Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Gun-Control Group Dodges Guns in Swing State Attack Ads by Stephen Gutowski

The nation's largest gun-control group dodged guns entirely in a new swing state ad campaign that abandons the group's core issue to focus on health care.

Documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, supported in large part by donations from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, is funding ads that assail Republicans on health care rather than gun control. The ads target state-level politicians in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Minnesota. The postcard-style ads, copies of which are posted to the back end of the group's website, have nearly identical wording.

In an ad against state representative Andrew Lewis (R.), the group accused him of helping to "take health care away from Pennsylvanians" but makes no mention of guns.

Everytown has largely avoided Second Amendment issues when trying to woo voters in swing states. The group minimized gun control in attack ads aimed at Republican senators running for reelection in Iowa and North Carolina earlier this month. The decision indicates Everytown has determined issues like health care and energy production are more persuasive to swing-state voters—many of whom may have recently become gun owners—according to J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

More Here

TX Followup: Grand Jury has No Bill for Jack Wilson, who Stopped Church Shooting, as expected

FORT WORTH, Texas (KETK/AP) – A Texas grand jury took no action against a man who shot and killed an armed man that murdered two people in a Fort Worth-area church last December.

Jack Wilson, a firearms instructor who also trained a volunteer security team, fatally shot Keith Kinnunen back on December 29 in White Settlement. The attack happened during a service at the West Freeway Church of Christ.

More Here

Comments have been Neglected on Gun Watch. My Apologies

A few weeks ago, Google changed the format of blogs on blogger. 

It took a while to learn the new system. 

It has been a bit busy. 

A number of commenters generously took their time to comment on the blog. They were not posted quickly, as the comment section was in a bit different position, so it ended up being ignored for weeks.

My apoligies to those who took time to comment, but were ignored for many days!

Dean Weingarten

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

KY: More Information on the Breonna Taylor/Kenneth Walker Case in Louisville


More information has surfaced in the Breonna Taylor/Kenneth Walker no-knock warrant service in Louisville, Kentucky, which occurred on 13 March of this year.

On the night of the shooting, the officer who was shot and wounded, Sgt. Mattingly,  who was doing the banging on the door, was recorded in a friendly interview by police.

He said he repeatedly banged on the door and yelled "Police, Come to the Door, Search Warrant".  He said this was done about 6 or 7 times. Sgt. Mattingly said it took about 45 seconds to a minute of banging and announcing before the police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team broke down the door.   

Mattingly said it seemed like an eternity, during the knocking. From his interview (on audio at, the police did not announce their presence the first couple of banging sequences: 

We did not announce the first couple, because our intent was to give her plenty of time to come to the door because he said she was probably there alone. So we determined, pre-determined to give her plenty of time to come to the door, 

Some people would interpret that as a dubious excuse for not announcing they were police. Many people believe announcing police were at the door would result in greater speed in answering the door, not less.  

Mattingly says they arrived at the location 45 minutes early. They spent time surveilling the scene and checking out a vehicle near the apartment.

His account raises questions about the urgency of the warrant service. Why not wait another minute to break down the door in an apartment in which they did not expect any resistance?  Why do you need a SWAT team, if you do not expect resistance?

Cynics might say they rushed to break down the door before someone might answer it.

Mattingly was very likely in an adrenaline rush preparatory to breaking down the door with the SWAT team.  More from the audio interview:

6 or 7 different times, what seems like an eternity when you are at the doorway. It probably lasted between 45 seconds and a minute, banging on the door.

Adrenaline often distorts the sense of time. Time seems to stretch out when you are high on adrenaline. 

One can conduct an experiment where you knock three times and say, "Police, Search Warrant, Come to the door". 

I did this six times in moderately rapid succession, with a sense of urgency to the voice and the knocking. I timed it. It took 20 seconds. Try it yourself. It is an easy experiment to do. 

We do not know exactly how much time it took, because the police were not wearing body cameras. No digital files have been released with audio or surveillance files, which might give us precise timing.  We do not know how much overlap there was between the banging and the yelling about police, search warrant, come to the door, which would make communications harder to understand.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to Sgt. Mattingly, even 1 minute is far from a reasonable time for someone to be woken from a sound sleep, figure out someone is banging on the door, decide to respond, get dressed, and get to the door.  Try it sometime and time it. One to two minutes is a minimal time to be reasonable.  The warrant service was after midnight.

Kenneth Walker, testifying in an audio recording at the same link, says Breonna was yelling, at the top of her lungs "Who is it?" repeatedly, but they did not hear a response, just the banging. 

Sgt. Mattingly says an officer thought he heard something, about in the middle of the banging sequence, but no one came to the door right away, so they continued on with the banging and forced entry.  That would only leave 30 seconds, at most, from the time the officer heard something until the officers broke down the door.

People on both sides of the door say they were yelling, yet both sides say they could not understand any words the other side was saying.  That seems to validate both accounts.

 In a society with a robust right to arms, police breaking down doors will result in preventable tragedies.

Immediately after the shooting, Kenneth Walker called 911.  From

"I don't know what happened ... somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend," Walker told the dispatcher. When asked where Taylor had been shot, Walker replied, "I don't know, she is on the ground right now. I don't know, I don't know." 

There was confusion about who shot Sgt. Mattingly, in early reports. Now we know why. 

Kenneth Walker lied to the police, immediately after being taken into custody. When asked who shot at police, Walker said Breonna did. 

In the audio testimony, Walker is asked why he lied. He says he was scared.  A jury may find that plausible. Put yourself in their shoes to determine if Walker might have reasonably lied in that situation, out of fear. 

Consider the long standing hype about the chances of anyone shooting an officer and surviving the arrest. 

A defense attorney told me the chance of a suspect, who wounded a police officer, surviving an arrest, is nil.  He said he was amazed that Walker survived the arrest.

I have not found at what point the lie was detected or Walker admitted to it.

Kenneth Walker said he thought the home invasion might be by Breonna's former boyfriend, who is accused of drug dealing, and who was arrested the same night, a little before the warrant service at Breonna's apartment resulted in the killing and wounding. 

Home invasions by former boyfriends are a fairly common occurrence. They often involve a lot of banging on doors and yelling. Here is one from Oklahoma:

The woman told detectives she was at the home with her current boyfriend when they heard loud banging on the back door.

She grabbed a pistol and shot the intruder after he forced his way inside the residence, Butterfield said.

While some shots were fired from outside the apartment to the inside, with shots going through the door and window,  all the shots which hit Breonna were fired from just inside the apartment, according to the police. From

Sources told WAVE 3 News Troubleshooters that one of the officers, Brett Hankison, had fired multiple shots into the apartment blindly from the outside. Those statements corroborate that claim from Taylor’s attorneys.

LMPD confirmed three officers -- Jon Mattingly, Myles Cosgrove and Hankison -- fired their weapons that night. Mattingly was struck in the leg and returned fire. He has recovered. Cosgrove fired his weapon inside the apartment. All three officers were placed on adminstrative reassignment.

The sources said they do not believe Taylor was struck by any of the bullets fired by Hankison from outside.

The link at has good pictures of the bullet holes through the door and window of the apartment. 

There are recorded conversations from jail phone calls (they are routinely recorded) between Breonna and her former boyfriend, in January of 2020, where they discuss her bailing him out, and some transactions, likely involving illegal drugs. This shows the legitimacy of a warrant to search her house. It is far from a legitimate reason for a no-knock warrant. 

It appears the no-knock warrant was part of several no-knock warrants designed to hit several places the same night. The warrants do not appear to be have been closely coordinated.  If the purpose was to prevent one location from warning other locations, communications between various warrant serving teams have not surfaced.

Serving warrants in the dead of night is a bad idea, in general. A defense attorney told me it has become, essentially, a terror tactic.  

Consider the early morning raids used to intimidate President Trump supporters, by the Muller investigation.  

To sum up points of fact recently revealed, over which early reporting was ambivalent or wrong: 

  • The warrant for Breonna's apartment was legitimately issued, according to the policies in effect, at the time.
  • The police had evidence of Breonna's involvement with her accused drug dealer former boyfriend (two months before the raid) than only the information about her accepting parcels at her residence, for him.
  • The shots which killed Breonna were not fired through the door or window. 
  • The shot fired by Kenneth Walker, which wounded Sgt. Mattingly, was not fired through the door.
  • Breonna was in the hallway with Walker, when the shots inside were exchanged. She was not in her bed.
  • Kenneth Walker initially lied to police about who fired at police, immediately after the shooting, when he was in police custody. 
  • The police's claim they announced themselves is likely true. It does not mean anyone in the apartment understood they were police when they broke down the door.

These clarifications tend to exonerate the police officers, because they followed existing policy, and they had a legal warrant.

They show the wisdom of reforms limiting no-knock warrants, requiring body cameras, holding police accountable for firing shots promiscuously, and for more effective announcement of police presence. 

They show allowing "announce and knock" warrants, without stipulating meaningful time to allow residents to respond, just changes the name of no-knock raids. 


©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

CT: Son Shoots Man who Attacked his Father and Stepmother

However, the man followed the couple into the car park and began punching Rodriguez and grabbing his wife, reported ABC13.

When the 21-year-old son, who has not been named, walked out of the venue and saw what was happening to his father and stepmother, he grabbed his gun and shot and killed the man, said police.

More Here

Monday, September 28, 2020

Senate Races Critical to Restore Second Amendment: Arizona in Play


Screenshot of Senator McSally from cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten


With the Supreme Court and circuit courts on the line, the make up of the Senate has become critical to the restoration of Second Amendment rights in the 2020 election.

In Arizona, Senator Martha McSally is running against Gabby Giffords husband, Mark Kelly. Kelly is ahead of McSally in many polls.  The polls may not catch all voters, but they are worrisome. The left sees the McSally senate seat as vulnerable.      

Kelly was instrumental in  founding Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), a far left gun control organization, after his wife, representative Giffords, was severely disabled in a mass shooting by mentally disturbed, left-leaning gunman.  

It is difficult to have pushed more for more restrictions on gun ownership than Mark Kelly has. He has been the brains behind ARS, because his wife is disabled. 

The ARS merged with the former Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (LCPVG). The LCPVG has been in the forefront of pushing for the extreme restrictions on Second Amendment rights which now exist in California. 

Organizations focused against Second Amendment rights frequently change their names to better fool people about their intentions. 

The new organization is called the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Restrictions on Second Amendment rights are not popular in Arizona.  

The job of the old media has morphed into fooling enough of the people enough of the time to regain power. That translates into defeating Martha McSally and pushing Mark Kelly across the finish line in Arizona.

Ads by Kelly focus on his military service and time as an astronaut. They never mention his radical gun control efforts. He hides behind the familiar "I own lots of guns" tactic. Owing lots of guns and supporting lots of infringements on the Second Amendment only shows a person is a hypocrite. Kelly, believing himself ahead, has not been out on the campaign trail.

Many leftists who want to restrict and remove our rights own guns. They simply want the government to be able to restrict your rights and take your guns. They expect to be in the powerful elite. 

McSally was appointed to the Senate by Governor Ducey.  She has been characterized as being in favor of red flag laws. The truth is more subtle. She has been part of the movement to undercut draconian red flag laws by insisting they include due process of law, are narrowly focused, and includes the ability to be removed from the National Instant background Check System (NICS), as reported by the NRA. Insistence on those inclusions helped kill those bills. 

She has been roundly opposed by the anti-Second Amendment groups. She says she is fighting for freedom and against a radical left takeover. From

“Now, I’m standing on the wall to make sure the radical left does not take over our country and I am standing there to make sure that Chuck Schumer is not in charge in the Senate, and people want a fighter. We care about our freedoms in Arizona, so it is very much resonating.”

The gun control groups such as Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety and others are pouring in millions of dollars into Arizona. They think  blanketing the state with ads promoting Mark Kelly, while not mentioning his radical anti-Second Amendment record, can get him elected, and flip the state and Senate against the Second Amendment and Constitutional government.

There is no doubt Mark Kelly would support ideologues on the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Heller, and make the Second Amendment into a toothless legal footnote. 

It is hard to believe the Arizona I know would elect him.  I was unpleasantly surprised to have Kyrsten Sinema take a Senate seat in Arizona in 2018. In 2018, the power of the progressive media was triumphant.  They had help. Kyrsten Sinema is a strong campaigner.

McSally has become a strong supporter of President Trump.  She can be counted on to support his judicial nominees.

The judiciary has become the prize with which our freedoms can be won without war.  The judiciary was not supposed to be political, but a hundred years of progressive-ism have made it the center of the fight.

If we can keep the Senate, and re-elect Donald Trump, we can keep the Second Amendment and build on the Heller and McDonald decisions. 

Senator McSally has supported a  vote for President Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before the election.

Mark Kelly worked for years and raised millions of dollars to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

For Second Amendment supporters, it is an easy and important choice.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



AZ: Mesa Woman Shoots, Wounds Home Invasion Suspect

Authorities with the Mesa Police Department say a woman was at home alone when the man made his way inside. She was able to fire a weapon at the intruder, striking him.

More Here

Review: Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes (video)

On 22 September, 2020, a powerful video put out by #FightBack, was published on Youtube, with a mirror site on Bitchute.

This is a review of the 11 minute video. I give it 4.5 stars.  #FightBack is collecting funds for Kyle Rittenhouse's defense. From is a Texas 501(c)(4) not-for-profit organization established to promote social welfare through advocacy and just treatment of people and organizations with respect to their civil and constitutional rights.

Link to youtube video

In case the youtube video is taken down (social media is reported as saying Kyle is a "mass killer"), here is a  mirrored bitchute link .

The video is extremely well done. It uses phone video clips from the riots in Kenosha to show Kyle Rittenhouse's actions and place them in context at the time they occurred. There is a good clip of an interview with reporter Richard McGinnis. McGinnes is the witness who was closest to Kyle Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum, when Rosenbaum, a convicted child molester, attacked Rittenhouse and attempted to disarm him.

Many clips which have not seen much distribution are in the video, such that recorded by Gaige Grosskreutz, the last person who Kyle Rittenhouse shot, as Grosskreutz lunged at Rittenhouse with a semi-automatic pistol in his hand

Grosskreutz is pursuing Rittenhouse, live streaming on his phone. 

He asks Kyle: "Did you shoot someone?"

Rittenhouse says, while running, "I am going to the police." 

Only a few seconds later, Kyle trips and goes down. 

There are timely reminders of what was going on with the riots around the country before the Rittenhouse was attacked.

There is a plausible explanation of why the first person who attacked Kyle may have picked him as a victim.

The graphics are very well done. The voiceover is excellent. Information is presented, which has not been revealed before.

Who fired the first shot when Kyle is being chased? This video identifies the man with the handgun.

I especially like the split screen identification of the people who attacked Kyle. 

There is excellent video of Kyle attempting to surrender to police at the scene.

If you want to understand what happened in Kenosha that night, watch this video. 

The video does a good job of showing the charges against Kyle. 

No charges have been made against the people who attacked Kyle. 

See the video. It is one of the best synopsis of what happened. Don't expect a detailed legal analysis. 

Some of that has been done elsewhere. 

We will get more later, I am sure. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Sunday, September 27, 2020

PA: Domestic Defense, Man Assaults Woman, Demands her Gun, She Shoots Him

According to the Allegheny County police, the 911 caller, a 28-year-old woman, stated Broadus, her boyfriend was assaulting her when she shot him.

Police say she and Broadus were involved in a physical incident after he refused to leave her residence.

The woman was repeatedly assaulted and physically held against her will for approximately three hours. During the assault, he threatened to kill the her and began looking for her gun. She was able to retrieve the gun first and shot him as he came towards her.

More Here

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Laser Guns (Vehicle Mounted) are Here


 Image by Northrup Grumman, from, scaled and cropped by Dean Weingarten

In my 30+ year career in Army Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation, (RDT&E), there was some exposure and support of laser weapons. A principle concern with lasers is how the interact with the atmosphere. That is where my old outfit came in. 

Lasers have been used in weapons systems since shortly after their development, for ranging and sensing, and information technology. 

I am writing about weapons that burn, shoot down, and blow things up. 

My team supported a laser weapons test about 1975 as I recall. This correspondent was not an eye witness. Reliable scuttlebutt had it a helicopter was shot down with a laser, in a carefully controlled, proof of concept test.

We have been developing laser weapons for over 45 years. In the late 1980's with President Reagan's leadership, we were working on lasers to shoot down incoming Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). My colleagues at White Sands Missile Range  had a much greater direct involvement. I was peripherally involved. They did splendid work. They solved problems in very clever ways.

By 2010, the AirBorne Laser (ABL) system had been developed, tested, and was ready to be funded and fielded. It was shot down by the Obama administration, with lack of funds, in 2011. The ability to shoot down incoming ICBMs from tens or hundreds of miles away, at the edge of space, was impressive. 

 The requirement of 10 to 20 modified Boeing 747s, at $1.5bn apiece, and $100m investment a year had made the maintenance of the ABL YAL 1A not operationally viable, making the US Air Force to stop raising funds for the laser. The US Government has spent approximately $5.2bn on the ABL YAL 1A project till February 2011.

The defensive capability, against smaller numbers of ICBMs, launched say, from North Korea, China, or potentially Iran or non-state actors, was significant.  The Obama administration did not believe it was needed.


The ABL was a strategic weapon. 

There have been significant developments in tactical weapons.  It appears the development has been accelerated with President Trump.

In 2018, Artillery soldiers were already testing a Stryker mounted laser, designed to "zap drones out of the sky", in Germany. 


Image from task and, scaled and cropped by Dean Weingarten

That system used a 5kw laser.  The Army is going to field a Stryker mounted system with 10x power (50 kw!) in 2021. 50kw is expected to be powerful enough to shoot down incoming artillery rockets, such as SCUDs. 

A few years ago, the goal was a 100kw mobile laser. With what we have learned, it was decided to skip a generation, to go to a 300kw laser. A 300kw laser is believed capable of shooting down incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

A 300kw system, mounted on a much heavier vehicle, is expected to be demonstrated in 2022, fielded in 2024.

Image from, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

The Chinese are fielding laser weapons as well. They are claimed to be able to shoot down drones, as of 2018.

These are significant capabilities, but lasers are not a magic weapon. They cannot shoot over hills or cover enormous areas. They are precise direct fire weapons. They do not work well through smoke and dust.

They have the potential to solve a lot of air defense problems.

There is the potential to reduce a lot of logistical tail. Logistical tail is all the stuff you need to bring to the battlefield to make your presence effective. Tanks are not useful without fuel. Artillery is not useful without ammunition. Troops become useless without food.Lasers don't need to haul a lot of large cartridges around to be effective. 

Instead, you need power. Lasers take a lot of electrical power. If you can generate the power, you have a viable weapon. Much like tanks or aircraft, lasers need fuel. Run out of fuel, they do not work. Fuel is easier to transport, and more versatile than artillery ammunition.  It takes a much smaller weight of fuel for a laser shot than a round of artillery ammunition. Captured enemy fuel supplies tend to work universally. Not so much for captured artillery ammunition.

These attributes make lasers a natural match for naval shipboard defenses. Water is available for cooling, and power can come from ships engines, even nuclear generators. Lasers are being fielded on naval ships and as missile defenses on aircraft, as well.  A ground attack laser is being developed for the AC-130 gunship.

There is tremendous potential for lasers in space, because much of the limitation of lasers on earth has to do with atmospherics. 

The problems with lasers in space, is: how do you dump the waste heat from their operation? Vehicles dump waste heat into radiators, which dump the waste heat into the atmosphere or water.  In space the heat has to go into the vacuum.

In an article from 2017, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said over 43% of electricity in their tactical laser was converted into the laser beam.  43% is exceptionally good, but the lasers today are probably even better. 

In 2017, 60kw was considered state of the art. It is claimed we will have 300kw systems in 2022, to be fielded in 2024!

As we increase the energy density of batteries, and make lasers more efficient, they will eventually reach the man-portable raygun stage.

The Chinese have developed a man portable laser, for some operations. It is limited by the energy source.  It can start fires several hundred meters away.  It has some uses.

The main difficulty with man portable lasers is power. There is not enough portable energy per pound (energy density) in current batteries, to make them very practical.

We are not there yet. 

But tactical lasers, mounted on vehicles that can shoot down drones, mortars, and artillery shells, are already here.  We are very close to those which can shoot down hypersonic cruise missiles.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch





WA: Legally Armed man Stops Assault by Suspect Armed with Baseball Bat

The armed man had gone to a residence that was supposed to be secured but had the door kicked in. 

APD says when the armed man arrived another man came at him with a baseball bat. 

The armed man drew his weapon and backed off and at that point Aberdeen Police arrived on scene. 

Witnesses tell KXRO that the man with the bat escaped out the back of the residence.  

According to Aberdeen Police, they are looking for the suspect, who is known to them, for assault and burglary.

More Here

Friday, September 25, 2020

Ammunition Smuggling to Mexico, 13 Thousand rounds caught at Nogalas Border, again


wikimedia image of Morely Gate, Nogales, Arizona CC 4.0  Ian Pollet 18 April, 2019. Cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

 On 17 September, Mexican authorities said they were checking vehicles coming into Mexico when a car with Arizona plates tried to avoid the checkpoint. The car crashed into another vehicle. The authorities said they found 13,000 rounds of ammunition in the trunk. I do not recommend running from the Mexican authorities. Their rules of engagement are different. They will shoot, if they are able to do so.  From

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government says it has caught a U.S. citizen trying to smuggling 13,000 rounds of ammunition at a border crossing in Nogales, across the border from Nogales Arizona.

 This sort of smuggling activity is reasonably common. Here are a few instances from the U.S. side of the border:

 From May 2020

NOGALES, ARIZONA, US – CBP officers stopped a smuggling attempt of a shipment of 10,000 ammunition into Mexico.

The ammunition was seized by officers at the southbound inspection lanes into Mexico, according to the Department of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Roughly another 8,000 rounds of 7.62 x 39, from February, 2020,

EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) — Border officers stopped a shipment of ammunition from entering Mexico on Wednesday in El Paso, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a news release.

CBP officers conducting southbound inspections stopped a Honda Civic with two female occupants shortly after 3 p.m. Wednesday. Under a blanket in the rear seat, officers discovered 16 boxes of 7.62 mm cartridges. Each box contained 520 rounds of ammunition.

From February, 2019, smuggler released on own recognizance   in Nogalez.

Agents suspected Marco Antonio Peralta Vega, 35, was illegally exporting ammunition and tactical gear into Mexico. They already had tracked three shipments of body armor plates, which are restricted from being exported by federal law, to Peralta’s self-storage unit, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson.

By the time agents finished their investigation, Peralta was accused of smuggling 37,200 rounds of ammunition, 2,649 high-capacity rifle magazines, 120 body armor plates and three handguns into Mexico from March 2016 to December 2018, according to a Feb. 6 federal grand jury indictment.

Another article states that 282,000 rounds of ammunition were caught at the border of Arizona, being smuggled into Mexico, over a ten year period, ending in 2016.

10,000 rounds at a time may seem like a lot. It isn't.  These are all small time smugglers, lured by the relatively easy money of selling ammunition to willing buyers south of the border. The larger bulk quantities probably go to the cartels.
The cartels have much more reliable sources, consisting of the Mexican government itself, and worldwide sources from failed states and other governments.  Attempting to choke off their weapon supply with border controls is a losing game.
With billions of dollars to play with, the cartels could purchase their own manufacturing plants. The cartels have evolved into warlord type governments. If they offered better governance than the Mexican central authority, they would likely become states in their own right. 

Americans have a long history of smuggling guns and ammunition. Until the Progressive era, it wasn't even particularly illegal, except to those deemed enemies of the republic. Mexico was never very good at either arming their forces or maintaining the weaponry they had.  The fascinating essay on How not to arm a state says the major difference today is the cartels have lots of money and thus, access to weapons from numerous sources.
The difference: unlike the players and factions at work in Mexico’s nineteenth century, cartels have few barriers to engaging with the international arms trade wherever and however they wish. We hear a lot in the United States about narcotraficantes getting guns and ammunition from borderland gun stores and gun shows, often through straw purchases: individuals buying material in their name and then selling it to cartel agents. This is undoubtedly happening on a huge scale. It is a continuation of the bonanza of the Mexican Revolution, with hundreds or even thousands of petty Krakauers, Zorks, and Moyes hustling the tragedy across the border. The cartels cultivate these people and find them useful, but they don’t need them.Cartels get their guns from multiple sources.

The essay goes on to say that weapons and ammunition are cheaper in the overseas markets such as Somalia and easier to obtain, often, from the Mexican military and Honduras stockpiles.

A friend who was stationed in Yuma 30 years ago, recalls he thwarted a similar deal for 13,000 rounds headed South of the border. He noticed the sale at a gun store, was suspicious, followed the buyers, and watched them load the ammunition under a fabricated bed in the back of a van. 

He was "off duty" but called the port. They stopped the van. The smuggler was prosecuted.

The prosecutions are a minority of the smuggling which gets done. 

The common occurrence is the smuggler attempts to take a load through. They are successful. Success breeds arrogance, and they keep on trafficking until they are caught. 

Smaller quantities of ammunition are taken across the border by drone, flung by catapults or "water balloon" type sling shots. Massive quantities can be smuggled through four or six inch pipes which are horizontally drilled across the border into basements on the other side. 

The cartels are ultimately fueled by the money produced from the war on some drugs. It is hard to see that policy winding down anytime soon. 

Those who claim violence is fueled by weapons are ignorant of history. 

Violence is inherent in human nature. An  imbalance in weaponry invites aggression.  Secure governments, which enforce the rule of law, minimize violence.

The number of weapons in a society has little effect. Societies pre-gun were as or more violent as societies after guns were introduced. Guns, can, in fact "level the playing field" making society safer for the weak, elderly, and vulnerable.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

WA: 7-Year-Old Grandmother holds Intruder at Gunpoint for Police

“I reached over and got my shotgun. And I cocked it, and I told him to stay right there,” she said. “Told him to go sit on the steps. I followed him out, and I just stood here with the shotgun waiting for the police to come.”

It was Sandy’s first time using the shotgun, which she got years ago to protect her family as a single mother. She was initially “scared to death” while holding the intruder at gunpoint.

“But then I was totally calm, really and truly. I thought, ‘This is amazing!’ I said, ‘You know, I’ve got grandchildren your age!’”

More Here

Thursday, September 24, 2020

The terrifying police state Daniel Andrews wants to create: How innocent Victorians can be arrested and detained indefinitely without evidence – on the word of power-hungry public servants

The “Chairman Dan” name is well earned. Communist party bosses were usually named as chairmen

Innocent Victorians could be arrested in the street or at work and detained indefinitely by power-crazed officials under a new law Daniel Andrews wants to pass, top lawyers have warned.

The proposed new law, which will be debated in the Victorian parliament next month, would allow the government to give anyone it chooses – such as public servants – the power to enforce coronavirus restrictions and make arrests.

The unprecedented plan would also allow officials to detain people they suspect may spread coronavirus even if they have done nothing wrong.

Officials would also be able to follow up on tip-offs that Covid rules have been breached at a home or a workplace without needing the police to accompany them.

Eighteen esteemed former judges and lawyers have written an open letter warning that the law is ‘unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse’.

One of those lawyers, Ross Gillies QC, told Daily Mail Australia he fears power-hungry officials who enjoy exerting authority may abuse the powers given to them.

‘I don’t trust someone who is nominated by a public servant with the power to make arrests. I have real abiding concern that power is a very dangerous thing,’ he said.

‘Some people are excited by power and the ability to exert authority over someone else. There is the potential for enormous injustice.’

‘Someone might grab someone and say “I have reason to believe you are a Covid carrier or know someone who has Covid and I apprehend you”.

‘There would be no remedy in that situation. That may be the worst-case scenario but we know that can happen.’

Mr Gillies described the law, which has passed the lower house, as ‘draconian’ and urged the upper house to vote it down or amend it next month.

James Peters QC, who also signed the letter, expressed similar concerns. ‘Power is very intoxicating and only some people can exercise it carefully such as very well trained groups,’ he told Daily Mail Australia.

Asked if the new law could see innocent Victorians being arrested in the street, he said: ‘That’s right, that’s a very big risk.’

Mr Peters said normally when somebody is arrested they are brought before a bail justice but the proposed law does not say that would happen.

Asked if it allows officials to indefinitely detain people under state of emergency powers, he said: ‘It could be read that way, yes.’

He also said it was unclear what redress people who are wrongfully arrested would have. ‘We have a traditional understanding of police power and redress to the courts if you have concern about how powers are exercised,’ he said.

‘But how are you able to effectively test the belief upon which you were restrained? ‘You might not find out about it [why you were arrested] until you get to court.’

He flagged that there could be a legal challenge if the law passes, saying: ‘When excessive powers are legislated, there is often a legal challenge.’

Asked if all 18 signatories to the letter would launch legal action together, he said: ‘I can’t speak for everyone I can only speak for myself.’

The proposed law does not specify who will be authorised to make arrests.

‘We just don’t know, that’s one of the vices. They could be anybody,’ said Mr Peters.

‘It’s not enough to say the problem can be managed without specifying who could be given the powers.’

In a press briefing on Wednesday, Mr Andrews suggested the power to make arrests would be given to WorkSafe officials and health department workers.

At the moment police need to be present to make an arrest but Mr Andrews wants public servants to have that power on their own.

He said currently when a workplace is inspected to see if it is abiding by Covid-19 rules ‘there’s got to be someone from police, someone from WorkSafe, somebody from the Health Department, that doesn’t make any sense.

‘If we can essentially double or triple the resource available to you, it stands to reason that we’ll have more people doing the right thing. ‘

Mr Andrews said he wants to make sure supermarkets, abattoirs and other workplaces are adhering to strict rules including social distancing and limits on the number of workers on the premises at once.

Asked why he needs to give powers to detain people before they do anything wrong, he said: ‘They’re based on a reasonable belief principle and proportionality principle about the risk of spreading Covid.

‘There are some people who are not compliant, refuse to act in a responsible and safe way. Those powers would not be frequently used. They would be, I think, rare. But they are important.’

Those who could be arrested include positive patients or close contacts who officials suspect may refuse to self-isolate, such as protesters or people with mental health difficulties.

They could be taken to a hotel for mandatory quarantine for as long as the authorised officer believes is necessary.

Critics say Mr Andrews wants to create his own version of the Stasi, the East German secret police force which spied on citizens through a network of informants and arrested more than 250,000 people between 1950 and 1990.

The measures are outlined in the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2020, which will meet resistance when read in the upper house next month.

Liberty Victoria president Julian Burnside has raised concerns that government workers authorised to make arrests may not be able to accurately determine whether someone poses a risk of spreading Covid-19.

‘The bill introduces a preventative detention regime which appears to have little protections or oversight, and provides far too much discretion to people who may lack the necessary expertise to determine risk, including police officers,’ he said.

Victoria’s state of emergency and disaster powers, extended until October 11, give police the power to detain someone ‘for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health’.

Police officers can also search people’s homes without a warrant and restrict movement between locations such as between regional Victoria and Melbourne.

Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs told Daily Mail Australia the legislation was ‘extremely dangerous’ and would create the ‘Daniel Andrews Stasi’.

‘It will allow Dan Andrews to effectively appoint anyone he wants as an authorised officer, with extraordinarily broad discretion to enforce Victoria’s emergency powers,’ he said.

‘Union leaders could be appointed to unleash retribution on small business owners who speak out against lockdowns.

‘Labor Party officials could be appointed to intimidate political opponents. ‘I Stand With Dan’ types could be appointed to spy on their friends and neighbours.

‘Not since East Germany have we seen such a monstrous web of government surveillance. The Victorian Parliament must vote down this bill and say no to the Dan Andrews Stasi.’


Leftist State government suppports copper miner

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk yesterday scored a trifecta — a high-vis jacket, a hard hat and a marginal seat.

The setting was a copper refinery in southern Townsville, and the announcement was an undisclosed “one-off incentive” payment to global resources company Glencore.

The 2020 state election campaign is indeed ramping up.

The reason for handing over taxpayers’ money to a global company is to “secure the jobs of more than 1,000 people”, but the public is given no opportunity to scrutinise this.

In effect, we’re being asked to accept Glencore’s assertion it needs the money to continue its Australian copper operations and to accept the Government’s word it has secured the best deal possible.

But in the context of the looming election, the Government’s bargaining position doesn’t look strong, with hundreds of jobs at stake in some of the state’s most marginal seats.

Glencore has been threatening to shut down its Mount Isa copper smelter and Townsville copper refinery for the best part of a decade.

A planned closure in 2016 was staved off when the Queensland Government agreed to amend environmental-licensing conditions — a deal which ensured the smelter and refinery would stay open until at least 2022.

With that deadline approaching, Glencore this year announced its copper operations were again under review, with a final decision to be made just before the state election.

The Glencore refinery is smack bang in the middle of the electorate of Mundingburra, and a short drive to the nearby electorates of Townsville and Thuringowa.

All three seats are held by Labor by the smallest of margins, and given Labor only has a majority of two seats in Parliament, it’s impossible to underestimate the refinery’s political importance.

Government ‘leaving Queenslanders in the dark’
At a media conference on Tuesday, the Premier said the “investment” in the copper operations was “commercial in confidence”.

Ms Palaszczuk argued it was about “securing the jobs of more than 1,000 people in Mount Isa and Townsville for the next three years”.

Treasurer Cameron Dick would only go as far as revealing it was a “multi-million-dollar” deal.

“We enter into a number of arrangements with corporations and companies which support jobs, and we don’t make any apologies for that,” Mr Dick said.

Glencore Australia provided more detail in its public statement, describing the Government’s contribution as a “one-off incentive”.

“In addition to this incentive, Glencore will invest more than $500 million for the continued operation of the copper smelter and refinery,” the statement said.

“This incentive will partially mitigate the negative cost of continuing these assets which face high costs and struggle to compete internationally.”

Professor of economics at the University of Queensland John Quiggin said it was “pretty striking” this deal was announced as global copper prices had surged.

The business news service Bloomberg reported the global copper market could be “on the cusp of a historical supply squeeze as Chinese demand runs red hot”.

Professor Quiggin said the Mount Isa smelter had repeatedly been on the brink of closure since 2011.

“So, this decision isn’t really related to the pandemic or the global market,” he said.

Economist Fabrizio Carmignani from Griffith University said a subsidy from the Government made sense if the operation was facing some temporary difficulty.

“[However] from the statement of Glencore, it would look like their problems are structural — high fixed costs, unable to compete,” he said.

While he understood the need to protect jobs, Professor Carmignani said structural problems needed to be tackled by longer-term plans.


Brisbane Residents fear 30m tall Moreton Bay fig tree will be bulldozed to make way for a 15 storey unit tower

Brisbane people love their figtrees, which are native to the area. There is always a furore if a big one is threatened with being cut down. The developer should have been aware of that

Woody Point residents fear Traders in Purple are about to bulldoze a 120-year-old fig tree to make way for a 45m tall unit tower, which is yet to get the tick of approval from the courts.

The 30m tall tree sits on the site of the former Palace Hotel at Gayundah Esplanade Woody Point, north of Brisbane.

Traders in Purple hope to knock down the tree to make way for a 15 storey 158-unit tower and 13 two-bedroom townhouses.

The development was approved by Moreton Bay Regional Council late last year, despite residents’ objections.

Residents’ main concerns were loss of lifestyle, traffic and the fact the development is more than double the height recommended under the council’s planning scheme.

Group president Derek Catterall says they were still waiting on a decision to be handed down by the judge. Mr Catterall, who lives behind the proposed development, said the tree was part of the region’s history.

“WPAG had tried to get the tree listed as ‘significant’ with council, but was told by the Strategic Planning and Place Making Team Leader that this complicated process could take several years,” he said.

“We don’t have several years, as (Traders in Purple) has already been given the go ahead by council to build the Gold Coast-style high-rise towers,” he said.

“Apparently the development approval did not require the tree, which is an important food source for native birds, flying foxes and butterflies, to be retained.”

Mr Catterall said WPAG members had met with Division six Councillor Karl Winchester asking him to investigate options to either save or relocate the tree.

“It’s also ironic that a magnificent tree of this age, size, and historical significance is directly opposite the Woody Point Arboretum and yet is earmarked to be destroyed,” he said.

Mr Catterall said the magnificent tree could be seen from many residences and streets of the southern area of Woody Point including the foreshore at Crockatt Park, the Woody Point Jetty and Gayundah Lookout. “It’s so substantial it can even be seen above the skyline from the beaches at Clontarf,” he said.

Mr Catterall said an Eco Arboriculture Australia report found that this type of tree could live to 500 years of age and, with regular maintenance, could be retained for future generations and the local habitat.

The report also stated a vegetation protection order should be placed on the tree and heritage listed with the Council as it was a natural asset to the entire area.


Barrister With ‘Offensive’ Number Plate In Legal Battle Over Free Speech

A high profile barrister has found himself caught in a legal battle because of his ‘offensive’ private number plate which reads ‘LGOPNR’.

Peter Lavac, from Palm Beach in Sydney, has managed to successfully challenge the order from Transport NSW, but it still wants them to be banned.

If you hadn’t already worked it out, the letters ‘LGOPNR’ mean ‘leg opener’ (vom) and Mr Lavac claims that he was ‘taking to p***’ out of himself by attaching them to his yellow Lamborghini.

He claims that 99 out of 100 people wouldn’t know what the letters actually stand for, adding that it’s ‘tough s***’.

Transport NSW gave him 18 days to change the number plate and in a letter, they wrote: “Transport for NSW determined that these number plates could be considered offensive and must be returned.”

But Mr Lavac, a defence barrister and former Hong Kong crown prosecutor, was having none of it and told The Sunday Telegraph: “I resent anyone who’s trying to violate my freedom of speech and expression.

“They [the number plates] are meant to be humorous, tongue-in-cheek, funny and entertaining. That is how most people find them when it’s explained to them.


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

IL: Two Armed Home Invader Suspects Shot, Killed by Waukegan Resident

Waukegan police said someone inside of the home called 911 around 10 a.m. after they said two men, armed with a gun, tried to break into their house.

"They thought that the house was empty and they didn't think anyone was there," said the aunt of one of the home's residents.

The aunt, who only gave her first name Lorena, said her niece was home around 10 a.m. when two men came to the door disguised as gas company employees, or something similar.

More Here

MT: Domestic Defense, Resident Fatally Shoots Robert Kolter, who was Assaulting a Woman

BILLINGS - Police said Tuesday a man who was fatally shot at a Billings Heights residence was killed while assaulting a woman.

The fatal shooting happened shortly after 4 a.m. Monday at a residence in the 300 block of Nash Lane. Officers found 43-year-old Robert Aven Kolter from Roundup who had been shot. He died after being taken to the hospital.

More Here

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Notorious Supreme Court Justice has Died 19 September, 2020


Ruth Bader Ginsburg official photo public domain cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

edit (Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday, 18 September, 2020) It was widely reported on 19 September, 2020)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a turbulent and notorious career on the Supreme Court. She died after prolonged bouts with cancer and assorted associated ailments.

She spent over 27 years of her life on the Supreme Court, and was influential in many hotly contested decisions which overturned long precedent or created new rights for special interest groups never mentioned in the Constitution.  She was a fierce opponent of any sort of significant meaning in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. 

It is widely believed she did not retire during the Obama regime because she thought Hillary Clinton was certain to win the 2016 elections. She was such a partisan advocate, she wished to have her replacement appointed by a woman. She lost that bet. 

It appears she will have a replacement appointed by President Trump. 

President Trump has kept his word about appointing judges who are originalists and textualists. He has appointed judges who believe the words of the Constitution mean things, and those meanings may not be changed, unless through the process of Constitutional amendments.

Most judges on the court since the reign of Franklin Roosevelt have been philosophical progressives. They have promoted the idea of the Constitution as a "living document", which means the Constitution can be changed by justices on the Supreme Court as they feel it should be changed. 

That philosophy means the Constitution has no fixed meaning, but changes with the change of justices and their ideas, on the court.  It is an attractive option for Supreme Court justices. It gives them immense power, privilege, and status. It takes no courage to do this. 

Promoting one's own power and privilege to the uproarious applause of ones peers and the media is the easiest thing to do in the world.

It takes no courage to do this. 

RGB famously said, advising Egyptians on the writing of a constitution in 2012:

"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - ...

By any measure of the ability of a Constitution to limit the power of a government, the South African constitution and recent others have been utter failures, compared to the Constitution of the United States.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived a long and privileged life, one very few people can attain. She reached the pinnacle of power and privilege, in large part, because she was born female in the United States.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a talented advocate. But advocates should not be justices on the Supreme Court, or any Court, unless they are advocates for the rule of law, and justice which is blind.

While Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived, I asked people to pray for her.  Now that she is dead, prayers are no longer needed. 

It will be interesting to see if Leftist pundits attack Ruth Bader Ginsburg for having the temerity to die when a replacement can be appointed by President Trump. 

Do not celebrate the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Pray for President Trump. May President Trump receive wisdom and strength to make the correct decisions when he appoints a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Unlike Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump will need courage to make his decisions.  He will face unrelenting attacks by the media and other Progressive leftists. Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced unrelenting praise and honors.

President Trump needs the willpower and resolution to appoint another strong justice to the Supreme Court, one who will do their job to uphold the Constitution as written, rather than advocate for a particular group. He needs to appoint a justice who will have the fortitude and courage to stand up to the advocate groups in the Media.

President Trump has been successful in his court appointees so far.  They have been one of the great successes in his first term, which has been hobbled, demeaned and attacked with all the power and deceit available in the media and from Progressives in both parties. 

President Trump has a historic chance to break out of the morally bankrupt, ever expanding thrust for power by the Progressive elite.  He has a chance to return to a Republic of, by, and for the people, limited in its power by the bonds of the Constitution. 

A justice who is not an advocate for the far left identity groups, will be an excellent run-up to a second term in a Donald Trump presidency.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

CA: Two Alleged Gang Members Shot by Homeowner, 1 Killed

PICO RIVERA, Calif. (KABC) -- Two gang members suspected of burglarizing a home in Pico Rivera early Friday morning were shot by the homeowner, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

More Here

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Breonna Taylor Settlement: What it means for No-knock Warrants


image from U.S. Army Material Command John B. Snyder, Watervliet Arsenal, N.Y.   CC 2.0  12 January, 2012.

In Louisville, Kentucky, the City has reached a settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit rising from the no-knock raid on Breonna Taylor's apartment. Breonna's boyfriend thought the raid was a home invasion.  An exchange of gunfire through the door resulted in Breonna being killed on 13 March of this year. 

(edit) the shots which killed Breonna were fired inside the apartment. Only one shot was fired by Breonna's boyfriend. Several shots were fired from outside the apartment to inside, but did not hit anyone)

The City will pay 12 million dollars and require reforms of police procedure. 

Promiscuous use of no-knock warrants is incompatible with a legally armed society and the Second Amendment.

Louisville has  mandated the use of body cameras in police raids, in response to Breonna's death. 

8.1.18 ENTRY PROCEDURES All members of the search team will wear body armor and will be equipped with a Wearable Video System (WVS). Pursuant to Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances (LMCO) 39.069, no later than five (5) minutes prior to all search warrant executions, members will activate their WVS in recording mode and will not deactivate their WVS any sooner than five (5) minutes following the completion of the execution of the warrant (i.e. once all occupants are secured and the scene has been declared safe).

More search warrant reforms were required of the Louisville police.  From the News Release from

Search Warrant Reforms

  • LMPD has amended its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 8.1 on search warrants to require a commanding officer to review and approve all search warrants, affidavits in support of search warrants, and risk matrixes before an officer seeks judicial approval for a search warrant. SOP 8.1 has been updated concerning the simultaneous execution of search warrants at multiple locations. The commanding officer of the unit initiating the warrants will act as the overall Incident Commander with a separate on-scene Commanding Officer at each warrant location who will serve as the Deputy Incident Commander for that location. SOP 8.1 has been updated to require the presence of EMS units and/or paramedics for forced entry search warrants.

The settlement includes reforms on involving the police in local communities and to insure greater accountability for forfeiture of currency, drug testing, and accountability for misconduct by police officers. 

Section 8.1 of Louisville police procedures has been revised twice in recent months. It requires copies of warrants be provided at the beginning of a warrant service, and inventories of items seized left at the end of the search. Damages which occurred to property during service are to be photographed and documented. These have been common practices for a long period of time, and may already have been in effect in Louisville. Section 8.1 contains a requirement for at least one uniformed officer and one marked car at warrant service.

The  12 million dollar payment in the Louisville settlement should make cities and police departments across the country pay attention to no-knock warrants and the potential for bad outcomes. 

The family of the Houston couple who were killed in a no knock raid last year, where police lied to obtain the warrant, and where several police face felony charges, have not reached a settlement yet. Both cases have received national attention. 

Mayors, city council members, and police chiefs are not personally accountable for the funds. Taxpayers will pick up the tab.

Senator Rand Paul has proposed a federal ban on no-knock raids. From

This Act may be cited as the “Justice for Breonna Taylor Act”.

SEC. 2. Prohibition on no-knock warrants.

(b) State and local law enforcement agencies.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year thereafter, a State or local law enforcement agency that receive funds from the Department of Justice during the fiscal year may not execute a warrant that does not require the law enforcement officer serving the warrant to provide notice of his or her authority and purpose before forcibly entering a premises.

It is the bare skeleton of a law. It is not serious legislation. Some form of no-knock warrant has been in effect since the nation's founding. There needs, at minimum, to be definitions of what "provide notice" means in this context. There needs to be exceptions for the rare circumstances when a no-knock raid is reasonably justified. No-knock raids need to be rare, as they used to be, not completely banned.

For his championship of eliminating no-knock raids, Senator Paul was vilified and threatened by an angry mob as he and a few others walked from the White House to their hotel. From

As Paul explained, “They were shouting threats to us, to kill us, to hurt us, but also threats saying shout, shouting ‘say her name,’ Breonna Taylor, and it’s like you couldn’t reason with this mob, but I’m actually the author of the Breonna Taylor law to end no-knock raids, so the irony is lost on these idiots that they’re trying to kill the person who’s actually trying to get rid of no-knock raids.”

Paul added, “I truly believe this with every fiber of my being, had they gotten at us they would have gotten us to the ground, we might not have been killed, might just have been injured by being kicked in the head, or kicked in the stomach until we were senseless.”

The riots and destruction of property across the nation are the exact opposite of a return to the rule of law which Ron Paul champions.

The widespread use of digital recording devices will accelerate the risk of no-knock raids for cities and police administrators. Police agencies have lost much of the ability to cover up and paper over problems and corruption.

The reforms forced on Louisville and Houston police departments set examples for pro-active departments. Departments which do not reform will face greater scrutiny if and when no-knock warrants are involved in future tragedies. No-knock warrants may start to go out of style, as they came into style. 

The current Antifa/BLM mob tactics to de-legitimize and defund the police have the opposite effect. The more police are de-legitimized, the less likely they are to adopt no-knock reforms.

Senator Rand Paul was credibly threatened, even though he has been the foremost champion of no-knock raid reform legislation in Congress. 

If the mob had a clue, they would have praised Paul for his strong support of the very law they want passed. However, the throng of imbeciles who tried to do harm to Paul have little knowledge about such things. They are, in general, all about sowing chaos and division—not solutions and unity.

No-knock warrants are likely to be reduced and restricted. They will not be completely outlawed. Reforms which mandate strict requirements for the issuance of no knock warrants are the most likely outcome, on a city by city basis.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




TX: Armed Man Shoots Carjack Suspect at Valero Gas Station

That's when the driver of the Ford F-150 attempted to carjack the silver SUV with the woman inside, investigators say.

According to police, the suspect jumped into the driver's seat and tried to take off.

That's when the man pumping gas pulled out his gun and fired several shots at the suspect.

More Here

Dissent Excoriates Ninth Circuit Refusal of en banc Rehearing of Second Amendment Case


The recent Ninth Circuit Second Amendment case, Mai v. United States,  shows the powerful influence President Trump has had on the largest Circuit Court in the United States.

The case started in Washington State. The plaintiff, Duy T. Mai, was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for depression and suicidal impulses when he was 17 years old. A few months later, he was released, and went on to become a well adjusted, productive member of society. At age 37, he wished to exercise his Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. He was unable to do so because of the involuntary commitment when he was 17. He applied to the State of Washington for relief from the disability, which was granted. 

United States federal firearms law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), forbid Mai from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Mai sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his Second Amendment rights were being illegally deprived.

The District Court in Washington State found that Mai did not have a case. Mai appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On 11 March, 2020, in a unanimous decision from the three judge panel, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision. 

Mai asked for an en banc review of his case. En banc reviews of Second Amendment cases seem to be routine for the Ninth Circuit, when the cases favor protecting Second Amendment rights. 

This case, which had already ruled against Second Amendment protections, was, unsurprisingly, not granted an en banc review. 

The surprising and positive event was eight judges dissented from the majority, and believed an en banc review was called for. They dissented so strongly, they wrote and/or signed onto an extremely well argued, 29 page dissent.

The dissent is a powerful defense of the exercise of Second Amendment rights, and of Constitutional limitation of government power.  Eight judges are nearly a third of the judges on the Ninth Circuit. Seven of those eight judges were appointed by President Donald Trump. Here is an excerpt from the dissent.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges VanDyke, and with whom judges Ikuta, Bade, and Hunsaker join as to Part IV, and with whom Judges Bennett, Collins, and Bress join as to Part IV.B, stated that the panel’s opinion justified the disturbing deprivation of a fundamental right by ignoring the history and tradition of the Second Amendment and applying ill-suited, foreign statistical studies that had no bearing on plaintiff’s circumstances. The proper inquiry would have recognized that the lifetime ban imposed by § 922(g)(4) on plaintiff is unequivocally a complete deprivation of his core right to home gun ownership, and therefore that the law was unconstitutional. Judge Bumatay stated that the panel incorrectly identified intermediate scrutiny as the proper standard of review and then flubbed its application. By failing to correct these errors, the Court undermined its Second Amendment jurisprudence and gave an unworthy judicial imprimatur to the false premise that once mentally ill, always mentally ill. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge VanDyke, joined by Judge Bumatay, stated that he agreed with Judge Bumatay’s dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc and wrote separately because he believes that the panel should have reconsidered the panel’s circular logic about who lies at the core of the Second Amendment. Judge VanDyke stated that the panel’s bootstrapping, class-based approach to defining those at the “core” of the Second Amendment was unjust and antithetical to controlling case law. Judge VanDyke also stated that the court’s intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence is broken, at least as to Second Amendment claims.

All but one of the judges who actively dissented, in order to protect and defend Second Amendment rights at the Ninth Circuit, were appointed by President Donald Trump. The other judge was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Judge       Appointed by

Bade         Trump appointee

Bumatay   Trump appointee

Bennet      Trump appointee

Bress        Trump appointee

Collin       Trump appointee

Hunsaker Trump appointee

Ikuta        G. W.  Bush appointee

VanDyke   Trump appointee

We do not know how the other three judges appointed by Donald Trump voted. We only know they did not sign on to the dissent. Judge Lee has shown excellent support for the Second Amendment in Duncan v. Beccera.  How Judges Eric Miller and Ryan D. Nelson voted, or if they were recused, is unknown.  Only active judges on the court vote on en banc decisions.  There are 29 active judges on the Ninth Circuit. Some judges are recused from voting on some cases.

The votes from the court on whether to rehear a case en banc are not made available to the public. It seems likely this vote was a close one.

If President Donald Trump is re-elected, the chances a good he could appoint another 10 judges to the Ninth Circuit, not to mention the other circuits and the Supreme Court. 

Ten more Trump appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit would almost certainly flip the circuit on Second Amendment cases, given the polar opposites of belief on how the Amendment should be treated, by Trump appointees and those appointed to the court from earlier times.

The dissent on the en banc review in Mai v. United States is an important look into how President Trump might change the Ninth Circuit in a second term.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Monday, September 21, 2020

OK: Armeede Employee Shoots Armed Robbery Suspect


An armed employee shot a suspect Wednesday afternoon during an attempted robbery at a Norman pharmacy, police said.

Shortly after 4:20 p.m., police responded to a report of a shooting at Sooner Pharmacy in the 1800 block of West Lindsey Street. When officers arrived, they found a man with a gunshot wound inside the business.

More Here

WA: Man shoots Suspect After Being Attacked with Baton and Brass Knuckles

A 24-year-old Gig Harbor man shot someone suspected of stealing from a construction site after the suspect attacked him with a baton and brass knuckles, according to the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department.

Read more here:

More Here

Sunday, September 20, 2020

President Trump: If I Wasn't Here You Would not Have a Second Amendment Right Now


 On 9 September, 2020 in an interview on the Shawn Hannity show on Fox, President Trump made a bold assertion. He said if he were not in office, the Second Amendment would have become essentially meaningless, because of the different judges who would have been appointed. From the transcript:

And also, Supreme Court judges or justices.

And you -- the whole country, it depends on these decisions, which way you go, whether you have a Second Amendment or not. I mean, the Second Amendment would be under siege.

If I wasn't here, you wouldn't have a Second Amendment right now. You wouldn't have a right to guns. You would -- whether you had it or it was just almost totally obliterated, but it would be in a very different form than you have right now.

I've kept it totally as it was, and it's, you know, something I'm very proud of, and people -- I think it's a real voting issue, Second Amendment.

Life, you look at that. So these judges are going to be making massive decisions. And the next president is going to get one, two, three, or four justices of the Supreme Court.

The President is correct in his statement. If Hillary would have become President, the Second Amendment in the bill of rights would have been interpreted out of any significance. We already have several circuit courts who are working hard to interpret the Second Amendment as of little consequence. If  a President Hillary would have appointed replacements for Justice Scalia and Kennedy, the ten Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court has refused to hear, would have been granted writs of certiorari at the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters would not have liked the results. 

Very likely, the Supreme Court would have confirmed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home; that bans on semi-automatic rifles are permissible; that ammunition bans are permissible; that bans on magazines are permissible; that not all commonly available handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, or, they may be covered by the Second Amendment, but the state can still regulate them out of existence.

The ban on butterfly knives in a Hawaii District Court, or the ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, are templates for that "interpretation" of a toothless Second Amendment. 

President Trump has appointed over 200 judges to the lower federal courts. Without Trump appointees, it is likely the three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit would have held the California magazine ban to be constitutional.

President Trump has appointed ten judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges. 

President Trump is correct in saying that next to war and peace, the appointment of federal judges is the most consequential act a president can perform. President Trump has been appointing judges who respect the Constitution as written.

President Trump has done better in this regard than any other president since Calvin Coolidge. It is one of the reasons the Left in this country fear him so much. The judges he is appointing are showing a willingness to reverse decades of unconstitutional decisions by Progressive judges who have worked hard to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



AZ: Security Guard Shoots man who had a Knife

There, an armed security guard shot 37-year-old Shawn King, who was armed with a knife, Justus said. Police did not explain the events leading up to the shooting or say where the security guard was working.

More Here

KY: Man who was Unlawfully in Residence was Shot, Police are Investigating

PIKEVILLE, Ky. (WTVQ) The Kentucky State Police Pikeville Post is investigating a case from the weekend where a ma suspected of being a intruder was shot.

KSP troopers and a detective responded to a residence on Road Creek and discovered a man had been shot. The initial investigation indicates 32-year-old Charles Branham was unlawfully inside the residence of Billy Hamilton, the KSP said.

More Here

AZ: Yuma Homeowner Shoots Man who was Attempting Entry

The Yuma Police Department (YPD) says officers got called to a home on West 22nd street around 9:30 Tuesday night. They say the homeowner shot a man who was trying to get into his house.

Police say the man shot had gone to the house to find someone, and tried to open the front door. They say that's when the resident opened fire.

More Here

Saturday, September 19, 2020

TX: Armed Homeowner Shoots, Wounds Home Invader

Flower Mound police responded to a shooting call at approximately 2:22 p.m. Sunday in the 5400 block of Briar Lane.

During the 911 call, the homeowner stated he had shot at an unknown male and female, who had allegedly broken into his house through the back door. After the gunshot, both individuals fled the location in a vehicle.

Upon arrival, police were able to locate the vehicle a short distance away, where it was determined the male suspect had been shot one time in the chest.

The 29-year-old male suspect was transported to Medical Center Denton where he was immediately taken into surgery. He has since been moved into ICU and is in critical condition.

More Here