HI: More Fruit of Caetano and Bruen, Short Clubs are Protected by Second Amendment

On July 25, 2022, Todd Yuktake and Justin Solomon filed a federal lawsuit against the Attorney General of Hawaii, Holly T. Shikada, for infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, specifically, against the state of Hawaii's ban on "billies" or "batons" outside the home. Billies were likely chosen, in part, because no procedure exists in Hawaii to allow the carry of short clubs outside the home. Over the course of the case, the AG changed from Shikada to Lopez.  From the complaint:

6. The State of Hawai‘i generally bans the possession of “deadly or dangerous weapons” outside the possessor’s home without some prior authorization. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51. The ban specifically includes “billies.”

and

9. Plaintiffs are not “authorized by law” to carry a baton and no known procedure exists that would allow Plaintiffs or other law-abiding citizens to achieve such authorization.

The ban on carry of billies or batons outside the home is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court decisions in Caetano in 2016 and in Bruen, 2022.

From Caetano:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

Downplayed as inconsequential or of limited use in 2016, Caetano has shown to be of great significance. Bans on the possession of stun guns have been removed from all state bodies of law. Bans on the carry of weapons other than firearms are of significance. They serve as a precedent for bans on the carry of firearms. In Hawaii, in a settlement before the federal district court, the State of Hawaii has admitted bans on the carry of "billies" or batons, or, basically, any short clubs, are unconstitutional.  On May 23, the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i approved of a stipulated final judgement and permanent injunction. From the judgement and injunction:

4. Defendant ANNE E. LOPEZ, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Hawai‘i (as well as her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction) is hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing against Plaintiffs TODD YUKUTAKE and JUSTIN SOLOMON, and any and all other persons who are not otherwise legally prohibited from possession of a “billy”: 

a. the “billy” provision of HRS § 134-51(a) as currently written, which provides that “[a]ny person, not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon the person’s self or within any vehicle used or occupied by the person or who is found armed with any . . . billy . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be immediately arrested without warrant by any sheriff, police officer, or other officer or person” and that “[a]ny [billy] upon conviction of the one carrying or possessing it under this section, shall be summarily destroyed by the chief of police or sheriff.”

5. The Parties agree that for purposes of this Stipulated Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction only, the instruments considered to comprise the term “billy” pursuant to HRS § 134-51 are defined as: instruments which are typically short clubs that are intended to be carried by a law enforcement officer, and include but are not limited to cudgels, truncheons, police batons, collapsible batons, billy clubs, or nightsticks, and includes the instrument that is the subject of this lawsuit as described in footnote 4 and paragraphs 50 and 62 of the Complaint.

The Attorney General was ordered to pay $50,000.00 dollars for attorneys' fees and costs, pending approval by the State of Hawai'i. If approval is not forthcoming, the agreement shall be null and void, and the case would continue.  This is ordinary. It is a statement telling the state if they do not follow the terms of the agreement, worse is likely.  If the AG thought they could win in court, they would not have agreed to the settlement

The Attorney General is required to inform all the members under her of this judgement and to inform all county governments and chiefs of police within the State of Hawai'i. While people in Hawai'i have had their right to carry short sticks, concealed or openly, for self-defense, something people have done since before written language existed, restored, the normal rules of defense of self and others still apply.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

FL: Feuding Woman Shot Through Door, Possible Self Defense

Ajike Owens, 35, was fatally shot after going to the Ocala apartment of her neighbor, who earlier had yelled at Owens’ children as they played nearby and threw a pair of skates that hit one of them, Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods said at a news conference Monday.

Deputies responding to a trespassing call at the apartment Friday night found Owens suffering from gunshot wounds. The mother of four was taken to a nearby hospital, where she died. Ocala is about 70 miles (110 kilometers) northwest of Orlando.

More Here

Many Bear Attacks are Recorded as Harvested during Legal Hunting

Bear which Kim Woodman Killed in self defense, while hunting, in 1992.

Many successful defenses against attacks by bears on people are not recorded/reported as attacks, because the bear is killed and reported as a legal hunting harvest. People who want to minimize the danger of bear attacks point out few people are killed by bears.  Very few people are killed by bears because people are more effective killers than bears, if people are allowed to keep and carry weapons. People have a natural affinity to keep and carry arms.  The renowned bear researcher, Stephen Herrero, speculated as to why so few people are killed by black bears. Herrero as reported in the adn.com, May 11, 2011:

"Given the strength and opportunistic predation by black bears one can ask why bears do not prey on people more often," they wrote. "Part of the answer may be that bears that try to or do prey on people are usually killed and removed from a population's gene pool, decreasing the frequency of any genes the individual might have had that could contribute to predatory attacks on people."

When aggressive bears approach people who are hunting, they are often killed by they person who is hunting. This has been documented in a number of cases. For example, Kim Woodman, was forced to kill a grizzly bear with his 10mm Glock, in 2016. It was recorded as a defense of life and property in Alaska. While being intereviewed by this correspondent, Kim recounted having to kill a grizzly which was stalking him in 1992.  He had a bear permit,
but he wanted to get a moose for meat before he went bear hunting.  The bear made the choice for him.  He was stalking a moose when it happened.  From Kim:

I saw a moose out on the swamp, real early in the morning.

I heard something behind me, and it was padding up on me. I had a bear tag, but I wanted a moose first. I had just enough time to swing the rifle around. I yelled at it, and got a real aggressive response.  There were a lot of problem bears around, a bad berry year, a guy had gotten eaten by a bear.

The bear was so close that Kim could not use the scope on his .338 Winchester Magnum.  He sighted down the side of the barrel. Trophy hunters do not shoot bears in the head. It ruins the skull as a trophy, and makes the skull impossible to score for the record books. The bear was coming at him, but not full out.  It was only 15 feet away when he shot.  It went down as if the bullet had destroyed the brain, but the bullet had gone through the muscle alongside the skull, just nicking the bone. It knocked the bear out.  Kim thought it was dead.

All of a sudden I heard a growl, so I went back in there, obviously you can't leave a wounded bear around.   It was whirling in a circle, tearing out chunks of the tundra.

I stuck the barrel up against its neck, and the 250 grain .338 did not make it out the other side of its neck.

The bear was tagged and recorded as a legal hunting harvest, not as a defense of life and property. There appears to be a preference to record bears shot in self defense as legally harvested in Alaska, because it avoids the necessity of a Defense of Life and Property report.

Marti Miller, an Alaskan geologist, had to kill a black bear in self defense, while she was a project leader in the United States Geological Survey. She had a hunting license for convenience. She was asked to tag the bear as a legal hunting kill, instead of filing a Defense of Life and Property report. From AmmoLand:

When she reported the incident to the authorities, the officer suggested she put it on her hunting license (she routinely purchased a hunting license as a precaution). If she had done so, she would not have been required to fill out a defense of life and property report. But, she could not legally hunt that day, because she had flown in a helicopter, a quirk of Alaska hunting regulations.

Some Alaskan hunters are obtaining grizzly bear tags as a precaution, so if they have to shoot a bear in defense, they will not need to worry about legal entanglements. Trenton Hammon is an example. He did not wish to shoot the bear, but the bear would not be deterred. From meateaters.com:

By this point, Hammock had made up his mind: He would shoot the bear if she got within 20 feet of him and his kill. He had a valid brown bear tag in his pack, after all.

“This whole time she’s weaving through trees trying to sneak up to me, and I’m standing next to my deer trying to move around and keep something between us while also staying where I can still see her,” Hammock said. “I get this log in between me and her, and she’s coming directly for me. When she was about 20 feet away, I yelled as loud as I could again and threw a rock in her direction. My spot was that log. I was like, if she reaches right here I’m gonna have to shoot her. And so once she put both front feet on that log, I shot her right in the heart.”

Hammock notes there were times he encountered bears and had to fire warning shots which were sufficient to deter the bear. Because the warning shots were successful, they were not news. They were never reported or recorded. How many aggressive bears are shot and legally killed by hunters is unknown. Very few will be recorded as defensive situations, because no one was killed and the bear was recorded as being legally harvested. How many bears are deterred with warning shots is unknown, but the number is substantial. This parallels what is seen in defensive use of firearms against humans. When the mere display of a firearm is sufficient to stop an aggressor, the action is seldom recorded. This results in an under-reporting of the defensive use of firearms. A major reason few people are killed by bears is because people are better killers than bears are, if they are allowed to exercise their natural affinity to carry weapons, such as firearms.

The ability to make and use weapons elevates people above the animal kingdom. Some have characterized man as a tool making and tool using animal. It might be more correct to characterize man as a weapon making and weapon using animal. If people are artificially prevented from keeping and using weapons, more people will be killed by bears.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

AZ: Phoenix Homeowner Shoots, Kills Home Invader

A Phoenix homeowner reportedly opened fire on a home invader striking and killing him Sunday morning, according to law enforcement officials. Aires Jordan Holmes, age 31, was pronounced dead by responding Phoenix PD officers at the home near 17th Avenue and Buckeye Road with multiple gunshot wounds.

More Here

HI: Santucci Wins! Honolulu may not Arbitrarily Deny Gun Registration on Made-up Pretext

 

 On March 3, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the City and County of Honolulu. The plaintiff, Michael Santucci, was a naval officer (an LTJG, or O2) with a top secret clearance, working as a Cryptologic Warfare officer.  In Hawaii, all firearms, must be registered except for firearms made before 1899 or which are designed to use loose black powder.

During the registration process, in early July of 2021, Santucci truthfully answered that he had seen a medical provider for feelings of depression and homesickness. Santucci was not diagnosed with any significant "behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder".  Because Santucci truthfully answered the question on the registration form, he was told he had to deliver his firearms to the Honolulu Police. He turned them in. The police demanded Santucci receive medical clearance before they would issue a permit to acquire his firearms. Santucci fired suit against the City and County of Hawaii on grounds his Second Amendment rights were being violated, as the police were arbitrarily refusing to register his firearms when nothing in the Hawaiian law allowed them to do so. The suit was filed in the United States  District Court for the District of Hawaii.

The case continued for most of the next 15 months. A preliminary injunction was issued on November 23, 2023.  As a result of the preliminary injunction, LTJG Santucci had his firearms returned to him, as revealed by the Honolulu Civil Beat:

When the judge issued the preliminary injunction in November, Santucci
got his guns back. Then HPD added more specific fields to its
questionnaire. Now the injunction is permanent, banning the old forms
for good.

A settlement was reached on May 24, 2023, eleven months after the Bruen case was decided by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2022. The results of the settlement are, in short:  The settlement includes $130,500 dollars which includes damages, lawyers fees, and costs. From the court approved stipulation:

3) In full and final settlement and satisfaction of all claims by Plaintiff for damages, fees, including attorneys’ fees, and costs in The Lawsuit-

A) County shall pay a payment of $102,500, one-hundred-two-thousand- five-hundred dollars, subject to Honolulu City Council approval; 

B) Hawaii shall pay a payment of $28,000, twenty-eight-thousand dollars, subject to approval by the Hawaii State Legislature and Governor; 

C) Counsel for the County and Hawaii shall, in good faith, seek approvals from the City Council and the State Legislature.

If the City of Honolulu and the State of Hawaii do not approve of the settlement, and refuse to obligate the money by August 31 for the City, and September 15 for the State of Hawaii, the settlement is void and will end up back in court.

The City of Honolulu Police department changed the forms it uses for the registration of firearms.  The refusal to register LTJG Santucci's firearms, on a non-existant reading of the law resulted in changes in the process.

These cases are useful steps in forcing states and local governments to treat the Second Amendment with the same respect other fundamental, Constitutional rights are treated. Because of the lawsuit, the procedures of the Honolulu Police Department were changed. The same type of "catch 22", where a person who truthfully answers questions which do not debar him from exercise of Second Amendment rights, will be less likely to happen again.

Opinion: The entire system of registration of firearms is almost certainly unconstitutional. No system of firearms registration existed in American law in the late colonial or early Republic periods. Registration of firearms starts very, very late, in Florida in 1893, and even that was found to be unconstitutional. This correspondent expects registration regimes to be challenged in the courts, but the necessary foundation of the right to possess and carry arms has been more urgent.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

FL: Gunfight in Charlotte County, 1 Suspect and Dog Killed, another Suspect and Dog Wounded

Charlotte County deputies said four people botched the home invasion.

Then, a neighbor, for an unknown reason, got involved in the chaotic scene.

He was charged with aggravated battery for what he did after the fact, when he chased the group.

When it was all over, one of the suspects, a 33-year-old man, was killed and two dogs were shot. One later died.

 

More Here

AK: Alaska Legislature Limits Government Emergency Power and Protects Right to Arms

 

 

Flag map of Alaska produced by DrRandomFactor in 2012

The Alaskan Legislature passed HB 61 on May 17, 2023. HB 61 insures the right to keep and bear arms will not be abrogated by executive or local government fiat during a declared emergency. The Alaskan House voted to pass the bill 26 to 12, on May 5.  The Senate passed the bill 17 to 3 on May 16.  The House concured with the Senate version on May 17. HB 61 is awaiting signature by Governor (R) Mike Dunleavy. This correspondent has not found any statement by Governor Dunleavy for or against HB61. While the lopsided votes in the House and Senate would make signing the bill appear automatic, the bill limits executive power more than legislative power. Here is a part of HB61, as sent to Governor Dunleavy showing Legislative Intent:

LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that this Act does not affect the ability of the state or a municipality to exercise its duties under AS 29.35.145. 

* Sec. 2. AS 44.99 is amended by adding new sections to article 5 to read:

Sec. 44.99.510. Infringements on the right to keep and bear arms; disaster. 

(a) During a disaster emergency declared under AS 26.23.020, the governor, a state

agency, or a municipality may not issue or adopt an order, proclamation, regulation,

ordinance, or policy

(1) forbidding the possession, use, or transfer of a firearm, a firearm  part, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use; 

(2) ordering the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, a firearm part, a  firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use;

One of the reasons such laws have been promoted was the egregious disarmament of innocent people in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

The use of "emergencies" to do what cannot be done in ordinary circumstances has a very long pedigree in politics. Rahm Emanuel said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

During the Cold War, this correspondent recalls reading U.S. Civil Defense documents. One of the policies was that any people entering public fallout shelters would be disarmed. Many states have "emergency powers" laws which allow the executive to ignore the Bill of Rights during emergencies. Governors have used their emergency power to shut down gun stores and ammunition sales during "emergencies".  Governor Northam of Virginia declared an emergency and banned the carry of weapons during Lobby Day in 2020. Overseas, there are several examples of people being forbidden to be armed in declared emergencies, such as the Philippines, or Venezuela, or as this correspondent experienced in Panama under the Noriega regime in the 1980s. Such declared emergencies often stretch into years, and become permanent policy, with or without legislation. In these declared emergencies, state agents are not disarmed. 

"Emergencies" are exactly the time when citizens should be armed. It is when the population is most vulnerable, when criminals are emboldened, and when the government's ability to maintain order is least effective.

The concept behind the structure of the United States is the people are the source of governmental power.

This is a basic, but not sole, reason for the Second Amendment. Times of emergency are exactly when the armed population of the United States, severally or only one state or location, need to exercise their power and right to maintain public order. There is a long tradition in the United States of communities spontaneously forming local militias to maintain order.

Several states have repealed or reformed laws which give the government power to prevent people from being legally armed, or able to purchase firearms or ammunition during an emergency.  Texas passed HB1500 in 2021, forbidding state or local governments from prohibiting the sale or carry of firearms during a declared emergency. Some California measures closing gun shops and ranges during Covid were found to be unconstitutional.

To those who preach faith in the power of unlimited government, preventing government from infringing on fundamental rights is a bad idea. They claim government is never going to do anything bad to us, so don't restrict governmental power. While they worship government power, they claim Second Amendment supporters worship guns.

Opinion

Two of the many purposes of such bills are to show the drastic nature and fundamental flaws of  laws which allow governments to disarm innocent Americans.  Those who wish the people disarmed claim nothing bad will happen.  They claim disarming the people is for the peoples' own good. They claim disarmament will never happen, while ignoring actual bans and confiscations which are and have happened.

This correspondent has no doubt those who wish to destroy the Republic, the rule of law, and the Constitution will continue to work hard to accomplish those things. They have gained control of the administrative state, the executive branch, and half the Congress. Enacting laws at the state level, to preserve the power and spirit of resistance, is good policy.

One of the primary purposes of an armed population is the confidence in the power of the people an armed society creates.

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TX: Customer Shoots 3 Outside Club, Security Guard Shoots Attacker, Stops Attack

The sheriff’s office said a customer was asked to leave after there was a fight in the club.

The customer had a gun and fired at people in the parking lot, injuring three people.

Armed security returned fire, hitting the shooter. He later died at a hospital.

The three people who were injured by gunfire were taken to hospitals and are expected to survive.

 

More Here

GA: Police Praise Homeowner for Holding Suspects at Gunpoint

TOWNS COUNTY, Ga. — A homeowner was commended for her quick actions after holding a burglary suspect up at gunpoint while waiting for authorities to arrive.

Towns County Sheriff officials said on May 20, deputies received a call from a home on Gumlog Road regarding someone rummaging through vehicles.

When deputies arrived, they identified the two suspects as 18-year-old Hunter Chase Adams and 21-year-old Travis Richard Foskey, both of Young Harris, as the two who had broken into several cars in the area however both had fled the scene before being arrested by police.

More Here

FL: Mere Loading and Open Carry of Firearm in Own Yard is not use of Deadly Force

 

 On May 24, 2023, a three judge panel of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, which includes Broward County, found the circuit court judge, Michael I. Rothschild, to have egregiously misread Florida law. The three judge panel, consisting of judges Artua, Ciklin and Conner, unanimously found loading and openly carrying a firearm in a person's own yard, is not use of deadly force and is protected conduct under both Florida law and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Richard Burns engaged in a verbal confrontation with a five man tree-cutting crew in his front yard. A crew member made sexually suggestive gestures toward his fiancee. Another crew member threatened his dogs with a chainsaw. Burns demanded the crew leave. When they refused, he retrieved a handgun from the home. He was in his front yard when he chambered a round. He held the handgun at his side while again demanding the tree-cutting crew leave his front yard. The State of Florida charged Burns with aggravated assault. Burns asked the circuit court to apply immunity from prosecution, citing Florida Stand Your Ground Law. The circuit court refused. Burns then appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District.  The appeals court found for Richard Burns. Selected quotes from the opinion are shown below.

That a person's home is his or her "castle" is one of the most basic tenets of our jurisprudence. However, for Richard Burns …, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for openly carrying and loading his firearm in the yard of his own home, the "castle" our law entitled him to protect was relegated to a defenseless dungeon. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying his motion for immunity from prosecution pursuant to Florida's Stand Your Ground law. We therefore grant his petition for writ of prohibition because he is legally entitled to immunity from prosecution on the aggravated assault charge.

Richard Burns did not point his handgun at anyone.

[T]he trial court denied Burns' motion on grounds that his "menacing" act of chambering a round in the firearm, coupled with the display of the weapon without pointing it at anyone, constituted an unjustified threatened use of deadly force. The trial court determined that, because Burns was not in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time of the incident, his actions were not justified under the circumstances. We disagree

The mere display of a firearm is not use of deadly force.

The display of a firearm constitutes non-deadly force as a matter of law. See, e.g., Cunningham v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that "the mere display of a gun is not deadly force as a matter of law"); see also Howard v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 1997) ("[E]ven the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not 'deadly force.'").

The trial court completely misread the appeal court precedent in the Little case.

Moreover, the trial court's reliance on our decision in Little, in support of its conclusion that Burns' actions amounted to a threatened use of deadly force, was entirely misplaced.

The Second Amendment bars unjustified federal or state intrusion on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "an individual right to keep and bear arms." Central to this right, as the Supreme Court explained in Heller, is "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." The federal constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment stands as a barrier between the individual and any unjustified federal or state intrusion upon that right.

Florida law against open carry does not apply to a person's home or place of business.

Florida grants to all persons who have not been legally disqualified from owning, possessing, and using firearms not only an individual state constitutional right "to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves," but also the statutory right "to own, possess, and lawfully use" weapons, including firearms, at a person's "home or place of business" without the restrictions against the open carrying of weapons or
firearms imposed...

Even outside a person's home property or place of business, open carry is partially protected.

In other words, Florida provides a statutory right to openly carry a weapon or firearm while on one's home property or place of business. Even when one is not at his or her home property or place of business, it is not unlawful in Florida to "briefly and openly display" a lawfully carried firearm "to the ordinary sight of another person," so long as the firearm is not being "intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner" when the display of the firearm is "not in necessary self-defense." These statutes recognize that a firearm is not just a collector's item that is stored out-of-sight indefinitely. For a firearm to be useful for self-defense, it must be readily available and loaded, neither of which can be effectively and safely done if the firearm cannot be taken out of concealment or storage and openly displayed while being loaded and held.

Richard Burns had the right to display his firearm, in anticipation of possible use, even if he were not on his home property.

As section 790.25(3)(n) permits, Burns had the right to openly carry the firearm he displayed and loaded because he was on his home property. Even if Burns had not been on his home property, it would not have been unlawful, as authorized by section 790.053(1), for him to "briefly and openly display" his firearm in anticipation of possibly needing to use it for his and his fiancée's protection during his confrontation with the tree-cutting crew.

Once Richard Burns told the tree-cutting crew to leave, and they refused, they became trespassers. The trespass and the threat to his dogs both justified his actions.

In addition, after Burns asked the tree-cutting crew to leave his property, and they refused to immediately do so, they became trespassers, justifying his legal right to use non-deadly force, including his constitutional and statutory right to openly carry or display his loaded firearm, to assist him in not only terminating the trespass, but also in preventing the reasonably perceived tortious and criminal interference with his dogs, which are his personal property.

Conclusion: Trial court ordered to dismiss the charges against Burns.

Openly carrying or displaying a firearm, and loading it by advancing a bullet in its chamber for it to be ready for use if needed, does not constitute the unjustified or threatened use of deadly force as a matter of law. Moreover, Burns had a lawful right to openly carry his firearm on his home property. Thus, Burns is entitled to immunity from prosecution for his non-deadly use of his firearm during the incident with the tree-cutting crew. See § 776.032(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) (granting "immun[ity] from criminal prosecution" for any use or threatened use of force "permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031" (emphasis added)). We therefore grant Burns' petition for writ of prohibition and direct the trial court to grant his motion to dismiss, thereby discharging him from further criminal prosecution on the aggravated assault charge.

The case may  be appealed by the State of Florida. This opinion is straightforward. In some jurisdictions, the mere display of a firearm has been, at times, viewed as an aggravated assault. This opinion is a step promoting the commonsense concept of the practical need for defensive display of firearms in situations where deadly force is not immediately required.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

TN: Shop Owner Shoots Armed Carjacking Suspect

Detectives say Aaron Brown, who can be seen in his mugshot with an arm injury, was shot by a shop owner just after 3 on Saturday afternoon. Brown allegedly went into a shoe-shine business on East McLemore armed with a semi-automatic weapon.

The owner told police he fired first to protect himself and those inside the store.

Witness Geno Robinson said the man was armed with a weapon like a “Draco.”

Detectives say Brown pulled his weapon during an attempted carjacking, telling the driver who was pulling into the lot, to “Leave it running, I’m taking it.” Brown let the driver go.

 

More Here

TX: Gunfight, Armed Victim Wounded, Suspect Possibly Wounded

SAPD said a 24-year-old man was woken up to the sound of his vehicle being broken into. When the man went outside the check, the suspects fired shots toward the man, striking him in the lower abdomen. He was taken to the hospital in serious condition.

The victim told police he did fire back and possibly struck one of them.

More Here

Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights

Outdated permit to purchase handgun in Grand Island Nebraska

The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to obtain arms. Arms can be obtained in several ways. Those include: making your own arms; buying your arms from someone else; having your arms given to you; finding arms which have been lost or discarded; and stealing arms which belong to someone else.

The most common method of obtaining arms is to buy them. The right to buy arms is clearly included in the right to keep and bear arms as an ancillary right necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear them. Ancillary rights necessary to preserve the right to keep and bear arms have been recognized by the Supreme Court and inferior courts as necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

It follows, therefore, requiring a permit to purchase arms is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. 

Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Occasional statutes or local laws or laws of short duration are not sufficient to establish a law as common and accepted. Laws which affected only a small percentage of the population are unlikely to meet the historical test.  Governments in the late colonial  and early republic era had the same concerns with disarming dangerous individuals as do governments today. They could have enacted laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms. The lack of such laws is evidence they were not widely viewed as acceptable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment.

There was no lack of laws against stealing. Prohibition of stealing is in the DNA of Western jurisprudence and culture, deriving from the biblical commandment not to steal. Laws against the theft of arms are not infringements on Second Amendment rights.

Some judges have claimed there is historical support which allows the requirement of a permit to purchase arms or the carry arms. Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb, of the federal District Court, D. of New Jersey, in her opinion issued on May 16, 2023, implies the requirement to obtain a permit to obtain and carry arms is acceptable in American history.

Judge Bumb treats a permit to purchase and a permit to carry as essentially the same. The "why" of the law is to disarm dangerous people; to a lesser extent it is to prevent dangerous people from having arms.

There is much which is positive in Judge Bumb's opinion. Finding there is a historical acceptance of requiring a permit to carry, or even purchase, a firearm is an unfortunate misreading by Judge Bumb. From page 10 of the Opinion:

That said, this Court finds that most of the new legislation’s firearm permitting requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment. This Nation has historically disarmed dangerous individuals or those who could endanger the public’s safety if allowed to have a firearm. The new legislation adheres to that historical tradition because it aims to keep firearms out of the hands of New Jerseyans who could threaten the public’s safety.

Judge Bumb recognizes the inherent infringement of permit laws, but claims permits are an acceptable infringement.  From the opinion:

Page 35:

Chapter 131’s permit process implicates the right to armed self-defense in public because an individual must first obtain a Carry Permit to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, otherwise, the individual exposes him- or herself to criminal liability. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(b).

Page 37:  

Bruen left open the possibility of constitutional challenges to “shall issue” statutory laws because “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends.”

Page 38:  

In any event, based on the State’s historical materials and the Court’s own research, this Court finds this Nation has a historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals and those who endanger the public safety.

Judge Bumb relies on colonial laws from 1692 and later which allowed public officials to disarm people who were found to be dangerous, such as a New Hampshire colonial law allowing a person to be disarmed if they refused to take an oath of allegiance, or a Massachusetts law which allowed officials to disarm people who rode about to "terrify the public".  There were laws to prevent slaves from carrying or keeping arms without permission of the owner. A 1664 law of colonial New York which required a slave to obtain permission from his master to carry arms outside his master's property.  Similar laws existed in 1704 in Virginia, and for "free negros, mulattos or [I]ndians" to have guns after obtaining a license. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia had laws prohibiting slaves from carrying guns in public without permission from their owners.   In 1832 Delaware had a law allowing "free negros and mullatos" to carry firearms with a license.

Such laws were relatively rare. They applied to groups of people who were not considered part of the body politic. They required the permit only for particular groups of people, not the whole body of the people.

After the Civil war, a few jurisdictions required a permit to carry a pistol. They include local ordinances in Jersey City, in 1871 and the  City of New York, in 1881.  From these sparse underpinnings, Judge Bumb creates this finding. From page 57:

This Court finds that Chapter 131’s reputable persons endorsement and in-person interview requirements are “narrow, objective, and definite standards guiding licensing officials” to “ensure only those bearing arms in [New Jersey] are, in fact, law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Bruen, 142 S.

Such permits are a prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms.

There is an enormous difference in the "how" of the law. The early laws required the State to determine a person was dangerous before they were disarmed.  In the early situation, most people are presumed to be allowed to possess and carry arms. Only small numbers of people are considered to be dangerous and disaffected.  In the later situation, which New Jersey is promoting, everyone is presumed to be dangerous and are not allowed to be armed until the state says they may.  This is a retreat to monarchical law. Significantly,  Colonial or early Republic States could have required everyone to apply for a permit before purchasing arms. No state passed such a general requirement. It is telling they did not do so.

The New Jersey law requires a person to prove they are not dangerous before they are allowed to be armed. The change in the burden of proof is huge. The New Jersey law equates the entire body of the people as dangerous and disaffected, until shown to be otherwise. Disarming  people who are already armed is significantly different from preventing people, who are not armed, from becoming armed.  Only people who were not considered part of the body politic (slaves and free Negros or mullatos, or Indians) in slave states, were presumed to need permission to be armed. The vast majority of the polity were not required to ask for or obtain permits. Only those who were not considered to be reliable were required to obtain permits.

The requirement to obtain a permit to own or carry arms puts ordinary, law abiding people in the same category as slaves or those who are presumed to have no allegiance to Constitutional government.

Significantly later, some jurisdictions required people to obtain a permit to purchase a pistol, such as Michigan in 1911 and North Carolina in 1919. Those statutes are too late to be relevant in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In the philosophy of the founding, the majority of the people were to be trusted with political power, such as the vote and the right to keep and bear arms.  Only suspect minorities were required to apply for permits to own or carry arms. In the Progressive era, majorities of voters were to have their opinions and choices shaped by experts. They were not to be consulted in most decisions.

Judge Bumb explains the Supreme Court has not delivered an opinion on whether "shall issue" carry laws are constitutional under the Second Amendment.  She allows the issue is one which is yet to be adjudicated. Judge Bumb compares a permit to purchase or carry a firearm with a permit to have an event protected by the First Amendment. It is  a precarious comparison. One is for a group of people where significant costs may accrue to the the local government. Another is for an individual where the local government has no need to even know they are armed. The administrative costs are all created by the law requiring a permit, not costs created by the permit holder.

Over the last 100 years, infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights have created bureaucracies and a mythology of the usefulness or necessity of a government power to dole out those rights to a favored few. That era is over for most of the United States.  Recently, the requirement of permits to purchase handguns were repealed in Nebraska and North Carolina.

If the Republic can be maintained for a few more years, the words "shall not be infringed" have a good chance of being honored as they were meant when written.

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

IL: Chicago. Two People Charged in Case where Armed Victim Shot Carjack Suspect

CHICAGO (WLS) -- Two people have been charged after an attempted carjacking near Ford City Mall in which the victim shot and wounded one of the suspects, Chicago police said.

The incident occurred Sunday in the 7600-block of South Cicero Avenue.

Police said the 24-year-old victim was approach by the two suspects, one of whom produced a handgun and fired. The victim returned fire and shot one of the suspects in the thigh, police said.

Police said the victim is a valid FOID/CCL holder.

More Here

MA: Road Rage Shooting Under Investigation

Stoughton police said the man stated that Kieu pointed a gun at him while in the 7-Eleven, which prompted him to run to his friend's car, a black Nissan Altima, and told the other three occupants of the vehicle what had happened.

The driver of the Nissan then left the parking lot and Kieu, who was driving a white Cadillac, followed that car, according to police. The driver of the Nissan told police that out of fear he and his friends were being chased by Kieu, he drove at a high rate of speed.

Police said the Nissan eventually made it to the intersection of Pearl and Central streets in Stoughton, which is where witnesses said Kieu's vehicle crossed the double-yellow line into the opposite lane of traffic and pulled up to the Altima. Witnesses told police that Kieu pointed a revolver at the four occupants of the Nissan.

The driver of the Nissan, whom police said has a valid license to carry and a properly-registered firearm, yelled for his friends to get down. Police said that the man driving the Nissan fired seven rounds into the Cadillac because he was "fearing for his life," and that one of the bullets struck Kieu.

More Here

Black Man Open Carry Protests of Maryland anti Second Amendment Bill; Vilified by Local School and Governor

 

 

 Link to Youtube video from WBALTV 

 

During spring of 2023, J'den McAdory, in Maryland, has been openly carrying a long gun in protest over Governor (D) Moore's push for infringements on Second Amendment rights. For weeks, maybe months, people ignored J'den's protests. WBALTV interviewed McAdory, the governor responded, and called McAdory's brave protests an "act of cowardice". Whatever else is true, for a young man to stand against the entire state apparattis in Maryland and assert his First and Second Amendment rights, is not the act of a coward. From wbaltv video :

The man, J'den McAdory, told the I-Team on Thursday he's protesting the governor's new gun control law. He said he began walking the sidewalks in Severn a few months ago, first with his shotgun strapped to his back, and now, with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in his hands.

"I grew up in this community," McAdory said. "I'm 20 years old. I've lived here pretty much my whole life. I really want people to understand: I mean no harm to no one."

McAdory told the I-Team he has gone out twice a week to remind people of their Second Amendment rights and to protest the governor's new gun control measures, which take effect on Oct. 1.

WBALTV interviews parents who say they are scared and their children are scared. When they  attempt to justify there call for McAdory to stop protesting, in the face of the obvious legality of McAdory's actions, their only response is: You should not do something which makes people uncomfortable.

After the bill passed, numerous lawsuits were filed against it in federal court. The bill obviously violates the Second Amendment.

Analysis:

The question is: If McAdory had been wearing  a uniform, would the parents have been uncomfortable?

When the Black Panthers engaged in far more provocative actions in the 1960's, Leftist have claimed it was racism which provoked an anti-open carry bill which was eventually signed by Governor Reagan.  When a Democrat governor in a deep Left state signs an anti-Second Amendment bill, protested by a young, armed, black man, it is not racism, but "courage".

Some Second Amendment activists will say Mr. McAdory should not engage in his open carry protest. It might make people mad. Those people who claim McAdory offends them are of the same political party which pushes "Gay Pride" parades and "Flag Burning".  The offense is all in their own head. No one can control what another person is offended by. No one has the right "not to be offended" in the United States of America. Being offended and free speech are inseparable. Anyone, in any society, can speak when the speech does not offend anyone. Only speech which offends someone requires protection via the First Amendment.  J'den McAdory's open carry protest is a classic example of how open carry is strong, symbolic, protected, political speech.

Opinion:

Maryland will not become more anti-Second Amendment because of J'den. Some people will be educated. More people are likely to join in future protests, because J'den McAdory showed he was fully within his rights to do so. Some black Americans will see they have the same Second Amendment rights as the rest of the population, rights which must be protected and fought for.  This correspondent's advise to Mr. McAdory would be to add a sling to the AR and a sign explaining the protest. Both would do wonders to remove doubt and make the protest more effective.

J'den McAdory should be saluted for his educational actions. They are much like the celebrated refusal to ride in the back of a bus, only more spontaneous, and not backed by the Communist Party.  J'den obviously believes in his First and Second Amendment rights. Surprisingly, he has not been arrested in deep leftist Maryland.  Rights which are not exercised, are lost. J'den paves the way for other Second Amendment supporters to follow.

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

CO: Daughter of Homeowner Shoots Home Invasion Suspect

The homeowner, Bob Grafft, said his daughter let their dog out late Thursday night, while he was sleeping. According to CSPD, three masked suspects entered a home through the open backdoor while the daughter was with the dog.

Grafft said two suspects went downstairs to the basement while the other, with a sawed-off shotgun, went to the bedroom. When his daughter, Lisa, realized people were in the home, she grabbed a gun.

Grafft said he was awakened by his daughter telling the suspect with the shotgun to get out or she will shoot him. When the suspect ran, Lisa shot him in the shoulder, according to Grafft.

More Here

NC: Gastonia Armed Man attempts Break in, Is Shot, Killed

A 911 call came in to Gaston County Communications around 10:45 p.m. Thursday. The caller said a man was trying to break into the home and that another person inside the home fired shots. 

Responding officers found Jones outside the home near the front door suffering from at least one gunshot wound. Jones was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. 

A Gastonia Police spokesman said that the preliminary investigation indicates Jones arrived at the home armed with a handgun, confronted a man at the front door and was then shot by him.

More Here

MI: Homeowner Drives off Intruder with Gunfire

ANN ARBOR, Mich. (WXYZ) — A 77-year-old Ann Arbor man is counting his blessings after he scared off a home intruder.

(skip)

On Wednesday however, he rose to the occasion when he heard what sounded like someone trying to open his screen door.

"Came out to investigate the noise on the patio door. A guy had come through the kitchen window, over the sink and was turned toward me about 15 feet," Craig said.

Craig said he yelled at the guy and then pulled out his gun.

"I got off one shot at him. I hope I scared him, but I missed him," Craig said.

Craig may have missed him, but he has a sneaking suspicion the suspect might be a little sore.

"This window frame is broken where he pried under here and forced it up — that's where he came in,” Craig said.

He said the suspect escaped the same way he came in.

"He went out headfirst," Craig said with a chuckle.

 

More Here

NICS: April 2023 Third highest Gun Sales, and Background Checks for the Month

 

 

The National Instant background Check System (NICS), run by the FBI, shows April of 2023 was the third highest number of gun sales for April on record, a slight increase from April of 2022. The estimate for April 2023 is 1.34 million gun sales. The estimate for April 2022 was 1.32 million gun sales. The number of background checks done in April of 2023 is also in third place, at about 2.86 million background checks done on the NICS system in April of 2023, compared to about 2.73 million done in April of 2022. Gun sales have consistently been over a million a month since August of 2019. 

In the last 45 months, ending on April 30, 2023, there have been about 67.5 million firearms sold through the National Instant background Check System (NICS). Gun sales have been consistently over a million firearms a month for the entire period. Approximately one eighth of gun sales recorded by NICS appears to be a re-sale of a firearm already in the private stock of firearms in the United States of America. After adjusting for this, the number of private firearms in the USA is very close to 495 million at the end of April, 2023. 

This correspondent predicts the private stock of firearms in the USA will be over 500 million before the end of 2023. After 2016, the USA appears to have reset gun sales to a new normal. According to estimates from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the State of California, new gun owners more than make up for loss of members of the gun culture due to death. From William English's 2021 survey of gun ownership in the USA, there are approximately 81.4 million adults who are willing to admit to gun ownership in an online survey. When the number of gun owners who will not participate in online surveys or who will not admit to gun ownership is included, the number of adult gun owners is likely over 100 million. Almost all legal gun owners are legal voters (there are a few permanent resident aliens who can legally own guns but who may not legally vote). 

Analysis

New gun ownership is driven primarily as a means of defense of self and community. As international and domestic tensions have risen and continue to be manifested in both the legacy media, the tech oligarch media and alternative media which delivers more conservative news, the number of people who see utility in the ownership of firearms grows. 

Gun ownership for defensive purposes is not a casual decision.  As the number of gun owners grows, so grows the political awareness of Second Amendment rights. More proponents of Second Amendment rights means more legislation in state capitols lending teeth to the exercise of those rights. 27 states now have a form of permitless carry, where no permit is required to legally bear arms in most public places. Gun ownership is a positive feedback loop.

People who own guns tend to find that guns are much like other tools. One hammer may be useful in many places, but specialized hammers do better for specialized tasks. People who purchase one gun often decide they need more than one gun. A tack hammer is better at driving tacks. A sledge hammer is better at driving posts. A rock hammer is better at breaking rocks. A gun optimized for defense of the home may not be optimum for all day carry. A gun best for militia use may not be best for control of garden pests. The USA may have reached a typing point where politically active gun owners are strong enough to restore rights protected by the Second Amendment, which have been significantly infringed for decades.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

PA: Woman Shoots Man who Used Crowbar to break Her Vehicle Window

 

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- A 22-year-old man was shot by a woman after he broke the window of her vehicle in University City with a crowbar, Philadelphia police said Wednesday.

The shooting happened at the intersection of 30th and Chestnut Streets. Police called it a "road rage" incident. 

Police said the 27-year-old woman was in her vehicle in University City when the 22-year-old man approached her car with a crowbar. After he broke the woman's passenger-side rear window, the 27-year-old woman shot the man in the groin, authorities said.

More Here

MN: 19-Year-Old Released Pending Investigation of Shooting of Antuan D. Jones

A man arrested in a St. Paul homicide Saturday was released later the same day, pending further investigation, officials said Monday.

Antuan D. Jones, 41, was killed in an alley in the Payne-Phalen area. Officers found him when they responded to a 911 call reporting gunshots fired near Payne and Arlington avenues just after midnight Saturday.

Police also received a 911 call from the family of a 19-year-old who reported he was involved in the shooting, said Sgt. Mike Ernster, a police spokesman. He gave a statement to investigators and turned over the gun he used, according to Ernster.

Officers found a second gun at the scene of the shooting in an alley in the 600 block of East Arlington Avenue, police said. Jones, of St. Paul, had been shot and was pronounced dead by paramedics.

 

More Here

Federal Judge: Ban of Purchase of Handguns by 18-20-Year-Old Citizens is Unconstitutional

On May 10th, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, Judge Robert S. Payne published an opinion the federal statutes and regulations which ban 18-20-Year-old citizens from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers is facially unconstitutional.The decision was rendered in the case Fraser v ATF. The case is a lawsuit brought by four young citizens between the ages of 18 and 20.  The case was originally filed on June 22, 2022, just as the famous Supreme Court opinion in Bruen was published.  Motions to dismiss the case and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs were filed on November 30 and December 15, respectively.

Judge Payne denied the ATF motion to dismiss the case and granted summary judgement to the plaintiffs.

On May 10th, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, Judge Robert S. Payne published an opinion the federal statutes and regulations which ban 18-20-Year-old citizens from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers is facially unconstitutional.The decision was rendered in the case Fraser v ATF. The case is a lawsuit brought by four young citizens between the ages of 18 and 20.  The case was originally filed on June 22, 2022, just as the famous Supreme Court opinion in Bruen was published.  Motions to dismiss the case and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs were filed on November 30 and December 15, respectively.

Judge Payne denied the ATF motion to dismiss the case and granted summary judgement to the plaintiffs.

Judge Payne found several fact in his route to the opinion, which was heavily based on the direction given by Justice Thomas in the Bruen decision.

First, the ban on purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers directly infringes on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.  It is a "blanket age based restriction". The government did not contest this fact.

Judge Payne found the plaintiffs have standing, in part, because the Second Amendment, unlike other Amendments in the Bill of Rights contains the phrase "shall not be infringed". The Second Amendment clearly protects conduct which is necessary to exercise fundamental Second Amendment rights. Such conduct includes the right to obtain arms, including purchasing them. He held, while the Heller decision allowed for regulation of the commercial sale of arms, it did not say the purchase of arms fell outside the protections of the Second Amendment. Because the statutes in question denied the plaintiffs the right to purchase the arms, they were in fact harmed by the statutes.

Judge Payne found 18 to 20 year old citizens were clearly part of the "people" considered in the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms. This was decided partly on the universal inclusion of 18-20 year old men in the militia system, as well as the historical reality there were no restrictions on the purchase of arms by 18-20 year olds during the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.  A few restrictions on purchase happened in a couple of states later, but they were not general, and were further removed from ratification. Those restrictions were placed by state governments. They do not apply to this case because the restriction are federal restrictions. 18-20 year olds are part of the political community, in part, because they have the right to vote. While the right to vote is not absolutely tied to the right to arms, it is a strong indicator those who possess it are part of "the people" considered in the Bill of Rights.

Judge Payne notes the denial of a Constitutional right is an immediate harm in itself. The 71 pages of the opinion are densely worded and carefully argued. This correspondent highly recommends they be read by anyone interested in how the restoration of Second Amendment rights are proceeding.

18-20 year old citizens never lost the right to own handguns. Permutations of federal law were used to infringe on their right to obtain handguns, putting them in the position of second class citizens. Judge Payne followed Justice Thomas instructions on treating the Second Amendment with the same respect given to other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

GA: Gunfight, Clerk Wounded, Attacker Killed

ATLANTA — A person is dead after an early morning shootout with a grocery store clerk, police say.

Officers were called around 2:45 a.m. after the exchange of gunfire Saturday morning. Police said the store clerk of Star Groceries, located at 1955 Campbellton Road, was shot. The clerk fired back, killing the person.

More Here

LA: Man Shot as he Attempted to open Car Door in Parking Garage

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- A man was shot and killed in a busy Midtown parking garage on Saturday afternoon in what police believe may have been an act of self-defense.

Officers were called to the 3200 block of Louisiana Street near Elgin around 3 p.m. When they arrived, a man, said to be in his 30s, was found dead, according to HPD Det. Sarin Chettry.

Chettry said surveillance footage shows the man in his thirties attempting to open the suspected shooter's driver side door while he was sitting in the seat, causing him to open fire.

More Here

Cases of Busch Light being Unloaded from a Bud Light Truck in Cross Plains WI May 17, 2023

These cases of Busch Light were being unloaded from a Bud Light truck in Cross Plains Wisconsin, on May 17, 2023. Make of it what you will.

It is an interesting photograph for the culture wars. 

Dean Weingarten

65% of USA Enjoys Right to Carry without a Government Permission Slip

In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, no permit was required for a member of the People of the United States to carry arms, included loaded handguns, in nearly all public spaces. By 1986, only Vermont still had the right to carry loaded, concealed, handguns without a permit. A significant number of states continued to maintain a right to carry loaded handguns openly, but the right was severely constrained in practice. In 1986 there were eight states which had "shall issue" laws for concealed carry permits. Those states were Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington State. The total land area of the United States of America is 3,805,927 square miles. The land area of Vermont is 9,616 square miles, or .25% of the land area of the USA.

In 1987, Florida passed a landmark shall issue concealed carry bill.  In a political tradeoff, spearheaded by disgraced former Attorney General Janet Reno, then the Florida state Attorney General for Miami-Dade, open carry was severely curtailed. Reno later became famous for being in charge of the Department of Justice during the Waco massacre overseen by the FBI.

The Florida shall-issue law has been widely viewed as starting the revolution to restore Second Amendment rights in the USA. Many states started to follow the example set by Florida. By 2002, there were 31 shall issue states,  11 may issue states, 7 no issue states and Vermont, where no permit was required.

While the shall issue revolution was ongoing, Second Amendment activists and Constitutionalists were calling for the removal of permit requirements all together. They demanded their Second Amendment rights be given the full force of other Constitutional rights. They correctly stated the Second Amendment demands that the rights protected by the Second Amendment shall not be infringed. They saw the requirement for a government permission slip as a clear infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Alaska was the first state to restore permitless carry, in 2003. Second Amendment activists had been pushing for it for years. This correspondent recalls the chant "We Want Vermont!" at numerous rallies. Alaska is the largest state for land area. It has 17.5% of the land area of the USA. Overnight, permitless carry jumped from .25% to 17.75% of the USA. From Shotgunworld:

Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, said he sponsored the bill out of frustration with continually fine-tuning the state’s gun laws.

“I object to the government putting a precondition on that constitutional right (to carry a weapon). I’m presumed to be a responsible citizen until proven otherwise,” Croft said.

House Bill 102 does not eliminate the state’s concealed handgun permit
program. The governor’s office said Alaskans could still apply for a
permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in other states or to be
exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms.

By 2023, 27 states had restored the right to carry a loaded handgun concealed in most public places without a permit. In 26 of those states, the right to carry includes the right to carry arms openly. The dismal legacy of disgraced AG Janet Reno lives on in Florida.

Permitless carry will be the law of the land in over 65% of the land area of the United States as of July 1, 2023, when the Florida law takes effect.

This remarkable accomplishment took place as the Supreme Court examined a clear challenge to the numerous infringements on rights protected by the Second Amendment for the first time, in 2003, (Heller). The Supreme Court affirmed restrictions on government power, required by the Second Amendment, applied to the States in 2010 (McDonald). The Supreme Court noted, in a unanimous decision, the rights applied to "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” in Caetano in 2016.  The Supreme Court noted rights protected by the  Second Amendment apply outside the home in Bruen, in 2022. While opponents of an armed population have repeatedly made claims of "blood in the streets" following the restoration of carry rights, it has not happened. Numerous studies on the effect of restoring the right to carry have shown little effect on murders, suicides or accidents. This correspondent is a trained scientist. This correspondent has read most of the studies.  The studies show only small effects. It seems likely there are relatively small decreases in murders and violent crimes. The effects are small enough that sophisticated computer programs are needed to detect them. Sophisticated computer programs are difficult to make proof against selection bias and confirmation bias. Any program that uses a "computer model" to obtain results is suspect.

Opinion:

The Supreme Court is following the people, Second Amendment activists, and state legislatures in restoring rights protected by the Second Amendment. Without the revolution in the restoration of carry rights, the Supreme Court decisions would not have occurred, as the justices who are willing to follow the text and original meaning of the Constitution would not have been appointed. If restoring rights protected by the Second Amendment resulted in "blood in the streets" it would be readily apparent. The conflicting results seen in the literature indicate the effects on crime, suicide and accidents are so small as to be very difficult to measure.

The effects on restraining government power are large. If the government must respect the rights protected by the Second Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole, is better protected.

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TX: Suspect Shot by Homeowner; Police explain the Homeowner was the Victim

"We have such friendly nice people in this area, and so, this must have been an intrusion as they say," Doug Taylor, the neighbor said. "Because we are just so settled and quiet here."

 When police arrived, they found the Cruz on the bathroom floor in a large pool of blood. Responding officers were able to save his life by using a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

Cruz was taken to a Beaumont hospital by ambulance and is expected to survive their wounds.

Police said the homeowner acted under Texas law and will not face any charges.

"Even though they are the ones who shot the suspect, they are still the victim," Beaumont Police Spokesperson Haley Morrow said. "The suspect is the one who broke the law and committed a crime and as a result, he was shot."

 

More Here

LA: Suspect Pulls Gun on Clerk, Clerk Shoots Suspect

Roderick Bennett got more than he bargained for when he pulled a gun on a clerk at a Central City retail store, judging from documents that New Orleans police filed in court.

Not only did the clerk also produce a firearm and shoot him, Bennett, in trying to drive to a hospital for treatment, crashed his car. And on Thursday, police arrested him on a charge of threatening the clerk in the first place.

They booked Bennett, 49, with aggravated assault with a gun and possession of a gun by a convicted felon.

More Here

PA: Homeowner Shoots, Kills 1 of 2 Home Invasion Suspects

An 18-year-old was shot and killed following a home invasion in Pittsburgh’s Homewood neighborhood, according to news reports.

The incident occurred along the 7500 block of Bennett Street at around 10:09 a.m., according to reports from WPXI and WTAE.

Police said a homeowner fired a gun at two intruders in his house. One of them was shot while the other person fled.

More Here

MI: Home Invasion, Activist Shot to Death

Acworth police said a 19-year-old man was shot to death inside an apartment in an apparent home invasion Wednesday morning.

Officers arrived at an apartment in building #5 on the 3000 block of Cobb Parkway in reference to a shooting call, when they found someone dead from gunshot wounds.

Channel 2′s Michele Newell was at the Walden Ridge Apartment Homes Tuesday, where the victim has been identified as Aiden Kane Shaw.

More Here

Polar Bear Stopped with a .44 Magnum on Arey Island, Alaska, August 16, 2014

 

 image of Arey island by Eric Mckittrick 23 August, 2003 link to license cc 2.5

Arey Island is a seven mile long barrier island in the Southern Beaufort Sea off the coast of the North Slope of Alaska. It is a flat, barren island, which is mostly privately owned.

During August of 2014 two United States Fish and Wildlife personnel were on duty on the west end of Arey Island recorded as off the mouth of the Hula Hula and Okpilak Rivers, 8.5 miles WSW of Kaktovik. 70 deg 05'23.67" N, 144 deg. 00'43.12"W. One of them defended themselves against a polar bear on August 16, at about 9 a.m. The incident was recorded as number 549 in the freedom of information act (FOIA) response AmmoLand received. 

What happened is reconstructed from the sparse reporting in the FOIA response. 

The Fish and Wildlive personnel did not have any dogs with them. The food was in a bear resistant container, outside of the tent. The Fish and Wildlife pair did not have bear spray with them, nor was bear spray used. In Kaktovik, the temperature was recorded as 39 degrees F, with a 20 mph wind from the East. Earlier, at 5 am, the wind had been 30 mph. For those of you who have not slept in a tent, 20 to 30 mph winds are significant. A tent has to be strong and well anchored to remain in place with a 30 mph wind. If the wind was averaging 20 mph, there were almost certainly gusts to 30 mph. When the wind was averaging 30 mph, there were almost certainly gusts to 45 mph.

One of the Fish and Wildlife personnel was sleeping in a tent. They had a .44 magnum. A fat and healthy boar polar bear arrived on the scene and attempted to enter the tent. The sleeper woke up, detected the polar bear, shot and killed the polar bear with the .44 magnum. The shooter was not injured, except perhaps, for some lost hearing ability. 

Some people might believe the boar polar bear was just looking for a little interspecies companionship in the bleak landscape. Polar bears are, most of the time, at the top of the food chain. They are opportunistic hunters. They live by killing and eating other living things. It seems unlikely the bear was there to cuddle.

Even at the relatively warm temperature of 39 degrees, shelter is essential to survival in a place such as Arey Island. With Kaktovik only 8.5 miles away, a healthy person could probably find shelter there. There is not much to make shelter from on a windswept barrier island such as Arey Island. If a polar bear forces its way into your tent, there may not be much tent left over.

In the reporting recovered in the FOIA, a person reviewing the incident made this comment:

Fat, curious  bear. If had had bear spray, this would have been a good time to use it. The individual did not carry ANY deterrents. Only a .44.

This reporter suspects the after the fact commentator did not bother to consider what the weather was when the incident happened. Weather was not mentioned in the abbreviated facts given in the information from the FOIA request. As a meteorologist in a previous career, this correspondent only took a few keystrokes to determine what the weather was on that day and time, from a reporting station in Kaktovik, only a few miles away. 

Bear spray with a 20 mph wind is useless. Even a slight breeze has major effects on bear spray. Bear spray inside a tent is more likely to debilitate a person in the tent than a bear outside of it. Waiting for a bear to enter the tent with you, in order to spray it, is not a wise option. How much damage the tent sustained in the fight for survival with a healthy polar bear, was not mentioned. The bear was killed.

The incident was recorded as a Defense of Life and Property report (DLP) in Alaska. 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TX: Disarm, Homeowner Takes Gun from Suspect, Suspect Killed

HARRISON COUNTY, Texas (KLTV) - A shooting near Hallsville on Friday that left one person dead may be a case of home protection, according to law enforcement.

Harrison County Sheriff B.J. Fletcher said the incident went from “borrowing some money to aggravated robbery gone wrong.” When deputies responded to the shooting call around 12:30 a.m. on Friday, the homeowner was standing out front of the house and cooperated fully, according to the sheriff.

The deceased, William Joseph Feazell, 40, was found in the kitchen, where the preliminary investigation revealed that he had been the instigator. Fletcher said that only one gun was involved, which belonged to Feazell. The homeowner was able to take control of the gun during the attempted robbery, which resulted in Feazell’s death.

More Here

NC: Repeal of Handgun Purchase Permit Demonstrates Chilling Effect on Exercise of Rights Protected by Second Amendment

North Carolina Capitol
 

On March 29, 2023, the North Carolina legislature overrode Governor (D) Roy Cooper's veto, eliminating the unconstitutional state requirement to obtain a permit to purchase a pistol. The permit system was put into operation in 1919, with a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and racism, during the Woodrow Wilson presidency. It was in place for 103 years. It is a classic example of a statute which effectively chills the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right. To see how effective the statute was in chilling rights protected by the Second Amendment, consider handgun sales, as measured by the NICS system, in April of 2022, and April of 2023. The Bill, SB41, became law when the veto was overridden on 29 March, 2023. The law's potential chilling effect was removed for the entire month of April, 2023.  If there was a significant chilling effect on the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, there should be an increase of handgun sales in April of 2023.

The handgun and long gun sales, as measured by the NICS system, in April of 2022, were:

handguns   1,655

long guns  12,435

The handgun and long gun sales, as measured by the NICS system, in April of 2023, were:

Handguns  46,040

Long guns 11,984

This is significant proof of an enormous chilling effect on the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment.  Handgun sales increased more than 27 fold after the law producing the chilling effect was repealed.  The total handgun sales in North Carolina were only 22,109 in 2022. After the law was repealed, in one month, handgun sales more than doubled over the entire previous year.

In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is not a second class right. The Supreme Court has held laws which chill the exercise of a right enumerated in the Constitution are unconstitutional. From the mtsu.edu:

In Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965), the Court struck down a postal regulation requiring individuals who
wished to receive communist literature to sign up at the post office. Although the program included no sanctions against recipients, the Court said it would chill individuals who wanted the material but were afraid to make their wishes known to the government.

The purpose of those who seek our disarmament is to reduce the number of guns and the number of gun owners. Their unproven claim is: fewer firearms will reduce illegitimate violence. However, most illegitimate violence happens in countries with few legitimate firearms. Rebecca Peters headed up the successful George Soros funded drive in Australia, to emplace draconian gun control laws. She is now the director of  International Action Network on Small Arms (www.iansa.org). She published an article at the UN Chronicle, explaining the strategy. This is an excerpt.  From un.org:

Reducing the domestic supply of new weapons. While most countries permit civilian ownership of small arms, they are at the same time seeking to contain it to moderate levels. What is considered a moderate or acceptable level of gun ownership in society is coming increasingly under scrutiny as governments recognize the need to strengthen their gun laws. Driven by regional and international agreements, popular pressure and expert advice, gun laws around the world are growing tighter and more uniform. The emerging norms include integrated renewable licensing and registration of firearms and owners, based on proof of a legitimate reason for possession, limits on the types and number of weapons a civilian can possess, minimum age limits, checks of criminal record and other personal information, safe storage requirements etc. As the new laws reduce the proportion of the population legally entitled to buy or possess arms, as well as the number each licensee can own, the flow of new weapons into the country will slow.

In 2022, the last year we have full statistics, there were National Instant background Check Systems (NICS) checks for about 8.78 million handguns and 5.63 million long guns in the United States of America. Other sales and multiple sales are relatively minor and not included in those numbers. Using the same measure, in North Carolina in 2022, there were 22,109 NICS checks for handguns and 172,574 NICS checks for long guns. While the national total shows a preference for handguns over long guns of 1.56 handguns per long gun, the North Carolina total shows an enormously chilled preference of .128 handguns per each long gun, or  1/12 of the national average. This confirms the chilling effect of the now repealed North Carolina law. Laws in other states, which place burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment rights, are equally suspect. Some of those laws are already being challenged in the courts, such as California's handgun roster law.

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch