Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Missouri: Shop manager, daughter foil burglary: "Just after noon on Saturday, Springfield police arrived at the store at 2845 W. Chestnut to find one store manager, a 45-year-old disabled woman, holding the would-be burglars at gunpoint. Marlene Woodman, 65, manages the store with her daughter Angela Mallard, 45. Woodman credits Mallard with protecting her. When she walked in with lunch, Mallard said she had a funny feeling about the customer her mom was serving. When she went to the break room, she found a stranger in the back office, Mallard said. Drawers were open, cushions were overturned. Lights were on, and they are usually off during the day. Mallard told her mother to call the police, go out to Mallard’s car and get Mallard’s gun. “It was all very calm,” Woodman said. She handed her daughter the gun and told the men to sit quietly. She told her daughter not to shoot unless she had to. “Angela was standing in the doorway, telling them ‘Don’t move or I’ll blow you away.’"

CA: Bill would increase rules on rifles: "Lawmakers in the California Assembly have evoked ‘Joe the Plumber,’ Japanese internment and the late novelist Ayn Rand as they battle over a gun control bill that would extend the same reporting requirements and regulations that govern hand guns to rifles and other long guns. On Thursday, the measure, AB1810, passed the Assembly on a 43-10 vote. It now moves to the Senate. Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, sponsored the bill, saying it would help law enforcement investigate gun crimes. Opponents argue the Legislature is systematically taking away their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.”

Citizen heroes snared in foolish gun restrictions: "The Supreme Court is expected to strike down Chicago’s ban when they release their decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. That decision is scheduled to be announced toward the end of this month and answers the question whether the Second Amendment restricts states and municipalities from enacting harsh gun laws. It is likely that there will never be a clear and complete definition from the courts as to exactly what restrictions are acceptable and what are not and at this point there is very little jurisprudence on that subject so Chicago will doubtlessly respond by implementing some less comprehensive, but equally onerous restrictions once their total ban is rejected. Expect the wrangling over what is and what is not an infringement of ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ to be bouncing through the courts for at least the next two or three decades.”

No comments: