A burglar shot a resident during an attempted break-in at around 1:57 a.m. Sunday in the 5800 block of Wise Avenue.
The victim, a 34-year-old man, told police an unknown man attempted to enter the residence through a rear window and the victim confronted the suspect. The suspect shot the victim and the victim returned fire, according to the report.
The suspect fled the scene and the victim was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
Attempting to quantify the effectiveness of defensive methods for use against bears suffers from significant selection bias. It is impractical to enlist large numbers of volunteers, randomly select half, give half a method of protection, leave the others as a control group and place both in equal chances of being attacked. Instead we rely on gathering data from people who were attacked, who had various types of defensive weapons. Obtaining a valid sample is nearly impossible, because successful defenses have a strong bias of not being reported. The more spectacularly a defense fails, the more likely it is to come to the attention of the media and to make headlines. It will be collected when people search for "bear attacks". Researchers collecting data may exhibit bias in their selection of what incidents to include.
In the most famous of the firearms and bear studies, "Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska" (1883 to 2009) the purpose was not to determine how effective firearms are in defense against bears. It was to find ways in which firearms did not work in defense against bears. From an interview of Tom Smith by Wes Siler in Outside online:
The point of “Efficacy of Firearms” wasn’t to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not firearms work but, rather, to analyze the reasons why they didn’t—“poor aim, no time to use them, jammed, etc.,” elaborates Smith.
When you are looking for ways in which firearms do not work, you will tend to find more of them. In "Efficacy of Firearms" Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero openly admit their selection bias. From Efficacy of Firearms" p. 5:
Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries. Second, including more DLP records would have increased the number of bears killed by firearms. Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.
From the above, it is clear "Efficacy of Firearms" selected incidents to include as many incidents with human injury as possible. The authors considered the inclusion of incidents which would have improved firearm success rates, to be unimportant. From wikipedia:
Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples.
Such bias is not always conscious. Tom Smith loves bears. From Tom Smith:
You can take an entire wilderness with no bears and there’s just something fundamentally different about it. We love these animals; they’re wonderful.
Tom Smith is an ardent bear spray proponent. Published by the official Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee:
"Smith is an ardent advocate of using bear spray over firearms."
One of the main purposes of bear spray is to prevent people from killing bears. Emotional attachments tend to bias a persons judgement in ways which are difficult to guard against.
Researchers also need to guard against Confirmation bias. Here is the definition:
confirmation bias, people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs.
In our ongoing study of the efficacy of handguns for defense against bears, I and colleagues did not start with an assumption of how effective handguns were. We were looking for cases where handguns failed. If handguns were ineffective, there should be many documented cases of handgun failures when fired in defense against bears. This sounds similar to what Tom Smith wrote. The difference is, guard against selection bias, it was decided to include all cases in which a handgun was fired in defense against a bear. This eliminated subjective bias as to whether a handgun in a backpack or cabin, which was never fired, constituted a handgun failure.
Failure to draw and use a handgun or to draw and use bear spray is a user failure, not a weapons failure. It can be addressed with training, practice, and technique. We used a criteria similar to Smith & Herrero in "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska". In their bear spray papers they only included cases where bear spray was sprayed. They excluded cases where it was not sprayed. One critique of the Smith & Herrero firearms study was it included cases where the firearms were not fired. Of the 71 incidents in the bear spray study, only 9 involved charging grizzly bears. Bear spray worked to stop three of those charges.
Smith & Herrero limited their efficacy studies to Alaska. Choosing to limit the data pool is another way selection bias may come into play.
The failure of a weapon system, whether bear spray or firearms, results in much more news coverage than a successful defensive use. Studies which rely on public information sources are necessarily biased toward a lower success rate. When researchers deliberately work to find failures over successes, selection bias is unavoidable.
An important way to check for selection bias is to look at the raw data. If raw data is not available to the public, the research cannot be checked. What one person might have concluded was a success, another might conclude was a failure.
In our studies of the efficacy of handguns used as a defense against bears, all the incidents and sources are available to the public. This is not the case in the Smith & Herrero studies. It would be illuminating to compare incidents in our different approaches, to see if they were graded differently. Someday, the raw data for the Smith & Herrero studies may be released.
An important part of research is the ability to falsify a hypothesis. The hypothesis that handguns are effective as a defense against bears is easily falsifiable. The way to do this is to document cases where a handgun was fired in defense against a bear, and the bear attack was not stopped, because the bear was not killed or did not leave the scene in response to the gunfire. In the last seven years we have documented three failures out of 143 cases where handguns were fired in defense against bears. It is a success rate of 98%. In the soon to be published update, a fourth failure has been found. The success rate continues at 98%.
In 1930, it was plausible a person could use a pistol against a bear, be killed, and never be found. By 1960, it became highly unlikely. The wide availability of aircraft, motorized transport, expansion of radio, television and print media had changed the landscape. 76% of documented cases of handguns fired in defense against bears have happened since 2000. In our soon to be published update, 96% occurred after 1960. People killed or mauled by bears are news. They make headlines around the world. Successful defenses against bears are not news. They tend to not be reported, be relegated to official reports, brief mentions in a local media outlet, a diary, or briefly mentioned online. Of documented cases, only one failure involved a fatality. One person was killed when a .22 handgun was fired in defense against a polar bear, In 1995.
Nine people have been killed where bear spray has been sprayed in defense against a bear, in eight incidents from 2003 to 2023. Because of the geographic limitation and timing of the Smith and Herrero bear spray studies, none of those eight incidents are included in their statistics. The original "Efficacy of Bear Deterrence Spray" study involved data collected from 1985 to 2006. In the followup study for both bear spray and firearms "Human-bear conflict in Alaska: 1880-2015: Alaska Human-Bear Conflict", published in 2018, four additional bear spray incidents were added from 2006 to 2015, increasing the original 71 incidents to 75. Of the 75 incidents, at least 21 of them were by bear management personnel to harass bears. 70 of the incidents were deemed successful, or 93%. In the 75 incidents, 4 people were injured. The number of firearms incidents increased from 269 to 328, an addition of 57. The number of handgun incidents increased by 6, from 37 to 43. The total number of incidents is given as 682. The number of incidents where firearms were not present or bear spray was not sprayed appears to be 279. The criteria used does not appear to have changed from previous studies. Tom Smith confirmed the data from previous studies was included in the numbers for the latest paper.
Readers are urged to send documented cases of handgun failures to AmmoLand. Any documented case where a handgun is fired in defense against a bear is welcome as an addition to our growing database. So far, successful defensive uses of handguns outnumber failures by roughly 50 to 1.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Preliminary Statement: On April 26th, 2024, at approximately 11:11PM, officers responded to 1469 Campbellton Road SW in reference to a person shot. Upon arrival, officers located a 32-year-old male who sustained multiple apparent gunshot wounds to his torso. The male was alert, conscious, and breathing, and was transported to the hospital for treatment. Preliminary investigation indicates that the male who was shot was the primary aggressor involved in the incident. Investigators with the Aggravated Assault Unit responded to the scene and assisted with charging the 32-year-old male with Possession of a Firearm By a Convicted Felon and Cruelty to Children (3rd Degree). The male will be transported to the Fulton County Jail following a medical clearance.
Please keep in mind that the information released is preliminary in nature and could change as the investigation progresses or new information comes to light.
The phrase "Arming teachers" has standard meanings: To provide teachers with arms or to force teachers to carry arms. "Arming teachers" puts teachers in a passive role, with someone else "arming" them. It is being used to oppose a mild gun law reform bill in Tennessee.
The phrase is being used in an Orwellian way by those opposed to an armed population. It is used by the left to prevent teachers from being allowed to protect themselves and the children in their care. The phrase "arming teachers" has become equated with removing restrictions on the ability of teachers to arm themselves.
This is standard causation reversal by leftists. Teachers are not armed because school administrators and governments have prevented them from being armed.
The Orwellian phrase "arming teachers" is being used used to stop a mild reform law in Tennessee, which would allow some volunteer teachers, under severe restrictions, to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves and their students. From the tennessean.com:
How would Tennessee's law arming teachers work?
Tennessee’s law would allow facilities or staff to carry concealed guns on their respective campuses.
Later the article mentions the extreme restrictions on carrying by teachers in Tennessee schools.
If passed, this bill would arm school staff members upon completing training, background checks and a psychological evaluation.
The idea that teachers should not be armed is a recent one in American history, along with the idea of schools being controlled by a state or national bureaucracy instead of by parents.
According to usconcealed carry, 32 states allow for staff to be armed at school, with a multitude of restrictions, while 18 states ban the practice.
A year ago, District Administration wrote there were 33 states which allowed teachers to be armed, with various degrees of permission required. This CBS News article claims eight states allow school staff to be armed if they have a concealed carry permit.
The reality is two thirds of the states in the union allow teachers to be armed, generally with fewer restrictions than is being proposed in the Tennessee reform bill.
In practice, many administrations place barriers on teachers ability to carry in school. Eight states allow teachers with concealed carry permits to carry in schools without further restrictions and training. Those states may require the permission of the school administration.
People with concealed carry permits have far fewer problems with firearms than do police officers.
The ability of armed defenders to stop mass murderers has been demonstrated over and over and over.
The Bill passed the Senate, 26 to 5. It was sent to the House on April 11. The Tennessee legislature is scheduled to adjourn on April 25, 2024. If SB1325 is not voted on by April 25, it will have been killed. Republicans in Tennessee hold the Senate, 27-6, the House, 75-23, and have Republican Bill Lee in the Governor's mansion.
The Democrats only hold 6 seats in the Senate and 23 seats in the House. However they have the vast majority of media in Tennessee proclaiming this bill is a serious danger to students because it "Arms Teachers". The argument is, essentially, "Guns are Bad".
Update: HB1202/SB1325 has passed the House, 68-28, and will be sent to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. Once the Bill is sent to Governor Lee, he will have 10 days to sign the bill, veto the bill, or allow the bill to take effect without his signature. The 10 day period excludes Sundays. The bill has to engrossed (printed in its final form) and signed by both speakers before it is sent to the governor.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
SAN ANTONIO – Would-be victims of two separate crimes Thursday morning reacted in a way that one San Antonio police sergeant said he has been seeing more often lately.
In both cases, police say those victims used a gun to stop a crime, shooting and wounding the suspects.
“It does seem there is a spike in these types of activities,” said Sgt. Andrew Valle, as he investigated the second shooting of the morning.
In that case, Valle said a man who lives in an apartment in the 8700 block of Marbach told officers he used a gun to stop an intruder.
This correspondent was talking to an Australian the other day, attempting to explain to him how it is American Progressives view simple solutions to rampage school shootings, such as allowing armed military and police veterans to protect schools, as they do in Israel, to be "Off the table".
This hypothetical exchange between an "Naive Progressive" and an "Old Hand Progressive" was the result:
Naive Progressive:
I am concerned about Trump talking about allowing teachers with police and military experience to be armed to protect schools. Should we get ahead of this by adopting it as our policy, and requiring them to be highly regulated? Then they could become part of the government, and on our side.
Old Hand Progressive:
That sounds plausible. It is not politically correct. Remember, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. You have to look long term. The idea of allowing armed teachers to defend schools works against us in many important ways.
It undermines our hard fought for creation of gun free zones in schools. We have the Supreme Court on our side there! We have managed to extend gun free zones to a thousand feet from the boundary of every school! It makes the carry of guns illegitimate in nearly every city in the nation. We are building from that base to extend gun free zones to parks, day care centers, public buildings. It is far too important a goal to undermine with a policy that allows non-police to be armed in schools. Can you understand the terrible danger to impressionable minds when students know their role models are carrying guns to defend them?
It subverts the important principle that defense through the use of force is not legitimate. If we are to disarm the people, they must be convinced that using force is never the answer. Only the government can be trusted with armed force. Using force in self defense creates the illusion: some peoples' lives are more valuable than others. More guns is always the wrong answer. Only the government has the wisdom to know who should be protected and who should not.
What if one of these "school protectors" got lucky, and stopped a school shooting? We already have problems with that. I can tell you, confidentially, there have been one or two bizarre cases. They are appropriately downgraded and ignored by most of the media, most of the time. But if many schools had armed protectors, the examples would be harder and harder to suppress. The rubes are notoriously gullible. What if there was video of an armed old white man stopping a school shooter? It could destroy decades of progress.
Consider the message it sends about the military and police. We have made gains in showing how police and military veterans are not to be trusted. This undercuts that important goal. The current military and police are notorious bastions of toxic masculinity and racism. Retired military and police are much worse! To allow them to carry weapons shows they are trusted in an unequivocal way. It sends exactly the wrong message.
Retired military and police tend to be old white men. They cannot be trusted to be politically correct. Retired police and military are the last people we should allow to be armed.
Mass murder in schools is one of the strongest points we have to push to increase gun safety by disarming the people. The emotions are strong. The optics are great. If we allow the NRA to win on this front, it will be immeasurably harder to pass sensible gun safety laws.
To obtain a Progressive government, we have to "break a few eggs". The lives of a few mostly white school children are minuscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives we will save by disarming the population.
In a sense, the whole planet is at stake. If Progressive values are undercut, billions will die from climate change. Only strong, centrally manged world government can manage climate change in an effective way. The toxic masculinity of the United States stands in the way of saving the planet. The Second Amendment is a manifestation of that toxic masculinity.
From a long term view, a few pampered white first world children are a small price to pay for saving the planet.
This is the way those of the Progressive, Leftist, or cultural Marxist persuasion look at the issue. A few lives today are a small price to pay for obtaining Leftist power. Once they are in power, everyone will become much better off .... even if they have to kill a few million people in the process.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Little Rock police have identified the man accused of attempting a robbery at a Bank of America Wednesday.
In a police report released by the Little Rock Police Department, officers identified the man as 47-year-old Chad Green. A reporter with KARK says Green is a well-known defense attorney based out of Maumelle/Little Rock.
Kelly Residence, about 150 yards from the border with Mexico, image from Zillow
Border rancher, George Allen Kelly, 75-years-old was on trial, charged with the death of an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times. The body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea (48) had been found in the mesquite about 115 yards from the rural home of George Allen Kelly and his wife, Wanda. The husband and wife had retired to Arizona in 2002 after careers as a state fisheries biologist and a school teacher in Lincoln, Montana.
On January 30, 2023, George Allen Kelly called Border Patrol and said he heard a shot, he might have to return fire. Investigators come out. They don't find anything. Late in the evening, Kelly finds the body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea, about 115 yards from the house. He calls Border patrol again. The authorities investigate. The put the body in a freezer. Because the authorities put the body in a freezer, the exact time of death could not be determined by the medical examiner.
There was no ballistic evidence to connect Kelly's rifle to the body. Several spent shell casings were found on the Kelly's porch. No bullet was ever recovered. Butimea's body was wearing tactical boots, tan pants, a hoodie sweat shirt and a camouflage top. He had a two way radio in one pocket. A picture on his phone, in those clothes, showed him with binoculars, but no binoculars were found with the body.
One of the detectives investigating the case went to Mexico to interview a person who claimed to be with Buitemea at the time he was shot and killed. Daniel Ruiz Ramirez, shown on a court evidence slide as being from Honduras, was a key witness for the prosecution.
Both Daniel Ruiz Ramirez (Varela) and Gabriel Cuen Buitimea had long records of illegal border crossings. His testimony had several inconsistencies, conducted through a translator. Ramirez has been reported as an Honduran citizen and as a citizen of Ecuador in different media reports. Ruiz spoke at the trial through interpreters.
Investigators found texts sent between Kelly and a friend which showed Kelly's frustration with all the illegal activity he was having to deal with. Some of the texts implied a willingness to use his rifle.
When the county prosecutor decided to charge Kelly with first degree murder, the case went viral. As evidence accumulated, the prosecution reduced the charge to second-degree murder.
Several GoFundMe accounts were started. GoFundMe removed a number took down the fundraisers set to aid George Allen Kelly.
Fox News Digital confirmed that GoFundMe removed multiple fundraisers set up to help 73-year-old George Alan Kelly.
GiveSendGo has proved to be less political and more reliable than GoFundMe, which defunded both Kyle Rittenhouse and the Canadian trucker. Here is the statement at the Give SendGo fundraising site. From GiveSendGo.com:
My name is Wanda Correll Kelly. George Alan Kelly (I call him "Alan") is my husband of 53 years. Alan is a man devoted to his family, animals, and home. In his 75 years, he has been an upstanding member of his community and, more importantly, a rock to our family. He is a humble person with simple needs. He likes socks. He is an animal lover. Alan and I are living a nightmare. He has been accused of a serious crime, killing a Cartel member on our property and he is innocent. We are private people and are horrified about some of things being said about him in the media. We need funds for his legal defense and other related expenses that have arisen as a result of this terrible situation. Please help keep Alan home with me.
GOFUNDME has taken down all fundraising sites for George. I chose Spotfund as they allow freedom of speech.
As the trial proceeded, what Kelly told investigators, and what the words meant, were disputed. It appears some of Kelly's statements were contradictory.
The Epoch Times reports a defense attorney said one juror was a hold out for conviction, and could not be persuaded, resulting in a hung jury.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
It all started when a woman and her boyfriend were "relaxing" in the driveway of their home on the 3000 block of Boone Street on April 24, according to the Memphis Police Department (MPD). That was when someone the couple both knew walked up and started arguing with the man.
"I'm going to make your mother cry," Davian Walker told the man, according to police.
Walker, 37, then took out a gun and fired several shots at the man, who produced his own weapon and fired back, police said.
Two suspects entered a home by force around 1:54 p.m. in the 8000 block of South Carpenter Street that was inhabited by one man and two women, police told FOX32.
Both of the men attacked the man inside the house before stealing items from the house, according to authorities.
They left on foot and soon after the incident one of them was shot in the body. The injured suspect was later taken to an area hospital in critical condition, officials said.
Unclear how the suspect was shot.
Surprise Police say two suspects attempted to break into a home. The homeowner opened fire, striking one of the suspects.
Officers arrived at the scene and took both suspects into custody, one of whom was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.
One of the suspects was identified as 19-year-old Kason Nelson. The second suspect is a juvenile.
On April 24, police released more information on this case, saying, "During the investigation, detectives learned that the homeowner involved is currently renting to a tenant who knows the suspects. The suspects told investigators, under Miranda Warnings, that they came to visit the tenant. However, Surprise Police detectives, with assistance from the K-9 unit, located a firearm and other items indicating the suspects were intending to commit a burglary."
Atlanta investigators learned the man was reportedly asked to leave the lounge but came back with a gun and fired shots into the building.
APD said security at the lounge then shot back, hitting the suspect.
On April 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Arkansas delivered a significant opinion impacting the restoration of the right to keep and bear arms. In particular, the court re-affirmed the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. The denial of the right is a harm which confers standing to those denied, and the procedural powers of the state judiciary, as a separate, constitutionally created branch of the state government, do not necessarily extend beyond the courtroom to the courthouse.
The issue was whether Arkansas state statute § 5-73-122 - b, as modified in 2017, violated the Arkansas state constitution. The state constitution grants separate powers to the state judiciary. Before 2017, the statute limited who could possess handguns in courtrooms. Officers of the court (lawyers) were allowed. Here is the relevant statute from 2015:
(b) (1) Any person other than a law enforcement officer, officer of the court, or bailiff, acting in the line of duty, or any other person authorized by the court, who possesses a handgun in the courtroom of any court of this state is guilty of a Class D felony.
The law was changed in 2017. It is significant the statute now adds courthouse as well as courtroom. Courthouses have many functions. Some of those functions are not administrated by the judiciary. Courthouses often house other administrative offices. Here is the current law (2024)
(b) However, a law enforcement officer, either on-duty or off-duty, officer of the court, bailiff, or other person authorized by the court is permitted to possess a handgun in the courtroom of any court or a courthouse of this state.
In 2020, a lawyer, Mr. Corbit, was prevented from bringing a firearm into the Pulaski County District Courthouse. The case became complicated. The Supreme Court ruled against him. Other attorneys joined the case in a second attempt. They abandoned the argument regarding courtrooms and limited their case to courthouses. The second case went to the Supreme Court again. Because the first case had gone to conclusion with Corbit, he was precluded from bring a second case. The other attorneys still had standing. From the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling:
When a plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he “should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973). It then becomes evident that the remaining appellants possess a vested and ongoing interest in the matter. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it barred their claims for lack of standing.
This is a critical understanding of "standing" for Second Amendment lawsuits. The credible threat of prosecution for exercising a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is itself a significant and irrevocable harm.
Under the Supreme Court guidance as given in the Bruen decision on June 22, 2022. It is understood there were three "sensitive areas" where the right to bear arms could be limited when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. As mentioned in an article by prominent Second Amendment scholars Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, there were only three locations which were considered "sensitive places in 1791:
And the types of laws in place at the Founding tell us that sensitive places are limited, and they are areas where the government has taken on a particular responsibility for providing for the care and safety of individuals in the location. This is plainly true of legislative assemblies, court houses, and polling places.
Court houses are included. It appears the legislature has the authority to determine who may possess guns in court houses. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the legislature had authorized attorneys to do so:
We further hold that attorneys, as officers of the court, are authorized by statute to possess handguns in courthouses. We reverse the circuit court’s denial of the petition for a declaratory judgment as it pertains to the remaining plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded they would address the issue of lawyers carrying weapons into courtrooms if the issue were to come up in a future case.
Analysis:
The most important part of this case is the recognition of standing for people who are threatened with criminal prosecution for exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment. In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made crystal clear the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. It is to be afforded the same respect as other parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is not to be treated as a second class member of the Bill of Rights.
The secondary part of this is the normalization of the right to self defense and the right to carry. When lawyers are demanding to be able to carry where they work, as a fundamental right, it is hard for them to argue others should be denied the same right where they work.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
When a woman's estranged husband angrily broke into a Marrero home early Sunday morning looking to confront her and her current boyfriend, authorities say the boyfriend opened fire to defend himself, wounding the ex and accidentally shooting her in the process.
The woman, 33, was taken to a hospital in stable condition after she was shot in the abdomen, according to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office.
Her estranged husband, Derrick Miller, 35, was shot multiple times and also transported to a hospital, said Sgt. Brandon Veal, sheriff's spokesperson.
On April 21, 2024, at about 9:40 p.m., Dallas Police responded to an assist call in the 700 block of Cantregral Street.
The preliminary investigation determined a private investigator was attempting to take the suspect, Kaland Spencer, 29, into custody for outstanding warrants. The investigator fired his gun and shot Spencer after he stole a bystander’s car and was driving away from the location.
Spencer was taken to a local hospital for medical treatment and arrested for his warrants, Assault on a Security Guard, and UUMV.
This investigation is ongoing and has been referred to the Dallas County Grand Jury.
The Albuquerque Police Department was called to investigate separate fatal shootings late Friday and Saturday morning, including one in which a young man allegedly killed his mother’s ex-boyfriend in self-defense.
APD spokesperson Franchesca Perdue said the Saturday shooting is being investigated as a justifiable homicide.
Louisiana State Capitol, from wikimedia CC 2.5, 18 Oct, 2006, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current Louisiana preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments, seeking to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, have been shown to be clever about finding ways to restrict peoples right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws. For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales. In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city. In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.
Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown at the Louisiana legislature web site. They are shown below. From the Bill SB 124,
Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.
Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.
The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact ordinances or regulations . The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action.
The list of things which may not be regulated is expanded to include: manufacture, carrying, storage, and taxation, the items protected are expanded to include firearms accessories, knives, edged weapons, or any combination thereof.
When local governments work hard to find ways to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, responsible legislatures are finding ways to specifically prohibit them from doing so. Some states, such as Florida, have imposed financial penalties for government entities and personal liabilities for local politicians who enact ordinances which violate the preemption laws.
Bill 124 in Louisiana still has to pass the house. It seems likely to pass the house and be sent to the Governor for signature.
In spite of clear guidance from the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision, a few repressive states continue to defy the court and illegally restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Commentary:
The United States is bifurcating into a few states (8-9) defying the Supreme Court, and the vast majority which respect the Second Amendment.
This is not a healthy situation for a constitutional republic. Eventually, either the Constitution will be enforced for the entire nation, or the Republic will fall apart.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
The homeowner retrieved his firearm and gave Cosby repeated commands to leave. He told Cosby he would fire his weapon, according to police. Cosby then allegedly broke the kitchen window and began to climb through when the homeowner shot him once in the arm.
Police said Cosby dropped his revolver near the kitchen sink and ran away. Officers say they found him nearby. When they attempted to render aid, Cosby became combative. He was transported to Skyline Medical Center for treatment of his non-critical gunshot wound.
City police were sent to KT Pawn, 424 E. 13th St., after dispatchers received a related call at 9:17 a.m. Friday.
According to Deputy Police Chief Melissa Criswell, the caller reported a man entered the business "armed with a blunt instrument and attacked the two employees, injuring both."
One of the employees then shot the alleged intruder, Criswell said.
Deputies shared that the shooter remained on the scene and told officials that he had passed a white Dodge Charger that slowed down in front of him on DeBary Avenue. After passing, the Charger began following him closely with its high beams on.
The Charger then backed off and continued on his way but reappeared later on Providence Boulevard, going onto Fisher Drive before cutting off the eventual shooter, according to the sheriff's office.
Witnesses also corroborated the same testimony of the shooter, said the sheriff's office.
The deceased driver was identified as 37-year-old Kenyon Ashley of Deltona.
Posts
All Comments
