MCSO said that 40-year-old Montrell Ellis and 44-year-old Prince Bentley
got into an argument outside of the store's entrance. During that
argument, Ellis shot Bentley multiple times, the sheriff's office said.
MCSO said that Bentley was able to return fire and hit Ellis.
Bentley died as a result of the injuries he suffered during the
shootout, the sheriff's office said. Paramedics rushed Ellis to the
hospital in critical condition.
Two
other people were arrested and charged with tampering with evidence.
MCSO told FOX13 that those two people moved the gun used in the deadly
shooting and that they moved some electrical equipment that was
important to the crime scene.
Officers met with the 22-year-old man in
the emergency room, who had multiple gunshot wounds to his torso,
according to the post.
SGMC Health EMS took King to the hospital for the injury to his knee.
VPD
detectives and crime scene personnel responded to investigate the
incident. Through the investigation and evidence collected at the scene,
detectives determined that King and the 22-year-old were known to each
other and had been in an altercation at Circle K.
After being shot, the 22-year-old retrieved a gun and shot back at King, striking him.
“It’s a tragedy- a husband and a wife,
three kids who were asleep in their house. Your house is your castle.
The wife awakens to shattering glass- what a scary situation it is so
the husband protecting his home- doing what he did. You have a
17-year-old juvenile-- he has his family and a life ahead of him,” said
Chief Barber.
Chief Barber says the
teen appeared to have forced his way inside through the front window.
The chief says earlier that night, the teenager was at his friend’s
house on the same street. It’s still unclear why entered the other
house, but the Chief says he seemed under the influence.
“Based
on the initial investigation, we believe he was under the influence of
some substance- we’re not sure exactly what all that could be,” said
Chief Barber.
On arrival, Officers located an 18-year-old
male suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen that appeared to be
from a shotgun. Clovis Fire Department EMS responded and took over care
of the gunshot victim. The victim, identified as Triston Lucero, was
transported to Plains Regional Medical Center, and later transferred to a
Texas hospital for treatment of his injuries.
Officers contacted two occupants of the
residence, who reported the gunshot victim tried entering the residence
and the occupant shot him with a shotgun. A shotgun was recovered from
inside the residence, and the occupants were taken to the Clovis Police
Department for further questioning.
EVANSVILLE — A
16-year-old Evansville boy has been preliminarily charged with attempted
murder after a shooting during an alleged, botched marijuana deal
Saturday night, police say.
Three
people were injured in the shooting. One of the victims, who hasn't
been publicly identified, "is not expected to make a recovery,"
Evansville police wrote in a probable cause affidavit. That means the
boy could eventually be charged with murder.
Early reports indicate that Omar Negrete-Galvan, a 20-year-old resident
of Othello, entered the store and was involved in a confrontation with
the store clerk, Johnathan Enriquez, also from Othello. The exact cause
of the altercation is still under investigation, but it escalated to
both parties displaying firearms.
During the conflict, Negrete-Galvan sustained a non-life-threatening
injury to his leg. He was later transferred to a specialized hospital
for treatment of his injuries. In light of the preliminary
investigation, law enforcement officials have established probable cause
to suspect Negrete-Galvan of Attempted Assault in the First Degree and
possession of a weapon capable of causing bodily harm.
The deadly shooting of a 14-year-old boy Friday night by a resident
of an apartment complex is being investigated as a justifiable homicide,
an Albuquerque Police Department news release said.
The shooting
at the Sandia Vista Apartments at 901 Tramway Blvd. NE happened around
10:15 p.m., when a group of teens were involved in a fight and chased
others to an upstairs apartment. Someone then threw a rock through an
apartment window, and a resident picked up a gun and shot one of the
teens, the release said.
It all started when a man went to his girlfriend’s house. He says his
car was running while he was standing outside. That is when an unknown
suspect is accused of getting into his car and driving away.
According to reports, when the man began to chase his vehicle, the
suspect fired shots at him. The victim allegedly returned gunfire,
striking the suspect several times. A home on Delmar Avenue was also hit
by gunfire, but the victims inside were not injured.
In 2024 a bill was introduced into the Minnesota legislature which would ban many semi-automatic rifles. The bill was similar to the President Clinton era "assault rifle" ban. A related bill, HF3628, did not pass out of the legislature in the last legislative session. In 2025 a new bill, Senate File SF1596/House File HF2449, takes a somewhat similar approach. The bill adds some new twists and turns. The new bill was introduced on February 20, 2025, and posted on February 25, 2025.
SF1596/HF2449 takes a different approach than HF3628 did. HF3628 banned the possession of a large number of rifles, pistols and some shotguns. SF1596/HF2449 does not ban possession of the effected firearms, at least not right away. Instead the bill bans the sale or transfer of the firearms. They are not allowed to be transferred as part of an estate, or even to be transferred out of state. The idea is to prevent any new sale of the banned firearms, and to gradually remove them from legitimate ownership in the state of Minnesota.
The major exception is that agents of the state may transfer such firearms to other agents of the state defined as: government officers, agents, employees; member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer for official use by the recipient. No private citizens need apply.
The bill anticipates funds will be allocated for "buyback" programs. Such programs are mandated to accept the listed firearms at rates determined by the Commissioner of Public Safety. People participating in the "buyback" programs are immune from prosecution under the law.
Looking at the list of firearms which would be banned from transfer under this bill, there are a few surprises. Here are some categories of firearms which are not allowed to be transferred if the bill would pass:
Semi-automatic pistols with fixed magazines having a capacity of over ten rounds. The first one to come to mind is the new Keltec PR-57, specifically designed as a self-defense carry pistol.
In the same line, the bill lists any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine which can hold more than ten rounds. This appears to include nearly all semi-automatic rimfire rifles with tubular magazines. The previous bill exempted .22 rifles with tubular magazines. The exemption was not found in SF1596/HF2449.
Any semi-automatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine and has any one of four features is to be banned from being transferred. The feature which stands out to this correspondent is a "shroud which completely or partially encircles the barrel. This bans transfer of the Keltec CP33 and a number of Ruger MK variants which have shrouded barrels.
As written, the bill bans transfer of dozens of currently legal firearm models, except to transfer them to gun "buyback" programs where the state would take possession.
At the moment, the bill has little support, according to gunowners.mn. This does not mean support will not grow at some point in the future.
This type of bill strikes at the very heart of the Second Amendment. It seeks to remove from public ownership most firearms which are least used in crimes, especially those which would be more effective as militia weapons. It is important for the Supreme Court of the United States to strike down state bans of semi-automatic rifles. Such a ruling would make passage of bills such as SF1596/HF2449 highly problematic.
The MPD responded to a shooting in the area of 31 South McLean
Boulevard at around 5:45 a.m. A man on the scene told police that
someone tried to rob him when he got home.
Police say the man pulled out a gun and he and the suspect began to
physically fight. The man then shot the suspect, who was taken to
Regional One in critical condition.
SPRING, Texas (KTRK) -- A
Spring man was arrested after someone else broke into his car. Harris
County Constable Precinct 4 said it was because he chased the suspected
thief down and then shot him.
The
arrest was posted to the Pct. 4's Facebook page and people are divided.
They say this was either someone rightfully protecting his property or
someone who took it too far.
The MPD responded to a shooting in the area of 31 South McLean Boulevard
at around 5:45 a.m. A man on the scene told police that someone tried
to rob him when he got home.
Police say the man pulled out a gun and he and the suspect began to
physically fight. The man then shot the suspect, who was taken to
Regional One in critical condition.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had taken two cases where non-residents had been arrested and prosecuted for possessing firearms and ammunition in Massachusetts. Both cases involved residents of New Hampshire, where the defendants could legally carry firearms without permits. The cases were combined for the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The decisions were rendered on March 11, 2025. The decisions were opposite for the two cases.
In the decision for the earlier case, Commonwealth v. Donnell, the Court found the Massachusetts firearm licensing scheme at the time of Donnell's arrest, to be unconstitutional, because the law was a "may issue" law which allowed discretion on the part of the issuing official.From findlaw.com:
Our holding today does not, as the Commonwealth suggests, preclude it from requiring firearm licenses for persons within its borders. See Marquis, 495 Mass. at ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––. To be consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme cannot vest an official with the discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. The defendant was charged under a firearm licensing scheme that did just that. This manner of firearm restriction is no longer permissible. Bruen, supra. Accordingly, the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed.
In the second case, Commonwealth v. Philip J. Marquis, the court upheld the law as constitutional. They found Marquis did not have standing because he had not applied for a nonresident permit under the new Massachusetts law. From findlaw.com, Commonwealth v. Philip J. Marquis:
This is one of two cases we decide today in which we determine the constitutionality of the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme.1 See Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. (2025). While we consider a prior version of the nonresident firearm licensing scheme in Donnell, here we consider the current version of that scheme. See St. 2022, c. 175, §§ 17B-22 (effective Aug. 10, 2022). Specifically, we address whether the current nonresident firearm licensing scheme violates the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or the rights to travel and to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.
Analysis: The Massachusetts court refused to consider the thrust of the argument against requiring non-residents to obtain a separate permit from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to exercise rights protected by the Second Amendment. They did this by claiming the defendant had no standing because he had not applied for a non-resident permit. The argument ignores the fact it is much more difficult for a non-resident to obtain a non-resident permit than it is for a resident to obtain a resident permit. From the opinion:
Because that scheme does not penalize nonresidents' right to travel, and because differences in how that scheme operates for residents versus nonresidents are rationally related to legitimate State interests, the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme is also facially consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment rights to travel and to equal protection.
The Court dismisses those crucial arguments by citing precedents from more than a decade before the Supreme Court case in Bruen. The court goes on to make extensive arguments, which it says are not necessary. In the opinion of this correspondent, the arguments are weak. The Commonwealth treats non-residents substantially differently than it does residents when it comes to non-resident permits. The Court glosses over these differences as not relevant.
A non-resident permit is only valid for a year, while a resident permit is valid for 4-5 years. The non-refundable fee is $100 for both. A Massachusetts official can take up to 90 days to issue a non-resident permit, while they are only allowed 40 days to issue or deny a resident permit. Residents are allowed a sixty day grace period to renew their permit; non-residents have no grace period. The concept that a citizen would have to apply for a permit up to 90 days before they can exercise a fundamental, Constitutional right after a decision to cross a state line, is absurd. Those decisions are often made momentarily, on the spot. For the First Amendment, any delay of exercise of the right has been found to cause irreparable harm. The same standard should apply to the Second Amendment, which is not a Second Class right.
The Massachusetts court then reaches into fish and game law to claim there is no requirement for state permits to treat residents and non-residents alike. It claims the state permit system need only meet rational basis. Both claims are highly problematic.
Hunting and fishing are not rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The Court is playing games when it says the Massachusetts non-resident permit scheme does not violate the Second Amendment, and then claims the permit scheme can treat non-residents and residents differently, because the Court said it does not violate the Second Amendment. This is circular reasoning.
Massachusetts is one of the jurisdictions in the United States most hostile to the Second Amendment. The judges on the Commonwealth's high court are clever wordsmiths. This does not mean they are correct.
It is unclear if the Marquis case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Officers responded to the scene where the victim, a
34-year-old male, was discovered with multiple gunshot wounds. The
victim was later pronounced deceased at the University of Tennessee
Medical Center.
At this time, it appears the person who shot the victim,
acted in self-defense. However, we are awaiting the results of the
autopsy to make final determinations.
Further details will be provided as the investigation progresses.
Interesting things are happening in the Fifth Circuit case involving silencers, USA v Peterson. A three judge panel ruled that silencers were not "arms" as defined by the text of the Second Amendment. Peterson and his attorneys have asked the case be reheard in an en banc review. The Fifth Circuit has been reasonably diligent in its Second Amendment cases, so an en banc (review by the whole court) has a good chance of reversing the three judge panel. The Peterson case appears to be seriously considered by the Fifth Circuit. The court has sent a request to the parties involved to send a response on to the Appellant's Petition. The request for response was sent on March 7, 2025.
The Trump Administration issued a executive order to the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi to present a plan to review all legal actions and regulations affecting rights protected by the Second Amendment. The plan is due by March 10th. The Fifth Circuit request is a golden opportunity for the DOJ to present a clear and effective response in the USA v. Peterson case. In the case, the US Attorney made the claim that silencers were not arms covered by the text of the Second Amendment. This is what was used by the three judge panel to claim silencers are not protected arms. The Trump administration could easily reverse the claim and state silencer are clearly arms protected by the Second Amendment. The US Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Louisiana has until the 17 of March to send its response to the Fifth Circuit.
The Assistant US Attorney assigned to this case is David Berman. His history is makes him an unlikely Second Amendment advocate. He spent time in venues hostile to the Second Amendment before coming to Louisiana. He was a Law clerk for the US District court in Massachusetts, then a year and a month in Louisiana, then in the District of Columbia for a year and seven months; then in the Greater New York City Area for two years and eleven months; then in the Southern District of California for one year and eight months, then back to Louisiana as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. His law degree is from the University of Oxford, in Oxfordshire, England. He appears to be an up and coming, talented and ambitious attorney. As a skilled attorney, he should be able to argue either side of a case.
The Department of Justice oversees the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The Attorney General could issue instructions on the official position of the Executive branch to the Eastern District of Louisiana. An executive order has been issued by President Trump. This is a clear situation to show execution of his order. Silencers are the weakest part of the National Firearms Act. They should never have been banned with excessive taxes and regulations. They should be protected under the text of the Second Amendment. The Bruen and Caetano decisions make this clear.
We should know what the position of the administration is on this issue by the 17th of March, but it is possible the US Attorney could ask for time to study the issue further.
The
fatal shooting of a male at 1601 Bonnie Brae Drive about 4:05 p.m. on
Monday (March 17) will be referred to a Harris County grand jury.
The identity of the deceased male is pending verification by the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences.
The adult male shooter was not injured.
HPD Homicide Division Sergeant C. Lamont and Detectives M. Providence and J. Robles reported:
HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting at a residence at the
above address and found an unresponsive male lying on the driveway.
Houston Fire Department paramedics pronounced the male deceased.
A preliminary investigation determined the male was burglarizing the
residence while the home was unoccupied. When the homeowners returned
and saw the male suspect on the property, one of them produced a firearm
and shot the suspect.
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office was contacted and it was determined the case would be reviewed by a grand jury.
According to police, a 28-year-old woman
told officers she was assaulted by a 33-year-old man she knew in the 500
block of Eiler around 4 a.m. The man fired a shot at the woman, who
fired shots back. The man then ran off.
On February 5, 2025, an officer responded to a "suspicious person with a weapon" call near a Jack in the Box located on the 5900 block of Gulf Freeway. The video does not say what department the officer was with. The address is in downtown Houston, so the officer is probably from the Houston Police Department. The officer noticed a young man and started questioning him. The young man stated he had been inside the Jack-in-the-Box watching his brothers sell "waters" outside. A man, with a knife in hand, had rushed at his brothers. The young man said he had pulled out a pistol, then moved between his brothers and the man, and told his brothers to run.
The officer searched the young man and found a loaded Glock 19. The young man said he had purchased the pistol from a friend for $150. The young man told the officer he was 17 years old. The officer arrested the 17-year-old for criminal possession of a handgun.
This is the information brought to the court in the initial hearing before Judge David Fleisher, an elected Harris County Criminal Court Judge. Houston, Texas occupies much of Harris County. Judge Fleisher has gained a reputation across the nation for including a hearing on probable cause with the initial court appearance.
The response from Judge Fleisher is interesting. He says: "He [the young man] is going to the defense of others".
At this point, a lawyer in the back of the courtroom stands up and rushes to the defense of the young man. Judge Fleisher and the lawyer tend to talk over each other, but the lawyer lays out several documents. The documents are a memo from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), saying possession under the age of 21 is not a crime, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling the limitation of carry to people under 21 is unconstitutional, the United States District Court, Northern District holding the prohibition on carrying under the age of 21 is unconstitutional, and a motion to quash the indictment. Judge Fleisher laughs at the level of preparation, and rules there was no probable cause to search. Judge Fleisher says he was going to rule no probable cause existed, in any case.
The lawyer may have been stretching the law. The DPS memo limits the exemption from the law to 18-20 year old people. The youth in this case was 17 years old.
This case shows the sea change in the respect for the Second Amendment in the seventeen years since the Heller decision and particularly the 32 months since the Bruen decision. Heller clarified the Second Amendment as a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Bruen reinforced the Heller decision and clarified the right to bear arms a right to carry arms routinely in case of confrontation, including outside the home.
When this correspondent received initial law enforcement training in the 1970's, an instructor said: don't worry about searching someone for weapons. The instructor claimed they had never had a case, where they found a weapon, where the judge had dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.
Times have changed for the better. If the young man had been 18, carrying a Glock would not have been a crime, as the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Given the circumstances, the Glock will not be returned. This correspondent's first impression, given the price of $150 cited, was the Glock was probably stolen. Many people do not bother to report stolen guns. If the Glock had been on the official list of stolen firearms, the young man might have been charged with possession of stolen property.
Judge Fleisher has heard another case involving a 17-year-old and an illegal possession charge. Because there was evidence of the pistol being fired, the other 17-year-old was treated much differently. In that case, the officer did not make an illegal search. The pistol was seen in plain sight inside a car.
Those who wish for the population to be disarmed claim more guns = more crime. There is no conclusive evidence of this. Most of the evidence indicates more guns = no difference, or a drop in violent crime, with a slight increase in property crime.
The National Instant background Check System (NICS) for February 2025 shows a drop in both Firearm sales and in overall background checks. Firearm sales are down about nine percent from 2024. NICS background checks are down about five percent from February of 2024. Handgun and "multiple" sales moved up a bit from January to February while long gun and "other" sales dropped a bit. In the graphic below, the lines are for 2024. The bars are for 2025.
President Trump has been in his second term in office for over a month. The rapid pace of corrections produced by the Trump administration signals a strong turn away from the destructive and radical policies of the Biden administration. During the first Trump term, firearms sales dropped a bit, largely because prospective gun buyers believed President Trump was not nearly as hostile to the Second Amendment as a President Hillary Clinton would have been. In President Trump's Second term the contrast is even greater.
This month is another month where over 1 million firearms were sold, according to the NSSF adjusted figures based on the FBI NICS numbers. According to the NSSF numbers, February 2025 is the 67th consecutive month where over 1 million firearms were sold. Sales of firearms generally slump a bit in January, after the Christmas sales in December. While February is three days shorter than January or December (except for leap years), February sales track higher than January, on average. February NICS checks have been higher than those in January in 20 of the 26 years recorded in NICS.
Significant change tends to disrupt existing systems and markets. It takes time for them to readjust. The significant reforms desired by President Trump and called for during his campaign will create some disruption and pain as they are implemented. It is best to implement the changes at the start of an administration, so the pain will be felt earlier and the beneficial effects can start to be observed before the next election. President Trump and his cabinet are working to move members of the workforce from unproductive jobs in the Federal government to productive jobs in the private sector.
During the last 16 years, about 210 million firearms have been added to the stock of private firearms in the United States. Firearms are very durable goods. With modest care they can last for hundreds of years. Improvements in ammunition and firearms metallurgy have added to the potential useful life of firearms. Smokeless powder makes the maintenance of firearm bores easier, as has the transition from corrosive primers to non-corrosive primers. Those improvement occurred at about 1900 and 1950, as rough markers. Since the 1960's stainless steel has taken an increasing portion of the firearms market. Surface treatments which are tougher and more protective than blueing or controlled rusting, such as cerakoting, more durable plating technologies, parkerizing and black nitride are likely to increase longevity. Composite stocks tend to be stronger than wood stocks, per pound. It is not as clear composite stocks will last longer, but it seems plausible.
Longer lives for firearms would be expected to dampen demand. To counter that trend, firearms are cheaper, on a constant dollar basis than every before.
Jacksonville, Fla. — An early-morning shooting on Jacksonville’s Westside sent a man to the hospital.
The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office was called to a home on Dylan Michael Drive around 4 a.m. Sunday.
Investigators
said the victim was followed home from a nightclub. When he got home,
the suspect showed a gun. The victim, who was also armed, fired several
shots, hitting the suspect in the arm.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)
Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? It's all here (Backups here and here)
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein
After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat
Posts
