, responding to DA Kraus stating 948.60 "2(a) is very clear": 

I wish it were to me.  

Then Judge Schroeder makes his decision. 

My intention is to instruct on what he (Defense Attorney Chriafisi) has submitted, without page numbers, I might add.  

Looks like the third page, which starts statutory definition of crime, down to where it says "or". 

So it will be "exception, the state must prove", etc. Then number 1, the defendant was under 18, number 2 and that the dangerous weapon, was either a rifle, etc. And you can search the evidence to find out if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is true, so that it can go to the jury. 

Alright, now, is that it?

Jury instructions are held fairly tight to the vest, so to speak, so even here, Judge Schroeder is not allowing the public to see the entire jury instructions for charge 6, until they are given to the jury, presumably Monday morning the November 15, 2021.

This is a major win for the defense team. It is not particularly surprising, because Judge Schroeder has been hinting at it for months. In addition, it is precisely the letter of the law. 

This is very good news for Kyle Rittenhouse, but it is superb, supremely excellent news for his friend, Dominick Black.

If Kyle is convicted of the gun possession charge, which now seems very unlikely, Kyle has a penalty of a Class A misdemeanor, which could be a fine of up to $10,000, 9 months in jail, or both. 

If Kyle is convicted of the gun possession charge, Dominick Black can be convicted of two felonies, with potential penalties of up to six years in prison for each.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

AL: Man Shoots Large, Aggressive Dog, Owner Understands

"It was a handgun that he was legally carrying and had a legal right to carry. It's sad that he had to do it, but he felt that he did do it in order to protect himself. I believe his family was close by as well," said Sgt. Steven Mooney with the Spanish Fort Police Department. Mooney describes the incident as justified. The shooting, he says, happened on the man's property.

Witnesses say the dog had been barking at and chasing people, that's when the homeowner stepped in. He called out to the dog to distract it and that's when police say the dog charged at him

More Here

CA: Home Invasion, Resident Kills 1, wounds 1 of 5 Home Invaders

OCEANSIDE, Calif. (CNS) -- A resident grabbed a gun and opened fire on two men taking part in a predawn home-invasion robbery along with four other accomplices in Oceanside today, killing one of them, authorities said.

More Here

SC: Man Shoots Dog which was Chasing his Cat; no Charges

A Swansea man reported that someone shot and killed his dog on Monday, but a magistrate said there’s no probable cause for charges.

The Old Swamp Road man claimed that his neighbor’s cats antagonize his dogs and the dogs break free from the underground fence, according to a sheriff’s office incident report.

The neighbor claims the man’s dogs come onto his property and chase his cats.

The neighbor also alleges the man’s dogs have killed four of his cats in the past, the incident report said.

More Here

PA: Resident Shoots Intruder who Broke into Philadelphia Home

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- Police say an intruder was shot by someone inside a home in the Logan section of Philadelphia.

It happened around 4:30 p.m. Sunday on the 4600 block of Newhall Street

According to police, the 58-year-old suspect broke into the home through a back window.

More Here

MD: Armed Off-Duty Officer Kills Suspect, Stopping Killing Spree

Southeast District Homicide / Police Involved

 

On November 13, 2021, at approximately 3:16 p.m., officers were dispatched to a Barber shop located in the 5700 block of O’Donnell Street, to investigate a reported shooting involving an off-duty Baltimore Police Officer. 

 

When officers arrived at the location, they learned that an armed gunman walked into the business and shot and killed a male employee. An off-duty Baltimore police officer was inside of the business at the time of the incident and shot the suspect, killing him.

 

Preliminarily, Investigators believe that the suspect involved in this shooting was also responsible for the shooting that occurred today in the 5000 block of East Oliver Street and the Homicide that occurred in the 4600 block of Eastern Avenue.

Investigators from S.I.R.T. along with Homicide detectives are continuing to investigate these cases.

More Here

Oral Arguments on the NYR&PA Second Amendment Case at the Supreme Court Nov 3, 2021

The oral arguments for the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen were presented on November 3, 2021 to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Oral arguments do not carry much weight with the Court, generally. They allow some public interpretation of the issues the Court members are interested in. All of the arguments have already been stated in the written briefs to the Court. With those limits, the presentation to the Court and the questions asked were interesting.

The oral arguments took almost two hours. They were scheduled for 70 minutes. This showed (no surprise) this is a very important case, important to the justices and the general public, as well as to the nation.

They can be listened to at this link. 

Transcripts of the arguments (122 pages) are available at this link.

Three people presented arguments to the Court, although questions by the justices often resembled arguments more than mere questions. The three people presenting were:

Paul Clement, Esquire, Washington D.C. for the Petitioners (in favor of Second Amendment rights outside the home);

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, NY, NY, for the Respondents (generally against a Second Amendment right outside the home); and

Brian H. Fletcher, Principle Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for the United States, supporting the respondents.

Paul Clement presented a well argued and professional case for Second Amendment rights outside the home. It appeared designed to gain a moderate advance in restoring Second Amendment rights. He answered questions well. 

This correspondent found Clements use of the words "allow" and "granted" in describing fundamental Constitutional rights to be an unnecessary ceding of fundamental principles. The rights, in Natural Law Theory, are intrinsic to the existence of humans; they are not "allowed" or "granted".

Clement was careful to argue he was only asking for a reasonable granting of rights that most people in other states already enjoy. It appears he was not willing to argue for more, fearing he would obtain too little.

The Justices, with their questions and comments were divided into two camps. 

Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanauh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, seemed in favor of a straightforward, rational interpretation of the Second Amendment, with Justice John Roberts leaning that way.

Justices Kagan, Sotomeyer, and Breyer seemed in favor of limiting Second Amendment rights outside the home as much as possible.  Justice Breyer was openly hostile to the historical findings in Heller.

In general, the debate mirrored the public debate over the Second Amendment, albeit in a more subtle, nuanced and scholarly manner. 

Those opposed leaned heavily on the Progressive assumption more guns mean more danger, even though such danger was not shown in significant evidence.

Those in favor leaned heavily on the words of the Constitution and the facts of successful shall issue laws in 42+ other states and territories. 

Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, referred to as "General Underwood" in the oral arguments seemed a bit overwhelmed by the experience. Her presentation appeared  a bit nervous, perhaps understandable, but unusual for presentations at this level. At about one hour and 21 minutes into the oral arguments, Justice Alito confronts General Underwood with a false presentation in the New York brief. He quoted the brief from page 23: 

 But on page 23, you say that in founding-era America, legal reference guides advised local officials to "arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed." And this is a citation to John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina, 1814. So I looked at this manual, and what it actually says is "you shall arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed offensively." And somehow that word "offensively" got dropped -- from your brief.

Justice Alito asks if Underwood thinks "offensively" is an irrelevant word. He gives Underwood plenty of room to back off, and say it was an error, they should have included the word. Instead, she doubles down. She says the word is irrelevant, her team discussed the issue, and essentially admits they deliberately misquoted the manual. It seemed a major blunder, to this correspondent.

Mr. Fletcher from the Biden Department of Justice, was another matter. He showed his considerable talents for making a case smoothly and his command of the facts and the law. He made the most of a weak case with authority and  sang-froid. He showed himself to be an able adversary in the Court. 

He relied heavily on  one statute, which was overturned by the state court in Tennessee, in 1821, and the post bellum case in Texas from 1871, which this correspondent discussed previously. Then there were a flurry of cases as states worked hard to restrict freed slaves and new immigrants. It was not persuasive to those who had read the cases; it was enough for a justice to hang their hat on if they wanted to limit the reach of the Second Amendment.

Justice Roberts said it was hard to believe a fundamental Constitutional right would be consistent with a permit system. 

There was considerable discussion of how an expanded definition of "sensitive places" might be used by New York if the law was struck down.

Justice Alito brought up the Sullivan law, and how the purpose may have been deliberately discriminatory to disfavored groups.

This correspondent was disappointed no one mentioned the ties of the Sullivan law to protecting organized crime through the law's namesake,  "Big Tim Sullivan".

Justice Alito summed up the argument from Mr. Fletcher, I believe, framed as a question:

JUSTICE ALITO: I think one more question about the major point that you've made this morning, which is that there are scattered statutes, local ordinances, judicial decisions from various points in the 19th century extending into the 20th century, the early 20th century with the Sullivan Law and the other laws that you mentioned, that are inconsistent with Mr. Clement's argument. 

But what does that show about the original understanding of the right that's protected by the Second Amendment? Would --would we be receptive to arguments like that if we were interpreting, let's say, the First Amendment or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment? Would we say, well, you know, you can find a lot of state laws and state court decisions from the late -- from the 19th century, early 20th century, that are inconsistent with a claim that is made based on the original meaning of -- of a provision of the Bill of Rights, and that shows that's what that was understood to mean at the time?

It is the crux of the matter. Just because a few jurisdictions flagrantly violated the Second Amendment doesn't mean the Second Amendment should not have any Constitutional force.

Oral arguments are primarily for public consumption. It is unlikely they do much to influence the Court. From these oral arguments, this correspondent predicts a 6-3 decision striking down the New York law, and requiring a Shall Issue permit system, to be enacted within, perhaps, six months or a year of the decision. 

The court is likely to issue an opinion near the end of June, 2022.

It will not stop all infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. No one made an argument about "Shall not be infringed". It is likely to make a large difference for millions of people in those few states where the Second Amendment is treated as a second class Constitutional right.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IL: Chicago, Armed Career Criminal Opens Fire on Armed Citizen, is Shot, Killed

Update 3:59 p.m. — Based on statements made by CPD, the deceased man, Darion Blackman, is the 51st person accused of killing, trying to kill, or shooting another person in Chicago this year while on felony bail.

Update 3:20 p.m. — In addition to being on bail for a felony gun offense in Cook County, Blackman was also charged with a felony gun offense in Will County over the summer. Once again, the Illinois Department of Corrections decided not to revoke his parole for the alleged violation.

Update 7:09 a.m. — The Cook County medical examiner’s office has now publicly identified the deceased man as Darion Blackman. Our original report, which did not refer to him by name, follows.

More Here

NICS and Gun Sales for October, 2021 Continue Trend for Second Highest Year Ever

As has become the norm for 2021, October gun sales in 2021 were the second highest on record. Less commonly, the total NICS background checks were also the second highest October on record. There is a significant difference between the NICS checks and gun sales. Gun sales have been running at about half of NICS checks for a while, but in October, they were 54% NICS checks.  What seems to have happened is permit and permit rechecks have fallen off a bit.

In October, the number of gun sales, calculated as handguns + long guns + other guns + 2.5 x multiple sales on one 4473 are a bit more than 1.38 million guns out of 2.58 million background checks. In October of 2020, gun sales were 56% of total NICS.  

There have been about 15.2 million guns added to the private stock in 2021, so far. That translates to approximately 478 million privately owned firearms in the United States. 3.8 million more gun sales are required to reach 482 million privately owned guns by the end of 2021. 

The rate of gun sales in 2021 translates to another 3.45 million sales in November and December of 2021. November and December are traditionally the two highest months for gun sales. 

With supply chain disruptions becoming significant, it is unknown how gun sales will be affected.  Some gun parts are made in other countries, but most parts appear to be made in the United States.  

The ammunition bubble remains inflated, prices remain high. Even ammunition components are expensive and difficult to find. 

Limited ammunition supplies may be what is keeping gun sales from the record levels of 2021. 90% of 2020 sales is enough to make 2021 the second highest year for gun sales on the record. 

Many of the gun buyers are new gun owners. This transtates to a higher level of base ammunition demand. Eventually demand will fall either when confidence in a stable United States returns, or draconian controls drive demand into the black and grey markets.  Most Americans today have never known significant hardship or need. 

The idea that basic supplies can be in short supply is alien to most Americans alive today. . 

Shortages of certain brands, and the prospect of empty shelves on occasion looms ahead. Such things tend to remind one of vulnerablilities and kindle a desire for more independence. 

With that desire comes demand for firearms and ammunition.

This shows the demand for firearms can continue at high levels.

It is unknown how high bad the current shortages will become. 

This correspondent does not see a return to "normal" conditions until the grip on power in the American government by those who are pushing to remake American society is broken. 

 More than 8% of all American adults have a firearms carry permit. 21 states do not require a permit for open or concealed carry.  Over 32% of the adults in Alabama have a carry permit; Over 21 percent of adults in Indiana, and over 16% of adults in Iowa have carry permits. This indicates the 8.3% average for the nation has considerable room to grow. It could easily double or quadruple.

President Biden's proposed "build back better" initiative assumes American society is broken and requires fundamental change. "Build back better" implies the destruction of American society as we know it.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

NM: Albuquerque Jury Finds Christopher Taber not guilty in Shooting Death of Daniel Salazar

A jury found Christopher Taber, 41, not guilty of first-degree murder last week in the 2019 shooting death of his neighbor during a dispute outside their Northwest Albuquerque homes.

The 2nd Judicial District Court jury apparently accepted the narrative of defense attorneys that Tabor was defending himself when he fatally shot Daniel Salazar on June 30, 2019.

More Here

LA: In Grant Parish, Off Duty Agent Shoots Intruder who Attacked Him

The preliminary investigation revealed an armed subject, later identified as 39-year-old Chad Scott of Pollock, forcefully entered an off-duty Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Agent’s residence. As Scott entered the residence, an altercation ensued and the property owner discharged a firearm. Scott was struck and sustained critical injuries. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment. There were no other injuries reported.

 

More Here

OH: Constitutional Carry passes House Committee; has Chance to Become Law

Ohio Statehouse

On October 28, the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee, after 5 hearings starting on April 15, voted to pass HB227 to the full House for a vote. HB227 is the Constitutional Carry bill in Ohio, and passed on a party line, 8-4 vote, as reported by buckeyefirearms.org. 

The bill changes Ohio law from dealing with concealed handguns to concealed weapons; it changes the law so that any non-prohibited person 21 years old or older can carry concealed weapons where people can carry with a permit, now. From HB227:

..a person who is twenty-one years of age or older and is not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under any law of this state or the United States may carry a concealed deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon anywhere in this state. The person's right to carry a concealed deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon that is granted under this division is the same right as is granted to a person who has been issued a concealed weapons license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code, and the person described in this division is subject to the same restrictions as apply to a person who has been issued a concealed weapons license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.

(B) The mere carrying or possession of a deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon pursuant to the right described in division (A) of this section, with or without a concealed weapons license issued under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a concealed weapons license issued by another state, does not constitute grounds for any law enforcement officer or any agent of the state, a county, a municipal corporation, or a township to conduct any search, seizure, or detention, no matter how temporary in duration, of an otherwise law-abiding person.

The House bill is more comprehensive than the Senate bill.

The companion bill in the Senate,  SB 215, had a second hearing on October fifth. Its provisions for permitless carry are very similar to the House bill. From the Senate version of the bill.

Notwithstanding any other Revised Code section to the contrary:

(1) A person who is a qualifying adult shall not be required to obtain a concealed handgun license in order to carry in this state, under authority of division (B)(2) of this section, a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm.

(2) Regardless of whether the person has been issued aconcealed handgun license, subject to the limitations specified in divisions (B)(3) and (D)(2) of this section, a person who is a qualifying adult may carry a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm anywhere in this state in which a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license may carry a concealed handgun.

(3) The right of a person who is a qualifying adult to carry a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm that is granted under divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section is the same right as is granted to a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license, and a qualifying adult who is granted the right is subject to the same restrictions as apply to a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license.(C) The mere carrying or possession of a handgun that is not a restricted firearm pursuant to the right described in divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, with or without a concealed handgun license, does not constitute grounds for any law enforcement officer or any agent of the state, a county, a municipal corporation, or a township to conduct any search, seizure, or detention, no matter how temporary in duration, of an otherwise law-abiding person.

The future of permitless or Constitutional carry in Ohio is uncertain. Ohio has a super majority of Republicans in the House, 64 to 35. In the Senate, they have more than a supermajority, 25 to 8. The legislature overrode Governor DeWine's veto of  SB 22, which reformed and decreased the governor's emergency powers on March 24, 2021.  In Ohio, it takes 60%, 3/5 of each house to override a veto. That is 60 votes in the House, and  20 in the Senate.

Governor DeWine has not stated if he would sign or veto a permitless carry bill.  With a general resistance to governmental and federal overreach rising in the population, Governor DeWine may feel compelled to sign a bill to show his willingness to protect the individual from the government.

The passage of Constitutional (permitless) carry in Texas created a momentum of legitimacy for Constitutional carry. With 21 states now having permitlesss carry, and another 17 having permitless carry for open carry, the lack of any measurable bad consequences makes permitless carry difficult to argue against. Here is an example, from the testimony of Shannon Gallagher:

We oppose permitless carry because it takes away personal responsibility—

Law enforcement experts, gun instructors, and military personnel overwhelmingly agree that people who carry concealed weapons in public should take firearm training, including live-fire training. Permitless carry strips law enforcement of this authority, forcing them to allow people with violent criminal histories to carry concealed guns throughout the state

This bill goes against our values in Ohio, disregarding the devastating consequences of gun violence to our communities, shown by Ohio’s alarming rates of gun injury and death.

Opponents are reduced to generic "guns are bad" arguments. Those arguments are undercut by the experience of the United States over the last 30 years. 

When government excesses are being highlighted, reforms which might otherwise be ignored, have better chances of passage. 

This correspondent will not be surprised if Constitutional carry passes in Ohio this year. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

MO: Armed Woman Wounds Carjacking Suspect

ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - A St. Louis woman says she’s grateful to be alive after two teenagers attempted carjacking her at gunpoint. Afraid for her life, she used her own gun against them, wounding one.

The 37-year-old victim says just seconds after she parked outside her apartment Monday night, two young men passed her. She says at first the 13-year-old suspect asked to use her cell phone. He was with an older teen, about 16 years old.

More Here

MO: Sedalia Homeowner Shoots Intruder

When officers arrived, they found that the homeowner woke up to someone inside the home. The homeowner began checking the home with a firearm and located the suspect inside.

The homeowner told police he ordered the suspect to leave the home. When the suspect advanced towards him, the homeowner shot the suspect one time.

More Here

CA: Home Invasion Gunfight in San Diego, 1 Invader Killed, 1 Wounded

Patrol officers responding to reports of gunfire arrived to find a 31-year-old suspect mortally wounded in the residence, OPD spokeswoman Jennifer Atenza said. The man, whose name was withheld pending family notification, died at the scene.

Meanwhile, other officers pulled over a suspicious vehicle in the area and detained its five occupants, including a man who had suffered a gunshot wound. Medics took the injured suspect, identified as 29-year-old Deshawn Ingram of Oceanside, to a hospital, where he was admitted in stable condition.

“It is unknown at this time if the (home-invasion victim) shot the… suspect who is currently in the hospital, or if this suspect was shot by one of the other suspects, who were also armed with a gun,” Atenza said late Wednesday afternoon.

 

More Here

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Day 6 Gaige Grosskruetz Affirms his gun was Pointed at Kyle when Kyle shot

Prosecutor's table, Krautz, left, Binger with glasses, right
 

On day six of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, November 8, 2021, the court video captured a particularly dramatic moment. Gaige Grosskreutz has given testimony as a prosecution witness. He is being cross-examined by Corey Chirafisi, a defense attorney. It occurs about 2 hours and 27 minutes into this trial video on November 8, 2021. Over the next few minutes, there is this exchange:

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

So, your hands are up, and at that point he (Rittenhouse) has not fired. Correct?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

No he has not.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi: 

Do you agree at this point, you are dropping your hands, you are loading up your left foot, and you are moving toward Mr. Rittenhouse, at that point, True?

Gaige Grosskreutz: 

Yes. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:  

So, When you were shot; Can you bring up the photo? Do you agree, and now wait, how close were you, in the ? How close were you, from the background.

Gaige Grosskreutz: 

Three feet. If I was five feet before, so

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:  

At this point, you are holding a loaded chambered Glock 27 in your right hand, Yes?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

That is correct, yes. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi: 

You are advancing on Mr. Rittenhouse, who is seated on his butt, right?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

That is correct.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

 You are moving forward and your right hand drops down so your gun, your hands are no longer up, your hand has dropped down and now your gun is pointed in the direction, at Mr. Rittenhouse, agreed?  I will give you another  (exhibit?), and maybe that will help.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

So Mr. Grosskruetz, I am going to show you what has has been marked as exhibit #67.  

exhibit #67

That is a photo of you, Yes?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

Yes.

 Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

That is Mr. Rittenhouse?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

Correct.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

Do you agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse? Correct?

Gaige Grosskreutz: 

 Yes.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

 Ok. And, Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that's when he fires, Yes?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

Yeah. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

Does this look like right when he was firing the shot?  (#67, moment of Rittenhouse's shot) 

Gaige Grosskreutz: 

That looks like my bicept being vaporized, yes. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

and it was vaporized at the time you are pointing your gun directly at him? 

Gaige Grosskreutz:

Yes.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

When you were standing 3-5 feet from him, with your arms up in the air, he never fired? Right?

Gaige Grosskruetz: 

Correct.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him,  with your gun, now your hand is down, pointed at him, that he fired? Right?

Gaige Grosskreutz:

Correct. 

The camera is pointed at Gaige Grosskreutz, We cannot see the prosecutor's table. The camera then shows Kyle Rittenhouse for a few seconds. Then it shows the prosecutor's table.  A dramatic image is captured, which will probably become an iconic graphic of images you do not want to present at court. 

Prosecutor's table, Kraus, left, Binger with glasses, right

Of interest, Gaige Grosskreutz showed significant function in his right arm and hand. He was able to hold and raise a water bottle, and the microphone easily, with considerable fine motor control in his fingers. 

Becky Sullivan, National Public Radio (NPR) reporter and producer, who mis-reported information about a critical juncture of the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum, in the Rittenhouse trial, had this take on the Gaige Grosskreutz testimony. From muckrack.com: 

By Becky Sullivan

 |  WBOI-FM

Updated November 8, 2021 at 3:27 PM ET 

Gaige Grosskreutz, the only person who survived being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse last year at a chaotic demonstration in Kenosha, Wis., took the stand in a pivotal moment in Rittenhouse's homicide trial. In three hours of dramatic testimony Monday, Grosskreutz, 27, acknowledged that he was armed with a pistol on the evening of Aug. 25, 2020, but said that his hands were raised when Rittenhouse raised his rifle at him and that he feared for his life.

Ms Sullivan failed to mention Gaige Grosskreutz testified he was pointing his pistol at Kyle Rittenhouse when Kyle shot him.

It appears Ms. Sullivan leads the NPR Union bargaining team:

 I've spent the last few months leading our union's bargaining team in these contract negotiations, and I am so, so proud of what we were able to accomplish.

The trial has had another day, where the prosecution witnesses appear to be defense witnesses. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

NC: Man Shoots two Pit Bulls which Attacked his Family

“I need the police here, I have just shot the two dogs that were attacking me in my yard," Hermann told the operator. "One of them is in my driveway dead."

Hermann said as soon as he stepped out onto the porch, he had no choice; the dogs were immediately running to him.

In the minutes that followed, both dogs would be shot and eventually die.  Animal control has had many complaints about neighbor dogs roaming on to Hermann’s property, and many citations were issued to the dog’s owners.  The last two years were a tragedy in the making.

More Here

CA: Sacramento Resident Shoots, Kills Robbery Suspect at Home

When officers arrived, they found a man suffering from at least one gunshot wound lying in front of the residence. Fire department personnel arrived and pronounced the man dead at the scene.

Police investigated the incident and based on their preliminary information, determined the man was involved in a robbery happening at the residence. One resident then pulled out a gun and shot the suspect, say police.

More Here

OH: Woman Charged in Exchange of Pepper Spray and Gunfire

OLUMBUS (WCMH) – A 75-year-old woman has been charged after she told Columbus police she fired a gun at people she said sprayed her with mace and assaulted her.

Peggy Howard, of Columbus, is facing felony assault charges stemming from the incident, which happened Saturday at approximately 7:14 p.m. in the 2100 block of Brentnell Avenue.

More Here

NPR Reporter presents Her Speculation as Fact in Rittenhouse Trial Article

Witness McGinnis showing how Rosenbaum lunged for Rifle held by Kyle Rittenhouse

Becky Sullivan of NPR makes a startling claim of fact, which is not in evidence from the trial or the criminal complaint. It is especially relevant because it is a claim about a crucial moment in the sequence of events where the first aggressor, Joseph Rosenbaum, attacked Kyle Rittenhouse. Mr Rosenbaum attempted to grab the barrel of the rifle Rittenhouse had pointed toward the ground between him and Rosenbaum.  The relevant testimony is at 2:34:40 in the video of the trial.

The rifle is pointed at the ground between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, as Rosenbaum is first running, then lunging at Rittenhouse, attempting to grab the barrel/muzzle of the rifle. As Rosenbaum is lunging, Rittenhouse moves the barrel of the rifle to prevent Rosenbaum from controlling the rifle, and fires. All of this is happening in a fraction of a second. Rittenhouse has not moved his feet. Rosenbaum continues his movement toward Rittenhouse, falling on his face in front of Rittenhouse. 

McGinnis is not sure if it was the shots that caused Rosenbaum to fall, or if Rosenbaum's action of lunging to attempt to grab the rifle would have caused Rosenbaum to fall anyway. There is no testimony that Rosenbaum was on a trajectory to move past Rittenhouse. At 2:40 in the video, witness McGinnis gives this testimony: 

It is unclear to me, because the shots were so quick, whether, you know, the shots are the reason why he, because he lunged, and the shots were fired as he was lunging, so it was, like, perhaps it was the shots that caused him to, rather than stopping himself, just fall flat.

Becky Sullivan inserts the allegation of Rosenbaum moving past Rittenhouse into her article. From kgoy.org: 

Rosenbaum lunged for the rifle, McGinnis said, and Rittenhouse dodged. As Rosenbaum's momentum was carrying him past Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse fired four times. Afterward, Rittenhouse ran away, leaving Rosenbaum laying face down on the ground, McGinnis said.

When prosecutor Thomas Binger suggested it was impossible for McGinnis to know what Rosenbaum was trying to do as he lunged, McGinnis replied, "Well, he said 'f*** you' and he reached for the weapon." 

More testimony is given by Mr. McGinnis is at 4:56 in the questioning by DA Binger, confirming that Rosenbaum was lunging at Rittenhouse when he was shot.

There is no evidence or indication in the testimony that Rosebaum's momentum was carrying him past Kyle Rittenhouse when he was shot. The testimony is that Rosenbaum's momentum was carrying him toward Kyle Rittenhouse, because Rosenbaum was lunging at Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse did not move his feet. 

Rittenhouse moved the barrel of the rifle to keep Rosenbaum from grabbing it. At the point the shots were fired, Rosenbaum had, a fraction of a second earlier, been within inches, perhaps  touched, the barrel of the rifle, while he lunged at the rifle, which was directly between him and Kyle Rittenhouse.

Below is the allegation of fact which was inserted in the narrative, without any foundation in the testimony, by Becky Sullivan:

"As Rosenbaum's momentum was carrying him past Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse fired four times."

If MS Sullivan can back up her statement with evidence, it would be a significant change in the narrative of what happened.

The autopsy of Joseph Rosenbaum has not yet been released to the public, to this correspondent's knowledge. A brief description of the wounds has been released.   From cbslocal.com:

Dr. P. Douglas Kelley of the Milwaukee Medical Examiner’s office determined that Rosenbaum suffered one gunshot to the groin that fractured his pelvis, another to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, another to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze wound to the right side his forehead.

Those wounds are consistent with shots being fired at Rosenbaum as he lunged toward Rittenhouse. They are more difficult to explain if Rosenbaum was moving past Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse fired. The full autopsy should show the trajectory of the shots fired. It will likely be introduced as evidence in the trial. 

The autopsy is not yet in evidence. What we know of the trajectory of Rosenbaum comes from the video evidence and Mr. McGinnis testimony.  Neither the video or the eye-witness testimony indicates Rosenbaum was moving past Rittenhouse when the shots were fired. 

The criminal complaint is also consistent with Rosenbaum being in front of Rittenhouse when he was shot. From the criminal complaint WPR:  

McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot.

If Rosenbaum was moving "past" Rittenhouse when Rosenbaum was shot, being behind Rosenbaum would have put McGinnis out of the line of fire. 

This is how false narratives are started. Watch for other reporters to now claim that Rosenbaum was moving past Rittenhouse when the shots were fired. While this would not remove the danger to Rittenhouse, the narrative may be used to claim that Rosenbaum was not a danger to Rittenhouse when he was shot.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

FL: Man in Waffle House Parking lot Shoots Man who Attacked him

According to police, an adult male and female were arguing in the parking lot of the Waffle House when another adult male, who was not involved in the dispute, tried to get into his car nearby.

Police said the male from the argument attacked the other man, who then fired one shot, striking the first male in the leg.

More Here

GA: Homeowner Shoots, Kills Man Attempting to Break-in

It happened just after 9 p.m. Saturday, in the Victory Manor Mobile Park in Hinesville. According to the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office, the homeowner shot and killed the suspected burglar as he was trying to get inside.

More Here

IL: Chicago, 77-Year-Old CCW Holder Shoots, Kills Armed Robber

A 77-year-old concealed-carry license holder fatally shot a would-be robber Saturday afternoon in Burnside on the South Side.

About 12:20 p.m., the man was in an open garage in the 500 block of East 89th Street when a vehicle pulled up in the alley and an armed male exited and demanded his belongings, Chicago police said.

More Here

CA: Robbery Victim Disarms, Shoots Robber, Is Wounded

Multiple sources tell ABC7 News Anchor Dion Lim the man who was shot and killed is 21-year old Samuel Jessop-Burciaga and known by his friends and family as "Sammy." Sources say he and another man tried to rob someone else.

A struggle ensued and that would-be robbery victim was able to wrangle a gun from Jessop-Burciaga and shoot him in the face. Jessop-Burciaga fell on top of the man, as another person fired shots. The person who was being robbed was injured, Jessop -Burciaga was pronounced dead.

More Here

VA: Home Invasion Gunfight, Resident and 1 Invader Killed, Contractor Wounded

WOODBRIDGE, Va. — Police are investigating after two people were killed in a shooting in Woodbridge Friday, now identified as 20-year-old Joseph Harden and 20-year-old Zhabriell Perkins, both of Woodbridge. 

According to a press release from Prince William Police, the shooting happened after two men forced their way into a home in the 14100 block of Renegade Court just before 11:30 a.m.

More Here

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun and Ammo Tax As Unconstitutional

On November 9, 2012, Cook County Illinois created a special tax on guns. On November 18, 2015, the County board added a tax on ammunition. At the time, this correspondent believed the tax to be unconstitutional on its face.  So did the Illinois Advocacy Group for Second Amendment rights, Guns Save Lives. They filed a lawsuit, challenging the tax law, on December 17, 2015.  

The lower courts in Illinois did not agree. They did not find a problem with the taxes. Guns Save Lives appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The case was decided on October 21, 2021. The decision was unanimous, 6-0. Chief Justice Anne M. Burke did not take part in the decision. The judges ruled the taxes to be unconstitutional, but the majority decision was a narrow ruling based on tax law instead of the Second Amendment or the Illinois State Constitution. From sj-r.com:

The Cook County gun tax, which took effect in April 2013, imposed a $25 fee for retail gun purchases in the county, as well as a 5 cent fee per cartridge of centerfire ammunition and 1 cent per cartridge fee for rimfire ammunition.

The taxes were challenged by the trade group Guns Save Life Inc. in a lawsuit against the county.

The Supreme Court’s Thursday opinion, written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, stated that, “While the taxes do not directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to use a firearm for self-defense, they do directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense.”

 The majority opinion held that under the Illinois Constitution, taxing power and regulatory power are separate. They held, under Illinois law, taxing is not regulation. Thus, the strong pre-emption statute passed in Illinois as part of the weapons law reforms required by the Seventh Circuit, did not apply to taxes. Then they found the tax did not conform to the requirements of the Illinois tax code, and thus, was unconstitutional, because it impacted a fundamental constitutional right.

Part of their decision is troubling. It accepts a fundamental error in the assumption about the nature of reality. Cook County asserts "gun violence results from guns". From the decision: 

Here, the entity responsible for justifying the tax, the County, maintains that the tax classification is justified since a reasonable relationship exists between the special tax and the object of the ordinances. The proffered justification for the taxes is to fund the staggering economic and social cost of gun violence in Cook County. The County asserts that firearms and ammunition are instruments of death and that their harmful effects cost the County immeasurably in terms of public health, safety, and welfare.

This is a straw man argument, because it only looks at guns, and only at the harm done with guns. It does not consider the positive uses of guns. Moreover, the inherent assumption is, if there were no guns, the harm would be eliminated or reduced. From the evidence, that is false. The harm would continue to be done, simply with other instruments, and plausibly would be greater than the harm done with guns.
 

The majority of justices do not mention these facts. Instead, they accept the false premise:

In applying that standard to the firearm and ammunition taxes, we recognize that the uniformity clause was “not designed as a straitjacket” for the County (Arangold, 204 Ill. 2d at 153) and acknowledge the costs that gun violence imposes on society.

It is not  clear the mere presence of guns imposes any net costs on society. The evidence indicates there are no net costs.  Net benefits of the presence of firearms in society are likely. 

Justice Michael J. Burke concurred with the rest of justices in a special opinion. His opinion is particularly convincing. The argument is  straight forward. The Illinois Constitution does not allow taxation of the right to keep and bear arms. From the decision:

 Justice Michael J. Burke, specially concurring:

Moreover, the reason why those statutes preempt handgun regulations, not handgun taxes, is obvious—the Illinois Constitution only allows the legislature to preempt regulations, not taxes. And taxes that infringe the right to keep and bear arms are already precluded by the Illinois Constitution. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22; id. art. VII, § 6. Moreover, even if the statutes mentioned by the County did intend to specifically preserve for home rule units the power to tax handguns in the manner under consideration here, that would not show that the framers of our constitution intended to authorize a home-rule unit’s discriminatory taxation of firearms, where the text of that constitution clearly prohibits taxation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. 

In Illinois, the police power and the taxation power are separate.  The Illinois Constitution only places a limitation of the right to arms subject to the police power. From the Illinois Constitution:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The amendment specifically forbids any other power being used to infringe on the right to arms.

The Illinois protection for the right to arms is not very strong. In the case of taxes, it appears to be strong enough. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

AZ: Man Shot in Face at Casa Grande, Investigation Ongoing

Denmark told the detective that the man turned around, approached the driver’s side of his truck and rested his arms on the driver’s window. Denmark allegedly told the man to back up and get off his truck.

He told officers that the man became angry, said “This is westside mafia” and punched Denmark in the face. Denmark said he backed up, picked up his gun and fired one shot in self-defense. Denmark said he didn’t think the bullet hit the man because the man walked away. Denmark told deputies that he heard someone from the black car yell, “Go. Just go!” and so he drove away.

more here

TN: Gunfight at Applebee's in Memphis, Three Wounded, 2 Critical

The Shelby County Sheriff’s Office says two of the victims were transported to Regional One Hospital in critical condition. The Applebee’s general manager was shot in the arm. He is expected to recover.

Witnesses say a patron inside the restaurant got into a shootout with a suspect outside after the suspect shot at the patron’s car.

More Here

NY: Crown Point Home Invasion Gunfight, 1 Invader Dead, Resident Wounded

At least two men broke into a house at 1733/35 Creek Road just before 12:30 a.m. and confronted the resident.

Neighbors said they heard multiple gunshots from within the house, and police have identified Jonathan Winkler, 27, of Monroe, Orange County, as the deceased suspect. The other suspect fled the scene and is being sought by State Police.

The resident of the home was also shot in the altercation and was airlifted to UVM Medical Center in Burlington for treatment. Police said his injuries are not life-threatening.

More Here

NY: Reggaeton Artist Kerr Yen Shoots at Armed Robber

Surveillance footage captured the Puerto Rican artist smoking outside by himself when a pickup truck pulled up in front of him. An armed man hopped out of the passenger seat and robbed Kerr Yen at gunpoint.

Kerr Yen quickly cooperated and calmly tossed his bag towards the thief. However, as the robber was picking up the bag, Kerr Yen drew his gun and shot at him. The robber was able to take off with the bag before quickly running back to the truck. Kerr Yen fired more shots at the truck as the two men got away.

More Here

NM: Followup Christopher Tabor found not guilty in Shooting Death of Daniel Salazar

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – A jury has found an Albuquerque man not guilty for killing his neighbor. Prosecutors say Christopher Tabor shot and killed his neighbor Daniel Salazar in 2019 after a fight over a barking dog.

More Here

NC: Pawn Shop Owner Wounded, Suspect Wounded by off -duty Officer

When they tried to leave, officials say they were confronted by an off-duty officer. Officials say the off-duty officer used a personal weapon to return fire at the suspects who fled and left the scene. When the suspects fled, the deputy got the license plate number.

“He came upon a situation where there was an armed robbery going on,” said Cabarrus Sheriff Van Shaw. “He discharged his personal weapon in that process and then rendered aid to the store owner who was wounded in that robbery.”

One of the suspects, identified as 21-year-old Sean Christian Parker, was shot and was taken to the hospital in Albemarle. Deputies found the other two suspects in a neighborhood nearby.

More Here

OK: Pushmataha County Homeowner Shoots, Kills Home Invader

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY, Okla. —

A homeowner shot and killed an accused intruder over the weekend in southeastern Oklahoma, according to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

Just after 4 p.m. on Oct. 31, Pushmataha County Sheriff’s Office requested assistance from the OSBI after a home invasion turned shooting near the intersection of County Road 4330 and Highway 147.

More Here

TX: Man Attempting Break-in at Sagina Home Shot, Killed

One man was fatally shot when he attempted to break into a home in Saginaw last week, police say.

The incident happened just before midnight Tuesday, Oct. 26 in the 600 block of Oak Hollow Trail, Saginaw police said.

More Here

ND: Man Breaking into Home in Williams County Shot, Killed at Scene

The caller reported an individual breaking into the residence was shot shortly before 7 a.m. Authorities arrived and found that the individual suspected of breaking into the home had died at the scene.

More Here

WI: Governor Evers Defies Natural Resources Board, Rule of Law, on Wolf Hunt

Wolves in image taken by Wisconsin game camera, courtesy Dean Weingarten

In 1967, as part of a government reorganization, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board was formed from two previous boards, to oversee the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The board governs the Department of Natural Resources. It is part of a long history of Citizen controlled boards in Wisconsin. The board members are not paid. The governor appoints board members. The state senate confirms their appointment. There are seven members, who serve six-year staggered terms. There has never before been a dispute about who controls the Department of Natural Resources, and who makes policy. This is confirmed by Department of Natural Resources website, which is still available at this point, and has not yet been taken down or rewritten in Orwellian fashion: From the DNR website: 

The NRB is the policy-setting body for the DNR. All rule proposals, land acquisitions, property management master plans and budget proposals from department staff must be approved by the board before advancing for legislative or gubernatorial review and approval.

On 4 October, 2021, Governor Evers, through his appointee at the head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, defied the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board , which has the legal authority to set policy for the Department of Natural Resources. Evers' appointed DNR head set a quota for the November wolf hunt directly in defiance of the quota mandated by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. From dnr.wisconsin.gov:

 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) today announced that the statewide quota for the Fall 2021 wolf season has been set at 130 wolves.

The department is authorized by state statute and the department’s rules to make the final decision on the quota for the Fall 2021 wolf harvest. In determining the quota, the department considered the best available information and scientific modeling, as well as the input from the Wolf Harvest Committee, the Natural Resources Board, and the many groups and members of the public who provided comments to the department and the Board.

State-licensed hunters and trappers will be authorized to harvest 74 wolves within the six zones established in the department’s regulations. The department will honor the Ojibwe Tribes’ treaty right within the Ceded Territory of 56.

In this press announcement, the DNR relegated its legislatively created supervisory body to the position of a a merely advisory agency, thus removing itself from any citizen oversight.

The decision of the Board to set the wolf quota was controversial; but no one doubted or questioned the authority of the board to do so. If the Board did not have the power to do so, there was no reason for the DNR to recommend the 130 wolf quota.

 Even the leftist Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was surprised by the action. From jsonline.com:

“They are not free to just do that,” Kazmierski said in comments to The Associated Press. “It’s in violation of the statute that establishes the board."

Experts on Monday were surprised by the DNR's announcement.

"It's never been done," said George Meyer, who retired in 2002 from the DNR after a 30-year career, including as a staff lawyer and secretary. "It's not that there weren't disagreements, but they were always worked out. This is a real mess."

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board held an special meeting in response, on 8 October, to confer with legal counsel in a special closed session, presumably to determine a response to this lawless action.

Governor Evers has been frustrated because the Wisconsin State Legislature has refused to ratify his appointee to head the Board. From wpr.org: 

Under state statutes, the Natural Resources Board consists of seven members that are nominated by the governor in six-year staggered terms that are confirmed by the state Senate. A member can remain on the board past the expiration of their term until the Senate confirms a nominee, according to staff with the Wisconsin Legislative Council.

The legal basis for Prehn to remain on the board is rooted in a 1964 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which allows him to "hold over" in his position as chair until the new appointee is confirmed. A person who is nominated to replace the current officeholder may not exercise the powers of the position until the Senate confirms them. The governor can’t remove a holdover in an appointed position without just cause.

The current Attorney General,  Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit to remove Chairman Prehn from the board. The lawsuit was immediately struck down by a judge in leftist Dane County. The AG is supposed to represent the board in lawsuits which are pending by far-left activist groups. From empowerwisconsin.org: 

“Apparently he’s in the active process of an appeal to get our chair removed while supposedly defending us. Talk about a conflict, said Kazmierski, who, like Prehn, was appointed to the board by former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican.

Kazmierski said it’s just the latest example of a liberal-led executive branch that is openly defying the laws of the state.

“It’s total lawlessness,” Kazmierski said.

“To me it’s kind of a precedent-setting case. That’s why as a board we’re fighting so hard. If this precedent gets set, this agency can do anything they want, any time they want, Katy bar the door,” he said.

A Dane County judge last month rejected Kaul’s lawsuit to remove Prehn, who has remained on the board months after his term ended. Prehn has successfully argued he doesn’t need to vacate the post until the Republican-controlled state Senate confirms his successor, nominated by Democratic  Gov. Tony Evers.

Commentary:

This is part of the growing authoritarianism on the Left. If they cannot get their way through due process of law, they defy the law.

Leftist special interests have been outraged the Natural Resources Board has been determined to do what its policy and the law required it to do, instead of bend to their will. This is the result. Expect more. 

This is a direct conflict between the ruling class and those they wish to rule. People in Milwaukee and Madison do not have to live with wolves in their backyards. The urban activists do not care if those in rural areas suffer because of their policies. The reality where wolves have been re-introduced is not their concern. 

 Update: Wisconsin Judge blocks Wolf Hunt, says DNR failed to follow law.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

CA: Resident Shoots Man who was Breaking into Residence

The suspect also reached inside through a hole he ripped in the front door and grabbed the victim in an attempt to pull him out of the trailer. According to the Sheriff’s Office, the victim was able to get out of the suspect’s hold, arm himself with a firearm and shot the suspect in the leg.

More Here

OH: Man Attacks Armed Woman, is Shot Three Times

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Ohio (WCMH) — A homeowner in Violet Township shot at a suspect who attacked her, hitting him at least three times, according to Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office.

More Here

IN: Bouncer Shoots Man who Threatened him With a Gun

LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A Three Pigs pub bouncer shot Zackary Klingensmith about 3 a.m. Saturday when Klingensmith allegedly pointed a sidearm at the bouncer, according to police reports.

Klingensmith was in critical condition Saturday morning recovering from a gunshot wound to his right torso and his hand, police said.

More Here

Flurry of bear attacks 27 Sept. - 2 Oct. 2021

File Image of grizzly bear  by Troy Nemitz, permission to use granted; scaled and cropped by Dean Weingarten

A flurry of six bear attacks have happened in North America in less than a week from 27 September to 2 October, 2021. The attacks ranged from three by grizzly bears in Canada, two by grizzly bears in the Western United States, and one by a black bear in Ashville, North Carolina. The attacks continue a trend to make this a banner year for bear-human conflicts. Here are the six attacks: 

1 & 2. Two separate bear maulings  on 27 September, 2021 in Alberta, Canada: 

Two men are in hospital after being mauled in separate grizzly bear attacks, roughly 70 kilometres apart in southern Alberta's Rocky Mountains. 

At 12:47 p.m. Sunday, Kananaskis Emergency Services was notified of an attack on Storelk Mountain, south of Highwood Pass in Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial Park.

(snip)

About seven hours later, at 8 p.m., Blairmore RCMP received a call about a hunter who had been attacked by a bear.

Two hunters were searching for grouse in an area about 10 kilometres west of Highway 40, near the Alberta-British Columbia boundary and south of Gould Dome mountain, when they came across a grizzly sow and her cubs. The bear attacked one of the hunters, while the other shot the bear, scaring her off, officials said.

3. Another bear mauling on 29 September, 2021 in British Columbia, Canada: 

The BC Conservation Officer Service says a man is in hospital after a grizzly bear attack in the central Interior region.

In a post on Twitter, the service says the attack happened on Wednesday morning near Granisle, which is northwest of Burns Lake, and about 325 kilometres northwest of Prince George.

4. A grizzly attack on 29 September, 2021, near Cody Wyoming. This correspondent has interviewed one of those involved. A full report is in the works.

Two elk hunters and the guide were charged by the bear without any warning or provocation on their part. They responded with handgun fire and bear spray. The charge was finally stopped a few feet from the defenders.

5. A predatory black bear attack on a peaceful couple and their dog in Asheville, NC, on 29 September, 2021. The man heroically defended the woman and dog, but was severely injured in the process. From the National Park Service on Facebook: 

It is not at all uncommon for a bear to bluff charge, pop their jaws, huff, stomp their feet etc. when they encounter a dog, on or off leash. However, this attack was unusual in that the bear was uncharacteristically aggressive and continued to pursue the human subjects involved after the dog was removed and continued to attack the couple's vehicle after they were all inside of it and the threat (the couple and their dog) was effectively removed. This is not typical or characteristic defensive bear behavior and indicates a more predatory response. This presents an intolerable level of risk in a high-use, public area.

6. 2 October, 2021, Wyoming Archery hunters shot bear, after or while getting mauled. From nptelegraph .com:

A hunter who was attacked by a grizzly this weekend west of Cody shot and killed the bear, wildlife officials said. Her two cubs were later euthanized by authorities.

The attack occurred Saturday morning as the man was elk hunting. He and his hunting partner had a “sudden encounter” with the bears, according to a statement from state and federal wildlife agencies. The female grizzly had not been handled by officials in the past and was unmarked.

The Canadians are generally not allowed to have handguns for their defense against bears. Fortunately the hunter had  a shotgun, which served him well. The Americans out west carried guns and defended themselves against the aggressive animals. The Asheville man acted gallantly, but would have benefited from having a handgun available. Any gun would probably have worked. .22 rimfires have worked against black bears, even grizzly bears. 

Bear attacks tend to ramp up in fall when bears have strong urges to eat as much as possible in preparation for hibernation.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

NY: Home Invastion Gunfight, 1 Resident, 1 Invader Wounded

According to the investigation, three intruders with at least one gun forced their way into the home. During a struggle, the resident was shot. As the struggle continued, a second resident of the home fired a gun at the one of the suspects, who was hit. The other two intruders then fled from the scene.

More Here

PA: Evans City Resident Shoots Home Invader

The alleged intruder, a man from Pittsburgh, forced his way into the basement of a home at 308 W. Main St., around 6:45 p.m., according to Chief Joe McCombs of the Evans City Seven Fields Regional Police Department.

McCombs said the Pittsburgh man then went upstairs and held the resident and a woman at gunpoint, which is when the resident grabbed his own gun and shot the alleged intruder.

More Here

TX: Armed Suspect Kicks in Door, Gunfight, Suspect runs to Getaway Vehicle, Dies

Police say the suspect in his 20s went to a home the 200 block of Pleasanton Circle around 12:55 p.m. Thursday and kicked in the back door. When the man inside confronted the suspect, he pulled out a gun from his waistband.

The homeowner then ran upstairs to his bedroom to get a gun and fired at the suspect who kicked down the door, striking him, according to SAPD.

The suspect fired at the homeowner but did not hit him with gunfire, police said.

More Here

FL: Wrongful Death Suit Dismissed; Homicide was Justifiable

Circuit Judge Blake Adams dismissed a wrongful death suit on Friday, filed by the family of David Norgard, 24, of Golden Gate Estates, who died after he sustained two gunshot wounds to the chest near 16th Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street Southwest around 9 p.m. March 1, 2019.

The shooter was cleared of criminal wrongdoing a few months after the incident by the sheriff’s and state attorney’s offices. Both entities stated Norgard’s death was a justifiable homicide based on Stand Your Ground law.

More Here

GA: Police Sergeant Kills Husband for Assault on Daughter

A 53-year-old police sergeant is accused of fatally shooting her 50-year-old husband for abusing their child, Georgia police said. 

Investigators say the police sergeant killed her husband at their house in Monticello around 7:50 p.m. Oct. 26 for physically assaulting their daughter, CBS46 and other outlets reported.

The investigation is ongoing.

More Here

OH: "Ghost Gun" Homemade Shotguns At Columbus "Buyback" Gun Turn-In

Image from Columbus gun turn-in video

A few years ago, "ghost gun" homemade shotguns were appearing at gun "buyback" turn-in events, as makers of the simple shotguns cashed in on the money to be had. Gun "buyback" is an Orwellian term. You cannot "buyback" a gun you never owned before.

In a recent turn-in event on October 23, from 10:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m. in Columbus, Ohio, it appears two of the shotguns were turned in for $50 each. The guns show a bit of craftsmanship. The hose clamps are nicely clipped instead of having excessive over-run, the stock is inletted for the barrel and clamping system, and the pipe-barrel muzzle is squared off and trimmed. The materials cost about $10

The event brought in a little less than 100 guns. Some of them were worth far more than the $50 offered.  From 10tv.com:

The Public Safety office told us they received 73 handguns, 11 shotguns, and 13 rifles.

 

 

Here is the Link to Youtube video of the event. It is said to be the first event of its type held in Columbus. From 10tv.com:

This was the first gun buyback held by Columbus police.

Public Safety Director Robert Clark said first the guns will be run through the system after being received.

If the guns are reported stolen, they’ll then be returned to the rightful owner. 

If the gun is linked to a crime, detectives will then take over and investigate.

The homemade "ghost guns" have no serial number. They are made all over the world where factory guns are difficult to get. There is some dispute about how much was being paid out at the event. From spectrumnews1.com:  

The drive-through-style event allowed citizens to pull up, hand over their firearms to police and get a $50 gift card in exchange.

 

 Close inspection of the breech of the ghost gun shotgun shows a copper wire of unknown purpose. It may be these ghost guns are electrically fired muzzleloaders instead of the more traditional slam fire guns. This correspondent made several hardware store electrically fired firearms 40 years ago as a proof of principle experiment. 

Dispatch reports debit cards worth $25 will be given out. It may be two will be given for each gun. From dispatch.com: 

 U.S. Bank debit gift cards worth $25 each will be given as gifts to the first 200 people who turn in firearms at the event, which will be held from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday at the Columbus Fire Training Academy, located at 3639 Parsons Ave. on the city's South Side.

In the middle of an ammunition shortage, someone decided to turn in 500 rounds of Remington .22 for free. Maybe it found a good home. The rounds have no serial numbers, like the "ghost guns". Many firearms professionals are willing to take difficult to "dispose of" ammunition, and dispose of it properly, preferably at a private range.

 

Homemade guns have been made in the United States since before it became the United States. Bans on making your own legal guns are a new and, very likely, unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.There are no federal restrictions on making your own guns, as long as the guns are legal to own. No serial numbers have ever been required for homemade guns, until very recently.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

WA: Intruders shot, 1 killed , 1 wounded in Everett (video at source)

Two masked men, armed with pepper spray, broke in. One resident opened fire, killing one suspect, driving off the other, who is believed to be wounded.

More Here

AL: Suspected Burglar in Selma, Shot and Killed

Jackson said the occupant of the apartment will not be charged, but any co-conspirator of the slain suspect’s could face charges.

“One of the consequences of breaking into somebody’s home or business is that you may be shot and killed,’’ the district attorney said. “That is apparently what happened here.”

“Citizens have a right to use deadly force if someone is breaking into the home,’’ Jackson said.

More Here

OH: Followup, Name of Intruder who was Killed in Montgomery County Released by Coroner

Ritchie Moorefield, 26, was identified as the man shot and killed in the incident, Montgomery County Coroner Dr. Kent Harshbarger said in a media release.

(snip)

“The scene investigation revealed the deceased male fired a gun at the resident. The resident returned fire, hitting the deceased multiple times,” Trotwood Sgt. Kim DeLong said in a statement.

Dispatch records indicated the homeowner reported shooting a suspect who broke into their apartment.

More Here