MD Baltimore: 21-Yr-Old Victim is Wounded, Shoots Back

Sometimes later, officers were called to the 4800 block of Bowland Avenue for a shooting. Once there, Officers located a 21-year-old male victim suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the body. The victim was transported to an area hospital by a medic with non-life-threatening injuries.

Preliminary investigation revealed that the victim parked his sedan vehicle in the 5100 block of Sinclair Lane when an unidentified black male walked up to the vehicle and began discharging at the vehicle. The sedan driver then returned gunfire and fled the area.

 

More Here

The Historical Record is the Correct way to Understand the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In the recent series of direct Supreme Court opinions on what rights the Second Amendment protects, the Court laid out a brilliant exposition of what the words of the Second Amendment mean, and how to use the meaning of the Second Amendment in judging the law. Those cases started with Heller, continued with McDonald, with more in Caetano and most recently with Bruen.  Earlier decisions talked about the Second Amendment without ruling on it directly at the Supreme Court. The famous Miller decision from 1939 is muddy and does not give a definitive interpretation.

Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court is an originalist and a textualist. This means he judges the law by the text of the Constitution instead of determining what results he desires or what he thinks is the best policy for the country.  Progressive judges do not do this. They look to the results they wish, then work to find out a way to justify those results.  The idea of a "living constitution", in essence, means no effective Constitution.

The Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government, the People, and the States. It specifies and arranges the political power structure of the Republic. It is detailed and easily understandable by people of ordinary intelligence. The writers of the Constitution understood political philosophy and the nature of man extremely well, much better than most contemporary politicians.

The Progressive movement arose in the 1890's, pushed by those who wanted more power to make national laws they believed to be necessary. Many of them desired to make the nation stronger, to "right wrongs" to "do good". They may have meant to be benevolent rulers, but they meant to rule. They despised the restrictions placed on their ambitions by the structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most of their argument for ignoring the Constitution, or finding ways to "work around" the structure it imposed consisted of two themes.

1. Everything changes over time. Nothing is immutable. The principles of human nature and political thought the Constitution was constructed on are not valid now, because human nature and political thought have changed.

2. That was then. This is now. The Constitution restricts what we have to do to prosper in modern times. Therefore we have to either ignore the Constitution or find ways to work around it.

The idea of a means-ends test to determine what the Constitution means, is pure Progressive ideology. Instead of determining what the Constitution meant at the time it was ratified, mean-ends looks at the results of a Constitutional interpretation, and determines if the results are what was desired by the legislature or what is desired by the judges' will. Means-end is pure case by case pragmatism or power politics. Its guiding star is: Does this decision do what the judge (or legislature) wants to get done?

Textualism and Originalism reject the idea of interpreting the Constitution to obtain the policy decision desired. Instead, to determine the fine points of what the Constitution means in a particular circumstance, you start with the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The text is the most important part. Then, to be sure you are not imparting meaning to the words which you desire them to have, you examine the meaning they had when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. The text, with the meaning the words had at the time of ratification, is the standard.

For the Second Amendment, this was spelled out in the 2008 Heller decision, and elaborated on in later decisions, particularly in Bruen. From District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text,
we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to
be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their
normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden,
9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an
idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding
generation.

In Heller, the structure of the Second Amendment was examined closely. The Amendment consists of two parts; the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,) and the operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). The prefatory clause gives one reason for the purpose of the Amendment. It is not exclusionary. One reason does not exclude other reasons.  The prefatory clause does not control or limit the operative clause. Such structure was common in the language of 1791 and earlier. Several state constitutions of the time use similar structure. The operative clause indicates the the right is a pre-existing right exercised by individuals. The justices in the Heller decision unanimously agreed the Second Amendment refers to a pre-existing right exercised by individuals.

The primary question of interpretation was what does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?  While the Heller dissenters argued it meant the right of individuals to participate in militias, the overwhelming evidence was it meant, at the time, a broad array of rights exercised and expanded in the colonies, derived, in part, from the English right to arms, which was exercised by individuals. The extent and limits to the right to keep and bear arms, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, requires a look at what they were broadly understood to mean by the body of the people at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. It is impossible to determine what may not be infringed if you do not know what the right to keep and bear arms meant at the time. The Bruen decision rejects the means-ends test. From NYSR&PA v. Bruen:

 (1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

In Bruen, it is explained why historical analysis is the standard instead of means-ends interest balancing. Determining the historical meaning of the Amendment is no more demanding than attempting to balance interests. For the Bill of Rights, interest balancing is off the table. Interest balancing gives judges power they are not granted by the Constitution. Only historical analysis is appropriate.

  (2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.

In Bruen, the idea of "that was then, this is now" is expressly addressed. The Caetano decision unanimously concluded arms which did not exist at the time of the ratification are protected if they are "bearable arms" and "in common use".

 (3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582.

There may have to be some adaptation by analogy to deal with changed technology.  From Bruen:

 To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).

The right to keep and bear arms was not understood as unlimited at the time of ratification. 

Automobiles did not exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified.  The closest analogy would be travel by horse or horse drawn vehicles. At the time of ratification, there were no restrictions on the carry of weapons by individuals on horses or horse drawn vehicles, unless the mounted individuals were carrying the weapons so as to terrify the population. Weapons which were unusual and particularly dangerous were prohibited from display if they terrified the population. The modern analogy would be drive by shootings, or menacing people with weapons while in an automobile. It may mean having a ring mounted machine gun on a pickup truck, with an operator ready to fire it, could be prohibited. Having common weapons available and ready to use, while traveling, was specifically protected in several laws of the era.

At the time of ratification, it was understood the carrying of weapons could be prohibited in legislative assemblies, polling places, or in court rooms. These were "sensitive places" at the time of ratification. To expand "sensitive places" to all public places is unacceptable. It was acceptable to disarm prisoners and to keep them disarmed. The right to keep arms did not include the right to steal arms if you did not possess arms of your own. It included the right to buy or make arms of your own.

To claim all weapons laws are void because the Second Amendment includes the words "shall not be infringed" is not correct. It depends on what the "right to keep and bear arms" meant to the people at the time of ratification. To conclude otherwise is to place the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the hands of modern readers, without regard to the historical record.

The restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification were far fewer than exist today. Infringements on the right to keep and bear arms have accumulated over the last century and a half. Those infringements are being rolled back in the courts. The Bruen decision gives the courts the proper test to determine if a law is acceptable under the Second Amendment.

To claim historical analysis of laws at the time of the ratification is more difficult than balancing interests in the modern era is a ruse to place enormous power in the hands of judges, power which was never granted to them by the Constitution.

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

Gun Watch

OK: Homeowner Shoots, Kills, Neighbor who Attacked Him

Through the investigation and numerous interviews with witnesses and neighbors, officers learned the incident began with the homeowner doing yard work in the front yard. Williams approached him and became aggressive.

According to police, the homeowner asked Williams to leave several times. Williams eventually cornered the homeowner in the garage, began attacking him and cutting him with lawn trimming shears, and a physical fight ensued, TPD said.

At one point, the homeowner managed to get away from Williams, retrieved his gun, and again tried to get Blake Williams to leave, police said. Williams started walking away, then turned and ran at the homeowner, who shot Williams.

More Here

Gun Sales, NICS Numbers for May 2023 Continue Million+ per Month Streak

 The NICS (National Instant background Check System) numbers for May of 2023 show the month to be a very close fourth highest May for gun sales and the third highest May for the NICS FBI run background checks. The estimate for gun sales in May comes to a little over 1.13 million estimated as recorded sold through the NICS system. Last year, in May, there were a little less than 1.14 million guns estimated as being recorded as sold through the NICS system. The number of guns sold in May of 2023 is 99.6% of the number sold in May of 2022. These are estimates because some guns sales are recorded as "multiple". The number of guns sold as multiple on one 4473 form are estimated as 2.5 x the number of multiple sales forms recorded.

May of 2023 is the 46th consecutive month of over a million firearm (gun) sales recorded by the NICS system. In May, where we know whether the firearm was a long gun or a handgun, 64% are handguns. 90% of gun sales are either long guns or handguns, 10% are listed as other or multiple.  Firearm sales have topped a million firearms since August of 2019. NICS went active in the last two months of 1998. Our best estimate for the number of firearms in the United States in 1998 is 256 million firearms. In the first 10 years of NICS use, the number of privately owned firearms increased by 52 million to 308 million. In the next decade, the number increased by 97 million to 405 million. From the  end of 2018 to the end of May, 2023, the number has increased by another 91 million to 496 million firearms. About half of the private stock of firearms in the USA will have been produced in the last 25 years. It is almost certain the number of privately owned firearms in the United States will exceed 500 million in 2023. Seven more months are available in 2023, and the number of firearms sold has been greater than a million for each of the last 46 months.

The theory of those who desire an unarmed population is more guns equal more problems. This theory has never been validated. There is no correlation in the numbers we have to indicate more guns equals more problems. From 1945, the first year where we have reliable numbers, the per capita number of firearms has increased from roughly .35 per capita to 1.37 firearms per capita at the end of May, 2023. The homicide rate, the suicide rate and the fatal firearms accident rate all show no correlation to the number of guns per capita. The homicide rate has varied from a minimum of about 4 per 100,000 to 10 per 100,000. The minimums occur with low per capita firearms and high per capital firearms. Suicide rates have also gone up and down and up and down as the per capita numbers of firearms continue to rise.  While suicide rates have been increasing for several years, the percentage of suicides committed with firearms has dropped while the per capital number of firearms has risen.  The rate of fatal firearms accidents has dropped about 94% since 1934, while the per capita number of firearms has quadrupled.  With four times as many firearms per person, the fatal firearm accident rate per person has fallen by 94%!

The high percentage of voters who own guns is likely to have political consequences. When as many as half of voters own guns and are more familiar with them than the politicians who seek to disarm those voters, those with more knowledge will see through misleading statements and obvious inaccuracies. This makes passing legislation designed to disarm the population very difficult.

Radical Democrats in control of the White House and the Senate are using every legal and illegal stratagem in a desperate attempt to hold onto power. They are attempting to radically transform the United States. In response to the domestic uncertainty and international tensions, more and more people buy firearms and ammunition for defense of self and others. The United States has reached a new normal where sales of less than a million firearms a month is an anomaly.

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

Gun Watch

 

 

CA: Teen Robber and Store Clerk both Shot Killed in Gunfight

When officers arrived, they found a 16-year-old boy in the parking lot suffering from gunshot wounds.

They also found the 20-year-old clerk shot to death inside the story.

The teen died later at Kaweah Health in Visalia.

The Violent Crimes Unit was called to investigate and determined the teen tried to rob the store, which resulted in both the teen and clerk firing multiple times.

 

More Here

Third Circuit, En Banc, Range v. Lombardo: Not All Modern Felons Lose Second Amendment Rights

On June 6, 2023, the The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, issued an opinion:

Some felony convictions are not sufficiently based in the historical record to take away rights protected by the Second Amendment. 

The opinion was agreed to by nine of the fifteen judges in the circuit.  Readers are urged to read the entire 107 pages. Excerpts of the main opinion are included below. From the en banc decision:

On page 4, the majority opinion gives a summation:

 Bryan Range appeals the District Court’s summary judgment rejecting his claim that the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We agree with Range that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And because the Government did not carry its burden of showing that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand.

On page 5, a short explanation of the case:

The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation.

On page 7 the issuance of the Bruen decision: 

While Range’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The parties then submitted supplemental briefing on Bruen’simpact. A panel of this Court affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment, holding that the Government had met its burden to show that § 922(g)(1) reflects the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation such that Range’s conviction “places him outside the class of people traditionally entitled to Second Amendment rights.”

On page 9 -10, how the Bruen standard applies:

 Applying that standard, Bruen held “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Id. at 2122.But the “where” question decided in Bruen is not at issue here. Range’s appeal instead requires us to examine who is among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. II; see Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2157 (Alito, J., concurring) (“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully 10possess a firearm . . . .”); see also Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009) (distinguishing among “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how” restrictions).Range claims he is one of “the people” entitled to keep and bear arms and that our Nation has no historical tradition of disarming people like him. The Government responds that Range has not been one of “the people” since 1995, when he pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania state court to making a false statement on his food stamp application, and that his disarmament is historically supported.

On page 15, the government has not carried its burden of proof:

Because Range and his proposed conduct are protected by the Second Amendment, we now ask whether the Government can strip him of his right to keep and bear arms. To answer that question, we must determine whether the Government has justified applying § 922(g)(1) to Range “by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2130. We hold that the Government has not carried its burden.

On page 22, concluding the government does not have the constitutional authority to deprive Bryan Range of his rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Our decision today is a narrow one. Bryan Range challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) only as applied to him given his violation of 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). Range remains one of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms. Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand so the Court can enter a declaratory judgment in favor of Range, enjoin enforcement of § 922(g)(1) against him, and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Several judges dissented. The arguments of the dissent are of two major thrusts. One is that Heller categorically held felons could be excluded from exercising Second Amendment rights. The other is power granted by modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. 70 of the 107 pages of the Opinion are in the dissents. There is a general flavor of preserving government power in the dissenting opinions, as well as justifying the power by means-ends tests.

This case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Opinion strikes directly at the power of the government to define felonies at will and thus deprive large segments of the population of the rights protected by the Second Amendment, at will.

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

Gun Watch

 

OH: Centerville Homeowner Shoots Man Attempting to Break into Home

 

News Center 7 obtained the 911 call through a public records request.

“We have someone trying to break into our house right now,” the woman told dispatchers.

While officers were on their way to the home, a “bang” that was believed to be a gunshot could be heard over the phone, Davis said.

Upon arrival, officers were met by a man at the front door who said that he had just shot an intruder in his home.

Officers then located Gibson lying on the floor inside the front door with a gunshot wound to the head. He was pronounced deceased at the scene.

More Here

LA: 20-Year-Old Berserker Attempts Break-in, is Shot, Killed by Homeowner

ASCENSION PARISH, La. (WAFB) - A man was killed on Sunday, June 4, after allegedly attempting to break into a home in Ascension Parish, officials said.

Kameron Serigny, 20, of Gonzales, has been identified as the man found deceased in the home.

According to officials, the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office responded to an attempted break-in around 6 a.m. at a home on Tiggy Duplessis Rd., in Ascension Parish.

More Here

OH followup: Man who Claimed Self Defense in Shooting of Sinzae Reed Charged with Evidence Tampering

Krieg Butler, a 36-year-old white man who shot and killed 13-year-old Sinzae Reed, in Columbus, Ohio, in October was indicted by a grand jury Friday on charges of tampering with evidence and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.

No charges were brought against Butler directly related to the fatal shooting of the Black teenager.

The indictment comes after the office of Franklin County Prosecutor G. Gary Tyack presented evidence surrounding the death of the teen to a Franklin County grand jury on May 17 and 18. Multiple witnesses testified under oath.

 

More Here

NC: Gunfight, Video Shows Passenger Pulled his Gun before Bus Driver did

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Surveillance video released Friday by the Charlotte Area Transit System shows the May 18 shooting aboard a CATS bus between the driver and a passenger.

The shooting occurred after the passenger, Omarri Tobias, asked the driver to make an unscheduled stop as the bus traveled through Charlotte's Steele Creek neighborhood. When the driver, identified as David Fullard, refused, Tobias can be heard taunting Fullard, who continues to drive.

In the video, Tobias can be seen pulling a gun. Moments later, Fullard pulls out his own gun. Gunfire is exchanged as the bus drives off the roadway.

Two other passengers on the bus flee to the rear of the bus. Neither of those individuals were physically harmed in the shooting.

 

More Here

FL: School Resource Officer Scot Peterson under Trial for Conduct during Mass Murder in Parkland

Public Domain image of Deputy Scot Peterson outside of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School during the mass murder
 

Scot Peterson, the retired school resource officer for Majorie Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, is on trial for seven counts of child neglect (felonies), three counts of culpable negligence (misdemeanors) and one count of perjury.

On the afternoon of February 14, 2018, a 19 year old with a long history of anti-social behavior murdered 17 people and injured 17 others in Parkland, Florida  at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. Parkland is located in Broward County. The school resource officer at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School was Broward County Sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson.

The 19 year old murderer had been seen entering campus through an unlocked gate at 2:19 p.m., carrying what was described as a "rifle bag". Through a series of policies designed to keep crime and discipline statistics low, several opportunities were missed to stop the young man before he started killing. A detailed account of the policies in place, and how they failed to stop the murders can be read in "Why Meadow Died" by Andrew Pollack and Max Eden.

Police officers do not have a legal duty to enforce the law in any particular incident, even if they have been contacted and informed a crime is taking place. A police officer may be fired from his job. Police officers are almost always immune from lawsuit for doing nothing. They are almost never criminally charged. Richard W. Stevens wrote an excellent little book detailing this reality titled Dial 911 and Die, in 1999. The facts in the book are essentially unchanged. It is nearly impossible to win a lawsuit against a police officer for failing to act. Criminal charges have been extremely rare.

Former Deputy Scot Peterson is being charged for what he did not do. About four minutes after the murderer entered the campus, Peterson reported possible gunshots in building 1200. He did not run to the sound of the gunfire. He did not confront the killer while the mass murder was in process. He did not fire his sidearm to potentially make the killer wonder if the killer was under fire. He ran to a position of cover and stayed there until the situation was resolved.

Deputy Peterson was 55 years old and eligible for retirement. As criticism of his actions became louder during the investigation of the mass murder, he retired before he could be fired. He was fired retroactively.  In his last year, Peterson was paid $101,879.03, according to the Sun Sentinel.

The 55-year-old Peterson, a Broward deputy for 32 years, was paid $101,879.03 last year — $75,673.72 in base salary plus overtime and other compensation, according to sheriff’s office records. Until the shooting, he was considered a trusted school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, according to annual reviews of his performance.

His pension started at $8,702.35 a month, which would be $104,428.20 for 12 months. If found guilty of a felony, it is possible he could lose his pension and spend time in jail or prison. He would not lose his pension if convicted of a misdemeanor.

The state's case against Deputy Peterson rests on a theory of Peterson having a special duty to protect the school children because he was assigned to the school as a school resource officer. The seven felony counts of child neglect, four for children who were killed, and three for children who were severely wounded, are based on this theory. The three misdemeanor counts of culpable negligence for two adults who were killed and one 19 year old adult student (Meadow Pollack) who was killed, are based on the theory. Culpable negligence has a higher standard of proof than child neglect. The eleventh count is for perjury. It is claimed Peterson made a false statement under oath during the investigation of the mass murder. From state.fl.us:

(e) “Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care,
supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and
mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

The trial will go before a six person jury.  The jury is being chosen at this time. Most of the charges will depend on whether the jury can be convinced Peterson was a "caregiver" as well as a law enforcement officer.

Analysis:

The Broward County Sheriff's Office manual at the time is reported as saying an officer "may" directly and immediately respond to an active shooter. It is much different from saying an officer "shall" immediately respond. A sheriff's office manual is not a set of legal statutes. It is difficult to predict what a jury will do. It is notoriously difficult to predict what people will do when confronted by a deadly threat. People who rush to danger are called heroes. Except for the military, there are no laws against cowardice or bad judgment in the face of a deadly threat. A six person jury is easier to sway than a 12 person jury.  This link has a discussion of what the right to jury means.

Peterson says he did not know what was happening, but thought there might be a sniper.  From local10.com:

Peterson has defended his actions, saying he did not know where the gunman was and he thought a sniper may have been targeting the building.

In the law, the charge most likely to "stick" is the misdemeanor charge for perjury. Much depends on what was recorded, and who claims to have heard what. The information will come out during the trial.

Opinion:

In the last few decades the United States has seen criminal charges filed against officers who were following procedure, but who were seen by the media as deserving of charges. These include the defendants in the Rodney King case and the George Floyd case. The media portrayal of Deputy Peterson is mixed.  Many will say Deputy Peterson deserves all the pain now being inflicted on him. It is punishment by process.  This correspondent believes if Deputy Peterson had intervened quickly, he could have saved lives. Looking backward is clearer than evaluation of the scene in real time. Proving Deputy Scot Peterson committed a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, may be difficult.

 

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

Gun Watch

 

IL: Domestic Defense? Woman Shot While Attacking Relative

The woman entered the Rent-A-Center on Homer Adams Parkway around 10 a.m. Tuesday to confront a relative who worked there, Police Chief Jarrett Ford said. There was reportedly an active order of protection prohibiting contact with her relative and from being at the store.

An argument between the two escalated into a physical fight. During the fight, the woman hit the employee in the head with a gun, Alton Fire Battalion Chief Derrick Richardson told News 4. Another employee then shot the woman three times.

More Here

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