NC: Gunfight, Armed Samaritan Shoots Aggressor

“Then they kind of go their separate ways and about a half an hour after Unterio shows up with a gun and shoots (the man) in the face and the shoulder,” Treadway said. “Right after he does that... a concerned citizen shoots back trying to protect (the man) and hits Jolly about five times. She shoots him five times.”

He said Jolly is in critical but stable condition in Charlotte. 

The other man suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

Treadway said Jolly has been determined to be the aggressor and warrants have been obtained for felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, firearm by a felon and assault by pointing a gun.

More Here

The 1824 University of Virginia Ban on the Keeping of Weapons on Campus by Students

 

Much has been made of an 1824 University of Virginia ban on the keeping of weapons on campus by students. The resolution was passed on October 4, 1824, about five months before classes were started at the University. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both former presidents and elder statesmen, were members of the board and attending when the resolutions were passed. The portions of the resolutions concerning weapons are contained in this excerpt, with the weapons passages in bold:

No Student shall admit any disturbing noises in his room, or make them any where within the precincts the University, or fire a gun or pistol within the same, on pain of such minor sentence as the faculty shall decree or approve. but the proper use of musical instruments, shall be freely allowed in their rooms, and in that appropriated for instruction of music.

Riotous, disorderly, intemperate or indecent conduct of any student within the precincts shall be punished by interdiction of a residence within the precincts; and repetitions of such offences, by expulsion from the University.

Fighting with weapons which may inflict death, or a challenge to such fight, given or accepted, shall be punished by instant expulsion from the University, not remissible by the Faculty; and it shall be the duty of the Proctor to give information thereof to the civil magistrate, that the parties may be dealt with according to law.

Offences cognisable by the laws of the land shall be left to the cognisance of the civil magistrate, if claimed by him, or otherwise to the judgment of the Faculty: all others to that of the Faculty. and such of these as are not specially designated in the enactments of the Visitors may be subjected by the Faculty to any of the minor punishments permitted by these enactments.

Sentences of expulsion from the University (except in the case of challenge or combat with arms) shall not be final until approved by the board of Visitors or, when they are not in session, by a majority of them, separately consulted. but residence within the precincts, and attendance on the schools may be suspended in the mean time.

No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty.

Military instruction was required for three hours on each Saturday, with arms provided by the University.

Several things about the ban on all weapons at the University of Virginia are clear. The ban only applied to students. It did not apply to staff or to the public. The ban only applied on campus. The ban did not have any criminal penalties. It was a rule of the University, with penalties only enforceable because the students had voluntarily entered into a voluntary association, that of students at the University.

People who attempt to justify modern bans on firearms at schools or universities often cite the University of Virginia rule as a historical precedent. It is a poor precedent because:

• The University of Virginia ban was not a law.
• It was a rule which only applied to students.
• The University of Virginia ban only applied "within the precincts of the University".

Voluntary associations can make their own rules. If a person does not like the rules, they can leave the association. Students can read the rules before they enter a university. Laws are to apply to everyone.

In the Constitutional challenge to the federal Gun Free School Zone Act in Montana, the Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas K. Godfrey claims the University of Virginia ban on weapons possession by students is a precedent. From the brief:

1824. The University of Virginia Board of Visitors—whose six members included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—resolved that: “No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, ... keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder[.]” UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA BOARD OF VISITORS MINUTES, at 6-7 (Oct. 1824).

Bans on students possessing weapons within the precincts of the University are not a precedent for bans on everyone possessing firearms outside of a school.

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

Gun Watch

 

CA: Resident Fatally Shoots Intruder

A Vallejo resident shot and killed a man who allegedly tried to break into his house Monday morning.

The shooting happened at about 9:40 a.m. near Georgia and Monterey streets.

NBC Bay Area tried to speak with the resident, but he didn't want to talk about what happened.

More Here

NE: Domestic Defense Gunfight, Ex Boyfriend Killed

Kleine tells 6 News ONeal came to the house of a woman with whom he has a child threatening to shoot her new boyfriend and bust out his car windows. Investigators said he entered the home with his gun out; the boyfriend took out his gun and they apparently fired simultaneously. The shot fired at ONeal killed him.

More Here

Gun Free School Zone Case in Montana USA - Metcalf Game On!

 Vivian and Gabriel's modest home in Billings, Montana

In the USA v Metcalf case in Montana, the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) has a challenge in federal court. it is full-fledged game on! The case was covered early and in depth by AmmoLand. It seems such a slam-dunk for the Second Amendment, a major question was: would the United States Attorney for Montana see the case as a loser, and rather than risk a major Second Amendment win, simply dismiss the case?

AmmoLand was one of the first to cover the USA v Metcalf case. AmmoLand coverage has been far better than any other outlet. Russel A. Hart is the Assistant Federal Defender in the Billings Branch Office. He is representing Gabriel Metcalf. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Gabriel Metcalf, then filed the brief in support of the motion to dismiss. The Brief was filed on October 10, 2023.

The USA filed their response on October 24. They are proceeding with the GFSZA case.

The defense of Gabriel Metcalf is premised on two major points. First is the defense established under Montana law, which creates an exemption from the GRSZA in Montana, for all who can legally own firearms. From the brief by Hart:

Montana has (1) verified that any individual who is not prohibited under the laws of Montana or who has not been convicted ofa violent felony crime is qualified to receive a license to carry a firearm within a school zone, (2) enacted legislation granting such a license to all verified individuals, (3) explicitly stated that this license applies for purposes of “the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act”, and (4) enacted separate legislation that goes farther than §922(q) could under its Commerce Clause authority, prohibiting the possession of any type of“weapon”, including a firearm,but only within the school building itself.

If Mr. Metcalf stepped from his property onto the public sidewalks while carrying a firearm as the Government alleges, he was licensed to do by the State of Montana at the time, the prohibition of §922(q)(2)(A) does not apply to him, and the Indictment must be dismissed.

As expected, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Godfrey claims the Montana law is not sufficient. From the brief by Godfrey:

The Montana law that Metcalf relies upon, Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-360, includes express qualifications for a person to be “considered to be individually licensed” for purposes of the exceptions to the Gun-Free School Zones Act: excluding individuals (1) convicted of a violent, felony crime,” or (2) otherwise not “able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution.” The statute, however, does not require that law enforcement authorities of the state verify that the individual meets those qualifications before obtaining a license. Because the Montana provision does not meet the federal requirements for the exemption to apply, Metcalf’s firearm possession was not exempted.

Next is the basic Second Amendment defense under Heller and Bruen. The GFSZA is unconstitutional on its face. From the brief by Hart:

When it comes to firearms carried for purposes of self-defense outside the home,922(q) contains an identical ban to the one flatly struck down in Heller when applied to firearms stored inside the home.In Bruen,the Court ruled that regulations concerning firearms carried outside the home must be held to the Heller standard while unequivocally rejecting the application of any “means-end”scrutiny to justify the regulation. Bruen, at 2129. The ban prohibiting possession of a functional firearm within 1,000 feet of a school’s “grounds” in §922(q)(2)(A) prevents a citizen from using it for self-defense if confrontation happens outside their home. On its face,§922(q) is impossible to square with the Second Amendment in the post-means-end scrutiny era of Heller and Bruen.

AUSA Godfrey claims the Second Amendment does not apply for two reasons. He claims schools are exempted from the Second Amendment. He claims there is historical evidence bans on firearms existed on public universities when the Second Amendment was ratified, and there were late 19th century regulations on firearms near schools. Here are two relevant excerpts:

His claim under the Second Amendment fails for two reasons, either of which is sufficient to deny relief. First, the Second Amendment does not protect Metcalf’s “course of conduct.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2134. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the government may prohibit “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

The Founding generation heavily regulated firearms on the campus of public universities. And starting in the latter half of the 19th century, some States heavily regulated firearms in and near schools. In some ways the restrictions were narrower than Section 922(q)(2). But in other ways they were broader, and there was no apparent dispute about their constitutionality. Further, under Bruen, a modern-day restriction need not be a “dead ringer for historical precursors.” Id. at 2133. It need only be “relevantly similar” to the precursors in “how” and “why” it burdens the “right to armed self-defense.” Id. at 2132-2133. Section 922(q)(2) passes that test.

The Metcalf case is an excellent test case. Gabriel Metcalf has a clean record. He lives across the street from the school in question. He had valid reasons to carry a firearm for purposes of defense of self and his mother.

While Federal Defender Hart is doing a high quality job in the legal defense of Gabriel Metcalf in the GFSZA case, the burdens on the Metcalf family are considerable. The City of Billings found a three year old warrant about a confrontation where Gabriel was defending his mother. On the initial appearance before a local judge, Gabriel was required to wear an ankle GPS monitor, at a cost of about $300 a month. The local public defender is no Russel Hart. From Gabriel's mother, contact before the court, a few days ago, consisted of a couple of minutes. No attempt was made to ask for removal of the GPS monitor. The attitude of the public defender verged on hostile.

The family needs funds to hire an attorney, preferably one who is not dependent on the "good old boy" network inside of Billings for their subsistence.  Vivian Metcalf has set up a GiveSendGo account, the YoungMetcalfHomeDefenseFund.

Analysis:

The advantage the Biden administration, represented by AUSA Godfrey, has is the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.  If Metcalf prevails in Montana, the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The case is clear cut. There is no historical record for banning guns simply because they are within a thousand feet of a school. The university bans near the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights were for private institutions. They only applied to students. They only applied to actual school grounds. The single law from late in the 19th century did not ban guns near schools. It banned shooting guns near schools. The Montana law gives a clear exception, to the GFSZA, but there is some question about whether it is sufficient under the GFSZA.

Gabriel is out of jail, without bond for the GFSZA charge. The City of Billings charge is for a misdemeanor assault charge, about three years old, which seems questionable to this correspondent. It seems likely the GPS ankle bracelet requirement could be revoked, if Gabriel receives the benefit of vigorous counsel. The local case may be dismissed if appropriate discovery and full airing of evidence is conducted before a judge.

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

Gun Watch

 

CA: Suspect flees into Home, is Shot

Deputies saw the vehicle disabled in the middle of the roadway after it struck with a parked vehicle. Deputies saw the alleged suspect, described as a man in his 50s, fleeing into a nearby home. There, he began fighting with the home’s occupants. One of the residents pulled out a gun and fired on the suspect at least once. Leibee said the suspect was taken to a hospital with an injury not considered life-threatening.

More Here

MA: Employee Shoots Man who Threatened him with a Knife. Both Arrested

Brockton police said the shooter, identified by police as 18-year-old Khamani K. Anderson, turned himself in at the police department shortly after 9 a.m. Monday and was placed in custody.

Anderson is expected to appear in Brockton District Court later Monday on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, possession of a loaded firearm during a felony and improper storage of a firearm.

Police said they were able to talk to the man who was shot on Sunday at the hospital. Their preliminary investigation revealed the shooting victim pulled a knife on an Ocean State Job Lot worker and the employee then pulled out a gun and shot the man.

The shooting victim, identified as 26-year-old Brandon C. Theodat, is also facing charges, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (knife), disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. He also had an previous warrant for his arrest. He remains hospitalized but is expected to survive.

More Here

Israel Hands out Weapons. American Left Organizes Gun Turn-in Events

Israeli women reservists train with M16 rifles. No magazines are in the rifles.

A recent video on X, formerly known as Twitter, shows Israeli officials handing out what appear to be M-4 or similar versions of the American M-16 type rifle to non-uniformed Israelis. Israel suffered thousands of casualties in the October 7 raid/invasion and massacres conducted by Hamas. The raid showed how vulnerable a disarmed population is against lightly armed and armored adversaries. The Israeli government had long practiced a staple of socialist regimes: disarm the population to enforce a doctrine of a monopoly of force by the government.

This renders the population vulnerable to the types of raid conducted by Hamas or to mass murder in gun free zones such as seen in the United States, France, Russia, or all over the globe. If there are locally armed populations, they can reduce casualties tremendously, through armed defense. Their capability is multiplied if they are backed up by quick response forces, either military or police.

At the time of the successful Hamas raid into Israel, less than 2% of the Israeli population had access to small arms. It has been reported 148,000 Israelis had permits to carry. The population or Israel has been reported at 9.7 million. 148,000 Israelis are 1.5% of the Israeli population.

In one account, published on X, formerly known as Twitter, an Israeli special forces officer, who was allowed to have a Glock 19 and some spare magazines, in his home, killed 10-14 Hamas attackers.  Many, many of the other members of his kibbutz were killed or taken hostage. At about 10:18 minute into the video, his wife says:

My husband is a big hero.  He's a big hero and we're lucky. It's hard for me to say it. Because Many of the homes, many of the families, they didn't have a gun or a weapon with which to protect themselves. 

We were lucky. Maybe a little destiny. Maybe some providence. I'm not religious, but maybe.

According to research done by John Lott, 94% of mass public murders are committed in gun free zones.  Because of significant information/intelligence gathering by Hamas, the Hamas raiders knew just what to expect where they were raiding, down to who did or did not own what kind of dog.  The intelligence gathering by Hamas gave them the equivalent of a map of "gun free" zones. It is unlikely the Hamas gambit will be allowed to work in the near future, though it is a historically common one.  Israel has learned an important lesson in reality.

 When someone repeatedly says they want to kill you, take them at their word.

Those pushing to disarm populations claim disarmed populations are safer than armed populations. Historically, disarmed populations do not last long. They are conquered, looted, the women raped and subjugated, others sold into slavery.  If there is a strong, armed protector, disarmed people can live in peace. They are at the mercy of the armed "protector".  Limits on government power, such as the Second Amendment, are designed to limit the damage out of control armed "protectors" can do. Historically, they are capable of enormous damage.

The push for gun turn-in events "buybacks" is in stark contrast to the Israeli officials handing out small arms to citizen-protectors.

Proponents of gun turn-in events claim the "buyback" might prevent a suicide or accident. Academic studies do not support this claim. Those likely to turn guns in are unlikely candidates for crime, accidents, or suicides. If guns are not available to commit suicides, other lethal methods are easily substituted. In Australia, popular substitutes were hanging and single vehicle crashes, instruments easily available in modern society.

 

Long guns turned into the police in Phoenix, Arizona in 2013

Gun turn-in events, often designated by the Orwellian term "buyback", are based on the premise removing a few guns from society might do some good. Evidence indicates "buybacks" may do some harm.  The major effect is to send a message: Guns are bad. Turn them in. At many gun turn-in events, private buyers send the opposite message: Guns are valuable. I pay cash.

The premise of gun "buybacks" is guns are bad. More guns, more bad. The Hamas raid, the Israeli casualties, and mass murder in gunfree zones in the USA show guns are often necessary as a means of defense.  Guns are often used for good. The state cannot have its armed agents everywhere to defend you. The state may become your enemy. There are people in the world who want to murder, steal, and rape. It is the base human condition.

The policy which has lately been followed by the United States, and Israel to a lesser extent, is: if we treat those who want to kill us well, and make clear there are economic advantages to peaceful coexistence, those who want to kill us will learn to coexist. This not a viable lesson from history. The same ideology claims weapons drive wars. The claim is if people get rid of weapons, wars (or interpersonal violence) will cease, or at least be significantly reduced.  It is a false claim.

Economics is not the only, or even the most significant motivator in human affairs. It is arguable, for the past 150 years, non-economic motivators have been much more important.

Weapons do not create desires to murder, steal, and rape. As is so often the case, leftists reverse the arrow of causality. The human desire to murder, steal, and rape creates the need for humans to have weapons for defense.

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

Gun Watch

FL: Manhunt ends with Residents Holding Suspect at Gunpoint

The sheriff's office says during the traffic stop, McMillian stopped the truck and ran away on foot.

About 30 minutes later, the sheriff's office says deputies were led to Campbells Rest Road where three residents were holding McMillian at gunpoint.

More Here

New York District Judge: Subjective Judgements are not Permissible Basis for Denying Second Amendment Rights

 New York City, 2016

 

In 2018, Joseph Srour applied for a license to possess rifles and shotguns at his home in New York City. He was denied. In 2019, he applied for a license to possess handguns in his home. He was denied. The denials involved application of the issuing authorities subjective judgement on Srour's moral character and the subjective judgement of the issuing authorities determination of "good cause".  Joseph Srour appealed the decision. After the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court, he amended his appeal to a direct (facial) challenge of the constitutionality of New York City law. The Case is known as Srour v New York City.

On October 24, 2023, United States District Judge John P. Cronan wrote an opinion and  ordered New York City and the NYPD Police Commissioner to not enforce current New York City code 10-303(a)(2) and 10-303(a)(9). Those two provisions of the New York City code are as follows:

(a)Requirements. No person shall be denied a permit to purchase and possess a rifle or shotgun unless the applicant:

(2) is not of good moral character; or 

(9) unless good cause exists for the denial of the permit.

Judge P. Cronan states the "good moral character" and "good cause" provisions are too subjective to be allowed as barriers to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. From the Opinion and Order:

This case is not about the ability of a state or municipality to impose appropriate and constitutionally valid regulations governing the issuance of firearm licenses and permits. The constitutional infirmities identified herein lie not in the City’s decision to impose requirements for the possession of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Rather, the provisions fail to pass constitutional muster because of the magnitude of discretion afforded to City officials in denying an individual their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, and because of Defendants’ failure to show that such unabridged discretion has any grounding in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

"Discretion" is the ability of men to apply the law as they desire, rather than equally and impartially to all. There is always some ability for discretion. It is the amount of discretion which can be pernicious. Most discretion has traditionally been in the ability to not enforce a law, rather than the ability to deny constitutional rights.

Another part of New York City law, challenged by Joseph Srour, is administrative code Section 10-310.  This part of the code does not address the issuance of firearms permits. It provides for penalties for violations of the code's provisions. Judge Cronan did not strike down Section 10-310. In his conclusion, Judge Cronan writes:

For the previously stated reasons, the Court grants Srour’s motion for summary judgment in part and denies it in part. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Srour on his First, Second, and Third Causes of Action as facial challenges, and dismisses without prejudice any as-applied challenges brought in those Causes of Action. The Court denies Srour’s motion for summary judgment with respect to his facial challenge in the Fourth Cause of Action, and dismisses without prejudice the as-applied challenge brought in that Cause of Action. The Court also dismisses the Fifth Cause of Action without prejudice. In reaching this holding, the Court finds that Srour is entitled to a declaration that subsections (a)(2) and (a)(9) of New York City Administrative Code Section 10-303 are facially unconstitutional. The Court further determines 48 that Srour is entitled to injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(9) of Section 10-303. The stay will remain in effect under midnight on October 26, 2023.

New York City is appealing Judge Cronan's decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit has been nearly as hostile to the Second Amendment as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Cronan's decision is well written and clear.

 

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

Gun Watch

 

 

MO: Domestic Defense, New Boyfreind Shoots, Kills Old Boyfreind

ST. LOUIS — Police said a man acted in self-defense after he shot and killed an intruder early Friday morning inside a home in north St. Louis.

According to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, officers responded to a report of a shooting and burglary just before 1 a.m. Friday to a home in the 4400 block of San Francisco Avenue, located on the edge of St. Louis' Penrose neighborhood.

Police said the 37-year-old man and his 36-year-old girlfriend were asleep in their bed. They woke up to find the woman's ex-boyfriend standing over them with a gun pointed at her current boyfriend. The man grabbed his own gun and shot the suspect multiple times.

The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene, police said, and the man who shot him was taken into police custody. Both guns were recovered at the scene. Police released the suspect's name Saturday. He was John Bernard, 37, and he lived in the 3700 block of Cottage Avenue.

Police said in an afternoon update that the man who shot him acted in self-defense and the shooting appeared to be a "justifiable homicide."

More Here

FL: Victim of Home Invasion Shoots 1 of 3 Invaders

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. (WSVN) - Fort Lauderdale Police are investigating following reports that multiple suspects forcibly entered a home and physically assaulted a man inside.

According to authorities, the incident occurred just before 12:30 p.m. at the Progreso Point Apartments, located at 619 North Andrews Avenue.

Police said once the unknown suspects entered the home, in an act of self-defense, the victim managed to retrieve a firearm and shoot one of the intruders.

Before the police could arrive at the scene, the suspects fled the area in an unknown vehicle. The victim sustained serious injuries during the attack and was transported to Broward Health Medical Center.

More Here

FL: Victim Shoots Suspect in Wawa store

Police told News 6 that the shooting happened around 10:40 p.m. inside the Wawa store John Young Parkway at the intersection of Silver Star Road.

The Orlando Police Department said a man, identified as 45-year-old Derek T. Wilson, went up to individuals in the store “in a threatening and erratic manner.”

“The victim was acting in self defense when he shot at the suspect. Multiple witnesses on scene confirmed this,” police said in a release.

More Here

TN: Domestic Defense, Son Shoots Father in Leg

An investigation revealed that Matthew Green was actively assaulting a person in the parking garage at 2120 Clinch Avenue around 9:30 p.m. His son shot him in the leg after giving him multiple warnings to stop the assault, KPD said. 

Jonathan Cooper has been a criminal defense lawyer in Knoxville for 30 years. He said the 17-year-old son will likely not face any charges. 

More Here

California Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction to Protect First Amendment and Gun Shows

 

 

 

 A California federal court judge has ordered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of two California statutes. The statutes ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds and on any state property in California. Gun shows have been very popular in California for decades.

A Crossroads of the West Gun Show scheduled for November of 2020 was canceled due to Covid 19.

Crossroads of the West, an enormous gun show, has held them in Orange county for over 30 years. They held a show there as late as November 2021.

According to gun show owner Bob Templeton,  on this video, the gun show in Orange County contributed over a million dollars to Orange County revenue. According to Tracy Olcott, who is taking over the Crossroads Gun Show from her parents, the show had been held at the Orange County Fairgounds for 35 years. The Court record shows Crossroads has had a gun show at the Orange County Fairgrounds every year it was possible for the past 30 years.Tracy made the case in the video, the proposed legislation is aimed at a particular viewpoint, and at preventing people of like minds from assembling together.  In essence the statues are aimed at destroying the American gun culture.

Senator David Minn spearheaded a measure to ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairground in 2021. The bill passed and became California Penal Code 27575 . A later bill banned gun shows on all California state property in 2022, it became California Penal Code 27573.

B&L Productions, Inc. (doing business as Crossroads of the West) filed suit in federal court, contending the two statues violated their rights under both the First and Second Amendments.

On October 30, 2023, District Judge John W. Holcomb for the Central District of California granted a motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Holcomb found it likely the plaintiffs would prevail, and the courts would strike down the two California statutes. From B&L Productions v Newsom:

The California legislature recently enacted two statutes that effectively ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds and, more broadly, on state-owned property. Plaintiffs, a group of gun show proprietors and enthusiasts, sued the Governor of California and other state officials and agencies in an effort to invalidate those two state statutes.

Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argue that the statutes at issue infringe both their First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights in a public forum and their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. After reviewing the parties’ extensive briefing and conducting a hearing on the motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims and that they have satisfied the other requirements for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants are preliminarily ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing the two state statues at issue.

California politicians have been attempting to shut down California gun shows for at least two decades.  During that period, the hostility of the Ninth Circuit judges has become infamous. During the same two decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered several decisions to restore Second Amendment rights to their proper position as enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Those decisions include Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), Caetano (2016), and Bruen (2022). California is one of a few states stubbornly refusing to follow the Supreme Court directions on the Second Amendment.

Analysis:

It seems likely the State of California will appeal the order of preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. If a three judge panel upholds the preliminary injunction, expect the State of California to appeal to an en banc panel of judges, where favorable rulings on the Second Amendment have gone to be killed.

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

Gun Watch

 

OH: Man Shoots, Kills, Suspect Attempting Break-in

At around 10:15 p.m. Wednesday, a caller to 911 told dispatch that he had shot a male subject who was attempting to break in his house, according to police. When officers arrived, they located a man — later identified as Keeton — laying on the front porch of the home near the front door.

Police said the man was unresponsive with a gunshot wound to the upper left side of his chest.

 

More Here

IL: Disarm, During Struggle for Gun, Both Victim and Suspect were shot

A maintenance man was shot during an attempted robbery and fought back against the gunman, resulting in the suspect being shot with his own gun, in Waukegan Tuesday.

More Here

Speaker Mike Johnson Passes First Difficult Test on Second Amendment

 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, (R) has passed his first Second Amendment test. He immediately and forcefully stated a mass murder does not override the Constitution, and contrary to Democratic policy, emotion should not be used to enact laws which would never be acceptable in a quiet and reasoned debate. The statement was made on an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox. The quote starts at 41 seconds in on the Youtube video. Link to Interview with Speaker Mike Thompson with Hannity on Fox:

For those who prefer text, here is the quote, from Mediaite.com:

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that’s the Second Amendment. And that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”

He added, “This is not the time to be talking about legislation. We’re in the middle of that crisis right now.”

Just after a mass murder is committed with a firearm, is when politicians are most vulnerable to manipulation by pressure from the old dominant media. At this point, the old dominant media and the Democratic administration are parts of the same leftist ideology. They immediately push the false narrative that the cause of mass murder is the Second Amendment and firearms ownership in the USA. House Speaker Johnson did not accept the false assumptions. He gently corrected them:

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons.

The Biden administration immediately struck back with a false representation of what speaker Johnson said. From politico.com:

In a statement, White House spokesman Andrew Bates said the administration “absolutely” rejected “the offensive accusation that gun crime is uniquely high in the United States because of Americans’ ‘hearts.’”

There are at least three lies in the White House statement.

Lie #1. Speaker Johnson talked about "gun crime".  He did not. In fact, he said it was not about weapons.

Lie #2. "gun crime" is uniquely high in the USA. It isn't. Many countries in the world have far higher rates of crime committed with firearms than the United States. Brazil has a homicide rate with guns which is over four times as high as the United States. Brazil has about 1/16th as many firearms per person as the USA.

Lie #3. Speaker Johnson did not single out "Americans' hearts. He spoke of "the human heart". This is an important philosophical difference between the left and conservatives. Conservatives believe there is a basic human nature. Leftist, generally, since Marx, do not.

Speaker Johnson stands in contrast to former Speaker Paul Ryan. Here is a statement made by former speaker Paul Ryan, a few days after the Las Vegas mass murder on October 1, 2017. Ryan's comments were made on October 7th. From the jsonline.com:

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan says he's open to a vote in Congress on what is known as a "bump stock," a device that can be attached to a semi-automatic rifle that allows it to mimic a fully automatic one.

The Janesville Republican made his remarks on MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt talk show, which aired Saturday.

"I didn't even know what they were until this week, and I'm an avid sportsman," Ryan said of bump stocks. He added: "Fully automatic weapons have been banned for a long time. Apparently, this allows you to take a semiautomatic, turn it into a fully automatic, so clearly that's something we need to look into."

Speaker Paul Ryan killed the Hearing Protection Act on October 3rd, two days after the mass murder in Las Vegas. Earlier, it appeared the act had an excellent chance of passage. Ryan had delayed the act when the dedicated leftist had attacked Congressional Republicans and almost killed representative Scalise. It appeared to this correspondent as an excuse at the time.

Time will tell how effective Mike Johnson will be as House Speaker.

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

Gun Watch

TN: Mexican National Shot during Home Invasion

Coffee County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a home invasion in the Beechgrove area around 4 Monday morning. One subject, 24 year-old Carlos Daniel Antonio Rivera, was shot by the homeowner on Bankshire Road. The subject is in a Nashville hospital with gunshot wounds to the chest.

More Here

NM: Three Gun Turn-in Events on November 4 , Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Espanola

Long guns turned in by individual at Dallas event October 2023

 

New Mexico state police have announced a trio of gun turn in events, know by the Orwellian propaganda term "buy back" to be held on Saturday, November 4, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola. Police state gift cards will be given out for any firearm, working or not, with a very generous amount of $300 for rifles, shotguns, or "assault weapons", and a more pedestrian amount of $200 for handguns.  This correspondent has contacted the NM State Police, but has not been given information about how much money is allocated for these events at the time of this writing.

Events managed by police for individuals to turn in guns for gift cards have become popular again, as 1.6 trillion dollars pushed into the political environment has to be spent in some way. From New Mexico state police press release on Facebook:

New Mexico State Police Coordinate Gun Buy Back to Promote Gun Safety and Reduce Gun Violence

 

Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola NM –

On Saturday, November 4, 2023, the New Mexico State Police are coordinating a Gun Buyback Event in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola. 

 

The events will take place on November 4, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. at the following locations:

 

Albuquerque, at Expo New Mexico at 300 San Pedro Gate 6 (south of Lomas), Las Cruces, at the Sportsman’s Warehouse at 2230 N. Telshor Blvd. Espanola, at Robert “Gordy” Vigil Regional Sportsplex at 2000 Industrial Park Rd. 

 

People may anonymously hand in unwanted guns and firearms and receive Visa and/or American Express gift cards in return. No questions will be asked about who owns the guns or where they came from. Buybacks are intended
to prevent unwanted or unneeded weapons from causing harm or being used
to commit acts of violence.

 

Buyback Event details: $200.00 Visa and/or American Express gift card for handguns, $300.00 Visa and/or American Express gift card for rifles, shotguns, and assault weapons. Firearms may be functional or non-functional.

 

“This is a proactive measure to prevent tragedies involving guns. We want to help remove unwanted guns from our communities and reduce the risk of deadly accidents, homicides, and suicides” said Troy Weisler, Chief of the New Mexico State Police.

If this correspondent were a few hundred miles closer to this event, a number of older and inexpensive long guns would be made ready to be turned in. Magazines, scopes, and other accessories would be removed. Many long guns can be purchased for less than $200, and older long guns with problems may be worth less than $200. In the last few years, this correspondent has purchased a number of firearms for about $100.  Unfortunately, this is a gamble. The gamble being: will the gift cards run out before a person is able to turn in the guns for the money? In Dallas, on October 23, the gift cards ran out in an hour, and only about the first 10 vehicles in line received any gift cards. The first vehicle turning in shotguns had about 100 of them.  In Dallas, the government was offering $200 per long gun. In New Mexico, the government will be offering $300. If the government runs out of gift cards, as is likely, there will be many people in line, who were determined to get rid of some guns.

This is the when private buyers make great deals. In Dallas, a mint Colt SP-1 (pre-ban AR15) was purchased for $400. It may be worth $2,000 to $3,000 on the collector market.

The New Mexico Democratic Party government of Lujan Grisham is not known for its common sense or fiscal responsibility.  $300 is more than many long guns retail for new:

 

Image from Walmart 20 September shows 5 long guns under $200 and slots for two more.

If the gift cards last long enough, they will empty the gun stores of new and old guns with prices less than $200. If the gift cards are unlimited, this program could bankrupt the State of New Mexico!

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

Gun Watch