Thursday, May 13, 2021

Cheap Gun Opportunity in Canton, Ohio, 15 May, 2021

 

Picture of Phoenix gun turnin in 2015 by Dean Weingarten

There will be a gun turn in event on Saturday, 15 May, 2021 in Canton, Ohio. While these events are commonly labelled with the propaganda term "buyback" the guns were never owned by the people attempting to buy them. From cantonrep.com:

The initiative includes:

  • Community Gun Buyback from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. May 15 at the Canton Civic Center, 1101 Market Ave. N. It features $100 gift cards; no questions asked; no ID requirements.

 

 Image from googlemaps, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

The gift cards are said to be for Walmart. There are  few working firearms  which are worth less than $100. The group hopes to collect 200, which would indicate about $20,000 available. The structure of the event has been designed to make private purchases of the guns being brought in difficult.  From an earlier story:

"This was CPD's idea," Stone said, "And I said, 'Hey, how can we help?"

If you participate, here's what to expect:

  • All guns must be operable for the gift cards.
  • All guns must be unloaded and transported in the trunk of the vehicle.
  • Stay in your vehicle. Don't get out.
  • All guns will be removed by a volunteer who will exchange the firearm for a gift card.

I was at a similar event in Phoenix, Arizona. It turned into a rolling gun show

 The gift cards tend to run out quickly. People who bring guns to the event after the gift cards run out are usually willing to deal with a cash offer.  This correspondent obtained some nice, if inexpensive guns, when this occurred in Phoenix.

Some Police are hostile to private buyers, others are indifferent or positive. It is a good idea to do some research before setting up a table and holding up a sign saying with "Cash for Guns" sign.

Private sales are legal in Ohio.

You can help make the turn-in in your area more effective by standing on the curb with your "Cash for Guns" sign, or at a folding table, willing to offer more than the gift card for firearms that are more valuable. It would be best if numerous private parties were available, as more good guns could then be transferred into responsible hands.

This action serves many useful purposes. It stretches the turn-in budget so that more guns can be taken off the street. It helps keep fearful widows from being defrauded of most of the market value of the gun they are turning in. It prevents valuable assets from being destroyed by bureaucratic inflexibility. It is a win-win-win situation.

Open carry is legal in Ohio. No permit is necessary. 

The author and AmmoLand do not offer legal advise. Research laws yourself, so you know what your rights are.

Here is a link to a previous article about a gun turn in event in Cleveland and how private purchasers handled the situation there. 


©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

TX: Off Duty Officer draws Handgun to Keep Tiger at Bay

Video of the incident was uploaded to Twitter by Michael Schwab. It appears to have been filmed from inside a house by a woman who is nervously watching as the tiger sits on a neighbor’s yard. The tiger suddenly gets up and starts walking towards the deputy. 

The deputy then pulls out a gun as the tiger approaches him and comes within a few feet. Fortunately, in the footage, the man was not attacked.


More Here

NJ: Off-Duty Officer Shoots Armed Robbery Suspect in Barber Shop


Philip Hedgespeth picked the wrong barbershop to rob when the man in the chair turned out to be an off-duty Newark police officer who shot him in the face.

Now the ex-con is headed back behind bars -- only this time it's for a federal stretch of more than nine years.

More Here

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

TX: Woman Shoots, Kills Ex who Attacked Her

Deputies said the 29-year-old woman called saying the man was at the home picking up his belongings when he got aggressive with her. She said he started head butting and choking her.

She managed to get away from the 29-year-old man and grabbed a handgun that was inside the home. That's when she shot and killed him, according to deputies.

More Here

TX: Woman Shot in Home Case goes to Grand Jury

“After a brief struggle, a shot was fired by the male resident and the victim was pronounced deceased at the scene,” stated HPD.

The woman’s identity has not been released. Police said she is in her early 20s.

“After consultation with the Harris County District Attorney's Office, it was determined the facts of the incident will be presented to a grand jury.”

More Here

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

AZ: Open Carrier and Concealed Carrier meet in Walmart Dispute over Cart

Weingarten open carry image taken by friend picked up from hospital. Courtesy Dean Weingarten.


On Sunday, 2 May, 2021, about 12:30 p.m. this correspondent was in a Walmart in Yuma, Arizona. 

It was a mission of mercy. 

After church, a visit to a friend in the hospital was in order. I had delivered him to the emergency room three days before. The friend desired another key for his residence, so more people could help to care for his dogs and do other needful things. 

At the Walmart, I stopped at the firearms and ammunition section to take pictures of the lack of product available. I had a cart with some canned goods and a loaf of bread, which had been picked up on the way to obtain a duplicate key. 

I took the pictures and turned to retrieve the cart. 

Walmart only had 17 100rd boxes of 12 gauge target loads. Image courtesy Dean Weingarten

 

The cart was gone. Another cart was near by, but it was not mine.

I said: "Where did my cart go? It had a loaf of bread in it."

Another customer pointed down an aisle to the left. 

"There is a cart with bread in it", he said.

25 yards away, walking away from us, was an above average sized middle aged man, with a cart with a loaf of bread in it. 

I speed walked up to the man, looked at the cart as I approached, and ascertained it contained the items I had selected. 

I was openly carrying a Glock 17 in a Fobus retention holster. 

I touched the man on the upper arm, from his left rear, and said: 

"Excuse me. I think you have the wrong cart by mistake."

The gentleman looked at me with a puzzled look. He looked at the contents of the cart. He looked back at me and said:

"I think you are right. I was just at the ammunition counter..."

He looked at his wife, approaching from behind us.

He said: "I think I grabbed the wrong cart. Sorry about that. I was just checking out what ammunition was available."

He noticed the Glock on my hip.

He looked at me and said: "I am old school" and carefully and deliberately swept back his shirt to reveal a well worn 1911A1 holstered at his right side waist.

We discussed the state of ammunition.  I gave him one of my cards. We strolled back to the ammunition counter, where he took possession of the cart I had seen there.

Other than the mistake with the cart, it was a typical meeting of the minds in the gun culture.

On a previous trip to Fry's a few days before, an older gentleman approached me as I left the store. The local requirement for wearing a mask has been removed. I had the same Glock and holster on my hip.

"I'd like to know", he asked; "Did they make you wear a mask while you were armed?" We both had a good laugh.  

Most armed Americans, with considerable reason to believe it is so, assume other members of the gun culture are sane people, above average in personal responsibility, who believe in and practice individual rights and responsibilities. They return the respect they are given. 

Instead of shoot-outs, you experience friendly acceptance.

There were no signs on the Walmart doors. No one mentioned the holstered sidearm on my hip. The number of people wearing masks was decreasing. 

Neither my new acquaintance nor I were wearing masks.

The phone announced a call. The friend in the hospital reported the hospital would be releasing him in an hour.  

The possibility of release had been uncertain. 

I obtained the duplicate key and returned to the hospital, to pick him up and take him to his house.

For the first time in years, the prognosis seemed reasonably clear, and significantly positive. 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 



CA: Woman Fired Gunshot at Walmart to Protect Husband from Knife Attack (no Charges)

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Madera Police investigators say surveillance video taken outside the Walmart on Cleveland Avenue is helping them make sense of the moments that led to a woman firing a gun for protection.

"In this case, the surveillance video really helps tell the story," says Madera Police Commander Gino Chiaramonte.


More Here

OH: Pizza Shop Owner Wounds Man who Beat, Threatened him

Kim told police he had Travis Simpson walk outside the restaurant to continue the conversation and that’s when Simpson allegedly hit him several times on the head and scratched the pizza owner’s eyes. Kim told police Simpson threatened to come back with another man to beat him again.

Kim said he then went back inside the restaurant and closed up, before leaving for the evening.

When he went outside to his car, Kim said Simpson approached him with what he says was a baseball bat.

Kim told police he then pulled out his gun and tried to shoot towards the ground, but ended up hitting Simpson in the leg.


More Here

Monday, May 10, 2021

Texas Constitutional Carry Committee Recommends Passage to the Texas Senate

 Link to video (over 10 hours)

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick's efforts resulted in the creation of the Senate Special Committee on Constitutional Issues. The committee hearing started at 9 a.m on 29 April, 2021.

Lt. Governor Patrick and other Republicans were and are receiving intense pressure to pass Constitutional Carry. It was listed as one of the top eight priorities in the Texas Republican Party Platform, and by Republican Chairman Allan West.

While Lt.Governor Dan Patrick worked to set up the special committee, he was in negotiations with various Texas law enforcement agencies and associations to see if they could find a way to support Constitutional Carry. Some amendments were offered to gain support of law enforcement.

Two amendments which were mentioned were these:

An amendment which creates a mandatory five year sentence for felons in possession of a firearm.

An amendment which would allow law enforcement to ask prosecutors in adjoining counties to prosecute when prosecution by a local prosecutor was refused.

While Lt. Governor Patrick was working the Senate, Governor Abbot committed to signing HB1927 if it came to his desk. The Commitment of both Lt Governor Patrick and Governor Abbott to Constitutional Carry had been questioned. Both have committed to passage of the bill, possibly with amendments favored by law enforcement.

The committee hearing was live streamed.

Tara Mica of the NRA was the first invited speaker, and did an excellent job.

While this correspondent did not watch the entire 10 hours of the hearing, in the opinion of this correspondent, the star of the committee hearing was Rachel Malone of Gun Owners of America.

Rachel is the Texas representative of Gun Owners of America. Rachel fielded the questions put forward by the committee members with competence, eloquence, and flair. Rachel has been working to pass Constitutional Carry in Texas for several years.

Ray Hunt of Houston Police Union moved to a "cautious neutral", because of a possible amendment to create a five year mandatory prison sentence for a felon in possession of a firearm. Hunt said the bill will not change metal detectors at capitol, where an License To Carry (LTC)  will still be required. University carry will still require an LTC.  Officer Hunt stated  when police see the LTC, we feel safe. Officer Hunt seemed to state police wanted to be able to stop handgun carriers, just because they were carrying a handgun, without reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The police wish to be able to go to other adjacent counties to prosecute, when the county district attorney refuses to prosecute. Officer Hunt said the police had difficulty with the Harris County prosecutor refusing to prosecute felon in possession cases.

Senator Hinojosa told Officer Hunt he would only be able to obtain the amendments if the bill went to the floor of the Senate. He implied, if Hunt wanted to kill the bill, the committee was the place to do it.

Sheriff Brian Hawthorne of the Sheriffs Association also came out in a cautious neutral position on the Bill. He said a large majority of sheriffs were in favor of the bill, but his association was only willing to occupy a neutral position because of concerns of some of the members. He could not take a position on hypothetical amendments until they were put forward to all the members of the association.

Sheriff Hawthorn said the Association was neutral on the bill, leaning toward it with small changes. He said most guns are stolen from cars, if people can keep their gun with them, the numbers stolen will be lowered. He particularly wanted lock boxes to be available at court houses, to help keep people from leaving their guns in their cars.

Sheriff Hawthorn said numbers of sheriffs in favor of the bill are high.

The committee was run extremely well run. It was done politely. Everyone who wished to speak had a chance to do so. One person testifying said she knew the bill would pass the subcommittee, this was just a formality, but she wanted to be on record opposing the bill. This correspondent noted roughly equal numbers supporting and opposing the bill.

The last testimony occurred about 7 p.m. Over 10 hours of testimony was given, with over 180 people testifying.

No amendments to the bill were passed in the committee. Any and all amendments may be considered on the floor of the Senate.

The bill came to a vote very shortly after the long hours of testimony. Five of seven senators voted to recommend passage of the bill and move it to the floor of the Senate. Those five senators were:

Charles Schwertner, R, District 5

Brian Birdwell, R, District 22

Dawn Bukinghan, R, District 24

Brandon Creighton, R, District 4

Bob Hall, R, District 2,

The two senators voting against the bill were:

Juan Hinojoso, D, District 20

Eddie Lucio, D, District 27

The creation of the Special Committee on Constitutional Issues was key in moving this bill to the floor of the Texas Senate.  It may be the key to the passage of Constitutional Carry in Texas. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick deserves credit for this.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

Update. An amended version of the bill has passed in the Senate.  At minimum it has to be passed in the House, again, before it can be signed by Governor Abbott. 

If this happens, Lt. Governor Patrick and Governor Abbott will both deserve credit for listening to their base and supporting the bill.




MO: Domino's Employee Shot Armed Man

According to police, the initial incident began when Davis entered the business and began causing a disturbance with the employees. Police say Davis had a gun during the altercation. Investigators say evidence shows a Domino’s employee fired multiple shots at Davis. Davis was struck and collapsed in the parking lot.


More Here

Followup VA: Domesticd Defense ruled Justified Homicide of Scott Dockery, Meth involved

According to a motion filed in the Circuit Court of Scott County on Wednesday, a special prosecutor asked the court to rule the case of Tamara Wolford’s homicide as nolle prosequi, meaning it would not be prosecuted.

Wolford was previously charged with second-degree murder after a shooting occurred at a suspected home invasion in Scott County in June 2020.

The motion states that the man killed, Jared Dockery, had been previously court ordered to not have any contact with Wolford.


More Here

MT: Domestic Defense, Teen Shoots Man in Leg

St John said the incident began at a nearby restaurant as a disturbance involving a man and a woman. The woman retreated to the house on Avenue B where the man followed her. The man then punched through the glass window of the screen door.

St. John said after the man punched the window, the teen confronted the man outside and shot several rounds from a handgun into the ground.

The man then retreated to his car but came back a second time, and the teen once again shot several rounds toward the ground, hitting the man in the leg.

More Here

Sunday, May 09, 2021

Louisiana Governor Threatens Veto, Senate Passes Constitutional Carry

 Louisiana State Capitol, from wikimedia CC 2.5, 18 Oct, 2006, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

Governor John Bel Edwards, Democrat, has said he will veto any Constitutional carry bill that arrives on his desk. From apnews.com:

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Gov. John Bel Edwards indicated Thursday that he will use his veto pen to strike down a bill that would remove the requirement that gun owners have a permit to carry concealed firearms, if the proposal reaches his desk.

On 27 April, 2021, the Louisiana Senate defied Governor Edwards and passed SB118, one of the Constitutional Carry bills by a veto proof margin of 27 for and 11 against. The House has more than one version of Constitutional Carry in play. 

HB596 has advanced the furthest in the House, passing the Committee on Criminal Administration and Justice, amended, 8-4, with one member not voting.  The amended bill would limit Constitutional Carry to Louisiana residents over the age of 21, and forbid the use of controlled dangerous substances or a blood alcohol level of .05 or greater while carrying a weapon.  

Persons carrying concealed weapons would be required to notify police officers who approach them, and submit to a pat down. 

Representative  Danny McCormick, R-Oil City has sponsored HB16. HB16 would restore Constitutional Carry for everyone over the age of 18 who could legally own guns. HB16 would echo the current limitations of open carry in Louisiana. People who open carry in Louisiana are not required to notify police officers. There is no prohibition on alcohol levels in HB16. No committee vote on HB16 has been scheduled.

The Louisiana House has 105 members. 67 are republicans, 35 are Democrats and 2 are independent. 70 votes would be needed to override a veto. Only two vetos have ever been overridden, according to an article in the Advocate

It is unknown how many House members would vote for a Constitutional Carry bill in Louisiana. The bill would be a relatively small, incremental, restoration of the right to keep and bear arms in Louisiana. Louisiana already has open carry rights without any requirement for a permit.

Governor Edwards promise to veto Constitutional Carry in Louisiana much reduces the chance of passage this year. There may, or may not be enough votes in the House to override a veto. The historical record indicates the chances are small.

However, Constitutional Carry legislation has been moving forward rapidly in 2021. Four more states, Utah, Montana, Iowa, and Tennessee have all passed Constitutional Carry bills into law. A Texas bill has passed the House, and will be debated on the Senate floor. Governor Abbott has said he will sign it. 

The Constitutional Carry bill in South Carolina is still in play. It seems more likely that Open Carry with Training will pass in South Carolina. The Open Carry bill is scheduled for a debate and vote on the Senate floor. 

If one more state passes Constitutional Carry this year, more than 50% of the area of the United States will be under jurisdictions where Constituional Carry is the law of the land. 

If one more state joins the Constitutional Carry club, there will be 21 states with Constitutional Carry, 21 States with shall issue carry permits, and 8 states with may issue permits. Constitutional Carry has become mainstream. There have not been any surges in crime in Constitutional Carry states. Decreases in crime seem plausible, but small and difficult to measure.

There have not been any measurable increases in either accidents or suicides.

 

 ©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

 

 


 


WV: Rifle used to Defend atgainst Attack with Axe Handle

Lutman and his mother were struck multiple times with the axe handle. Police were told that at one point during the altercation, Lutman’s mother got a rifle to defend herself and her son, and that gun was discharged multiple times inside the residence. During the physical altercation, both victims were injured as was Barber. Two other females were in the house but were uninjured during the incident.

Lutman was transported to Winchester Medical Center for treatment of extensive injuries, including a skull fracture. His mother was transported for treatment to War Memorial Hospital. Police found her with blood on her head, glasses and clothing.

More Here

TX: Border Volunteers Step up to Control Border

As Biden continues to ignore the problem he created at the Southern Border, Texas ranchers are taking a stand to help secure their properties. One such man is John Sewell, who has caught multiple illegal immigrants and handed them off to Border Patrol before he even had a chance to eat breakfast, he told Fox News in an interview.

 

More Here

KY: BLM Disruptors and Restaurant Patrons Brandish Firearms

"During the encounter both patrons and protesters brandished firearms," Smiley said in an email to Fox News. "This incident occurred after the arrests of southbound protesters in the area on the 1500 block of Bardstown Road. The arrests of that group were made after protesters repeatedly blocked the roadway despite officers giving multiple verbal requests for them to utilize the sidewalk."

More Here

FL: Domestic Defense, Woman Shoots Man who Broke in, Brandished Knife

Once on scene, deputies found a 54-year old male deceased from an apparent gunshot wound to the head. The residents inside the home told investigators the man kicked in the front door, and once inside, he armed himself with a knife, yelling he was there to harm his children’s mother. He went room to room searching and threatening the occupants who had retreated to a bedroom in the rear of the house. He then confronted a woman in the rear bedroom, who, fearing for her life, shot the man twice.

More Here

Saturday, May 08, 2021

SC: Open Carry Recalled from Judiciary; Full Senate Debate to Come

South Carolina State House, Christmas 2006, Brandon Davis, public domain, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

On 27 April, 2021, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee failed to vote on Open Carry with Training, HB3094. An activist had written, in 2018, the Judiciary committee is where gun reform bills go to die. He seemed to be prescient, from long experience.

Then the unexpected happened. The Senate voted to recall HB3094 from the Judiciary committee. A recall vote for a bill is not common, but it does happen. 

This correspondent spoke with Senator Rex Rice, a strong proponent of Constitutional Carry in the South Carolina legislature. He had predicted the subcommittee would approve of HB3094, but if it did not, there would be a recall vote.

Senator Rice was the Republican who had won the primary against Senator Larry Martin, the Republican who previously Chaired the Judiciary committee, after Senator Martin had made some less than judicious remarks denigrating open carry. The primary happened in 2016. Senator Rice won by a few hundred votes.  From  an article by this correspondent in 2015:

He had this to say, according to WLTX: 

“You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that,” said committee chair Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens).

The recall  vote was a very strong 27 for and 12 against, with 1 not voting. There are 40 South Carolina senators. 

This correspondent asked Senator Rice, with more than a two thirds vote to recall the bill, wasn't passage of the bill almost certain?

The answer showed how complex political maneuvering can be. Senator Rice said about half of those voting to recall the bill were serious proponents of Constitutional Carry. They had told the other half, if they did not obtain something this session, the others would not obtain anything they wanted to pass, either.

It is nearly certain a move will be made to substitute a version of Constitutional Carry (passed by the House as HB3096), for HB3094.

The South Carolina House voted to pass Constitutional Carry with a strong 69 to 47 majority.

Senator Rice believed the votes are sufficient in the Senate to override a filibuster against Open Carry with Training, but not necessarily to override a filibuster on Constitutional Carry. 26 votes are needed in the South Carolina Senate to override a filibuster.

It seems likely Open Carry with Training will pass the Senate, and be signed into law. It is less likely, but plausible Constitutional Carry will be passed and signed into law.

Senator Rice believes Governor Henry McMaster will sign either bill, if they pass the legislature.

Much depends on what is happening in the rest of the nation. South Carolina is one of only five states to ban open carry.  Twenty states have passed Constitutional Carry.  Four of those twenty passed Constitutional Carry in 2021. Both Texas and Louisiana are in play to pass versions of Constitutional Carry in the next few weeks.

In politics, there are trends and waves. With the close and contested election of President Biden, voters and state legislatures feel the need to assert Constitutional rights. Constitutional Carry is riding the wave. Nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is covered by law where adults can carry handguns, openly or concealed, without government permission, in most public spaces.

90% of the states provide for the open carry of handguns in their laws.

 

 


Follow up NV: Suspect Shot by Homeowner Identified

RENO, Nev. (KOLO) - The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office has identified the suspect who was shot early Wednesday morning after authorities said he broke into a home on Alicia Circle and Tilman Lane in Gardnerville.

The sheriff’s office said the homeowner confronted Christian Gorham around 4 a.m. and shot him. The homeowner detained Gorham until authorities arrived. Gorham was taken to Carson Valley Medical Center and treated and released.

More Here

OK: Armed Smaritan Gunfight with Armed Robbery Suspect

OKLAHOMA CITY -

A good Samaritan helped Oklahoma City police track down a suspected armed robber. Police said Christopher Parker, 19, was arrested shortly after he held up a business near Northwest 63rd Street and Meridian Avenue last week. Investigators continued to look for Parker’s accomplice.

The owner of the auto shop that is tucked behind a northwest Oklahoma City strip mall was still shaken up days after the robbery. He came face-to-face with the armed and masked suspect. 

More Here

Friday, May 07, 2021

FL: Homemade Shotguns at Pensacola Gun Turn-In?

 

 Images from facebook City of Pensacola. Long gun and handgun table images combined, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten.

A gun turn-in event was sponsored by the Florida city of Pensacola on 20 March, 2021. Numerous sources are claiming some homemade shotguns were sold to the city at the event. The picture above shows the guns the city says they purchased. The homemade shotguns are not among them.

 

From Escambia carry on facebook, picture by Jeremy Bosso, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten. 

You can see three slam-fire homemade shotguns in the photograph by Jeremy.  They are being checked out by the police at the Pensacola turn in event.

The City says the homemade guns were not purchased. From facebook:

RUMOR ALERT: There is an inaccurate post circulating from Saturday’s gun buyback event with a photo of a homemade gun. The homemade gun pictured was NOT purchased by the City of Pensacola.
Here are photos of the guns that were actually purchased at the event. As a reminder, this event was 100% VOLUNTARY, and all guns purchased were from citizens who participated voluntarily.
 The city received some pushback from other people on facebook. From facebook
 
Crystal Nay wrote: 
This picture from the actual event and told by multiple witnesses? Just want to be clear

City of Pensacola - Government wrote: 

The gun was brought to the event, but was not purchased by the city.
Another poster on facebook claims the guns were bought. 

Newscolony.com writes the three Boomstick 1776 pipe guns were purchased by the city. From newscolony.com:  

Members of the local Second Admendment advocacy group Escambia Carry showed up to the event with a sign that read “Don’t Get Ripped Off By The City With This Stupid Gun “Buyback’ Program – See Me To Get Fair Market Value For Your Firearm.”

“Other than these rifles, the vast majority were junk,” Escambia Carry’s Jeremy Bosso said in a Facebook post. “Numerous people told us they sold their old junk guns to buy new firearms. Someone sold a Marine Emergency Flare gun. Other attendees had air pistols (BB/pellet guns). The City ran out of money by 9:27am – less than 30 minutes into the event.”

One man showed with three homemade “Boom Stick 1776” pipe shotguns, which were sold sold to police after he demonstrated that they were operable.

This correspondent checked with Escambria Carry. The posters there did not say the slam fire homemade shotguns were purchased. Jeremy Bosso says they were approved to be purchased.  From Escambia carry on facebook:

The gentleman selling the "Boom Stick 1776" shotguns told me he called the City rep beforehand and asked if they would purchase a single-shot shotgun - because the flier said they were buying semi-automatic firearms. Allegedly, he was told they would pay $125 for single-shot shotguns.
I realize the "Boom Stick 1776" was homemade, but it was apparently a functional single-shot shotgun (a "slam fire shotgun").
There are quite a few interesting pictures of "slam fire shotguns" on Google Images.

Jeremy Bosso took the time to clarify what happened on the Pensacola City facebook page.  From facebook:

UPDATE: To clarify, these are my pictures. I was standing right there.
The gentleman selling the "Boom Stick 1776" shotguns told me he called the City rep before the event, and asked if they would purchase a single-shot shotgun - because the flier said they were buying semi-automatic firearms. Allegedly, he was told they would pay $125 for single-shot shotguns. So he attended the event.
At the checkpoint, he did have to demonstrate that they were functional (they were), and he was sent to the payment line, guns in hand. However, while standing in line, they informed everyone that they had run out of money - about 27 minutes after the start.
I realize the "Boom Stick 1776" was homemade, but it was apparently a functional single-shot shotgun (a "slam fire shotgun"). You can find some pretty interesting images online of said "slam fire shotguns.

Jeremy makes clear: The homemade guns would have been purchased, but the city ran out of money before they reached the head of the line.

The lesson is clear. If you wish to take advantage of one of these programs, get there early.

Some private purchasers did just that, and were rewarded for their efforts.

 

Image from facebook of private purchases at Pensacola, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

The guns purchased by the private buyers appear to be a Ruger 1022 with scope, an SKS, and a double barreled shotgun.  

The Pensacola News Journal reports 71 guns were collected, expending the $10,000 budget in half and hour. 

Prices for the program were set at $150 for semi-automatic pistols, $125 for revolvers and $200 for semi-automatic rifles.

Robinson announced at his press conference that 63 guns were purchased, but city officials later clarified that 71 guns were collected at the event. The city only paid for 68 of the guns, as three of them were turned over without payment after funds had run out.

From the pictures of the guns purchased, as displayed on facebook, this correspondent was able to tentatively identify the following:

 

21 revolvers listed at $125 each, or $2,625.

27 semi-auto pistols, listed at $150, or  $4,050.

1 derringer, unknown price

11 semi-auto .22 rifles, 1 unknown semi-auto, listed at $200, or $2,400

1 semi-auto shotgun, unknown price

3 single-shot shotguns, unknown price 

1 carcano military bolt gun, unknown price 

1 single shot .22, unknown price

2 undetermined guns, unknown price.


The known prices come to $9,075, leaving $925 to pay for the semi-auto shotgun, bolt guns, single shot shotguns,  and undetermined guns, a total of 9 guns. It seems to be about right.

Before the current bubble, many .22 semi-auto rifles could be purchased for under $200, brand new. 

The Remington 550 would have been a good deal, if it were working, for $200. The Carcano is worth more than $125. Most of the handguns appear to be inexpensive, with retail values somewhat less than what was offered by the city. 


©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 






NV: Man Shot and Killed while Trespassing in Douglas County

An investigation is now underway after a man was shot and killed while trespassing at a home in Douglas County early Tuesday, deputies say. 

The shooting happened in the 1500 block of Topaz Ranch Road just before 6 a.m.

The man died less than hour later.


More Here

Followup FL: McKenzie Shooting of Roger Erwin found Justified

Prosecutors have ruled the shooting death of a 56-year-old man was self-defense, and for the time being have not charged the shooter. 

According to a three-page memorandum about the incident, prosecutors did leave open the possibility they could re-open the case.


More Here

Thursday, May 06, 2021

How Texans Lost the Right to Bear Handguns

Image from wikipedia, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten


During the debate over HB1927, in the Texas Senate Special Committee on Constitutional Issues, Senator Eddie Lucio (D) made a starting assertion. He stated Texans could not have the right to bear arms restored,  because the right to bear arms has not been infringed. At about 05:01:50, He asked, During the testimony of Andi Turner, Legislative director for the Texas State Rifle Association:

When did we lose them?...

Later he said, about 05:04:30 : 

We never lost the right to bear arms in this state. 

Then he references Matt Dillon and Dodge as an example of where the right did not exist. ("unless they are lying to us on those shows..."). Who would think a fictional western might not be true..?

In the case of Texas, we know precisely when the right to bear arms was taken away. It was on 5 July, 1869, when the Texas Constitution of 1869 was ratified. The right to bear long guns was restored on 15 February, 1876. The right to bear handguns was never restored.

Texas was born in revolution, with many similarities to the American revolution, only 50 years after the American declaration of independence in 1776.  In 1835, Santa Anna and a new Mexican government assumed absolute power and overthrew the existing liberal Constitution. Texans decided to fight to maintain their rights, along with several other Mexican states. As with the United States, the initial skirmish occurred with an attempt to confiscate weapons. Texas was successful in its bid for independence and wrote its first constitution in 1836. 

The Texas Constitution of 1836 had strong right to keep and bear arms protections. It came directly from the recent experience of the necessity of arms for defense of self and the community. From the 1836 declaration of rights:

"Fourteenth. Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the Republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power."

In 1845, Texas joined the United States. Texans approved of a new state constitution. It contained a very strong right to keep and bear arms. From the Texas Constitution of 1845, considered one of the best ever written:

SEC. 13. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State.

The right to arms was considered to be so strong in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court wrote the right to keep and bear arms for self defense was absolute. From Clayton Cramer, quoting Cockrum v. State, 1859: 

Cockrum v. State (Tex. 1859): upheld a sentence enhancement for manslaughters committed with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Texas Constitution's right to keep and bear arms guaranteed a right to carry such a weapon, and appears to have conceded that the Second Amendment also guaranteed an individual right.  "The object of the clause first cited [the Second Amendment], has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed.  The clause cited in our Bill of Rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen.  The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State, is absolute....  The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defence is secured, and must be admitted."

Texas joined with the Confederacy in 1860.  The Confederacy lost the war. Texas created a new constitution in 1866. The new constitution eliminated slavery and repudiated the Ordinance of Secession. It was created to regain entry to the Union. The Constitution of 1866 kept the right to keep and bear arms. From the Constitution of 1866:

SEC. 13. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State.

The radical Republicans were not satisfied with the Constitution of 1866. They created a new Texas Constitution in 1869.

The 1869 Constitution gutted the right to keep and bear arms, with this adulterated version of a "right", which was not a right at all.

 "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe."


In the contentious elections of 1872  and 1873, Texans voted out the carpetbagger government.  The governor begged for federal troops to support him, but none were sent.  He escaped the governor's mansion as a spontaneously organized militia of armed citizens threatened to throw him out.

After the end of reconstruction, the Texas legislature approved of a new Constitution, in 1876.  The Democrats in charge appear to have liked the power to disarm former slaves and others out of favor with the local authorities. They did not return to the right to arms of the 1845 and 1866 Constitutions. 

They removed the right to bear "wearable arms" and gave the state the power to regulate them. From the 1876 Constitution:

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

The right to bear all arms had been taken away in 1869. It was only partly restored on 15 February, 1876, with the ratification of the Texas Constitution of 1876. The right to bear "wearable arms" such as pistols and knives, remained lost. Democrats would control Texas for over a century.

 

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 


OK: Gunfight at Highest Choice Dispensary, Suspect Shot, Killed

ARDMORE, Okla. (KXII) - A suspect is dead after getting shot during an armed robbery at an Ardmore dispensary.

It happened around 8 p.m. Friday at the Highest Choice dispensary on Grand Avenue and H Street in Ardmore.

Police say the suspect went inside armed with a handgun, and the employee got out a gun.

They say shots were fired and the suspect was shot and died on scene.


More Here

KY: Home Invader Shot, Killed, Resident Wounded

At 1:17 a.m. on Thursday, Kentucky State Police in Morehead received a call from the Rowan County Sheriff’s Department about a home invasion on Dawson Way.

Troopers say detectives learned Cody Elliott, 27, from Hillsboro, and another man went inside a residence. Elliott and other people inside fired several shots.

Elliott was taken to the hospital where he died from his injuries.

More Here

Wednesday, May 05, 2021

Learn to Think like Someone who Chose to be Unarmed

Image from NRA Annual Meeting in Dallas, 2018, courtesy Dean Weingarten

People in the gun culture often express amazement about people who want them disarmed. They ascribe the desire to hostility and malice. It may be true for a minority of those who actively wish for a disarmed population.  A significant number, likely a majority, have made a voluntary decision to be unarmed.

It is important to know your opponent and to understand their motives. 

Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular, but did not appear on AmmoLand. 

I have updated the essay for current conditions. 

There is an easy way to understand people who wish you to be unarmed.

It takes a little discipline. You may have  a little mental discomfort. It is not particularly difficult.  For the ability to understand the other, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement "guns are bad".

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry, but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy. 

People more easily accept information which reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive, because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person.  You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant. 

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions.  Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self defense and to prevent crime.  It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one.  Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government.  To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people  put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed. 

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree.  It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost - benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show armed - or - legally armed - people make them more safe rather than less safe.  Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it. 

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them people who are legally armed are more law abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder.  Show where armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience.  Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range. It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people. 

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents have been reduced by 94% in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society. 

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost - benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost free.  Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance and low level warfare can increase their personal risk. 

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm.  Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or numbers of illegal guns. 

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval, or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns.  For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house to house searches.  The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down.  Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular. 

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down.  This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment. 

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing.  The information is available to anyone with a computer. 

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature and the Constitution on their side. Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment. 

Above nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch









 


 



 




CO: Domestic Defensein Colorado Springs, Woman Shoots Man to Stop Attack

It was about 2 in the morning when a man called 911 claiming he was shot in the head. This happened in the 5000 block of Ridenour Dr. just northwest of the Colorado Springs Airport on the southeast side of the city.

According to police, the investigation revealed the man had strangled the woman and threatened to kill her. The woman was able to get a gun and shot the man one time, “fearing for her life,” according to police.

More Here

FL: Woman Held Man at Gunpoint for Police

A woman held a man at gunpoint after he tried breaking into her residence, the Marion County Sheriff's Office reported. The man was arrested once deputies arrived.

The homeowner said she was in her residence, located off Southwest Second Place, when she heard a noise by her back door. The woman said she grabbed her handgun and confronted the would-be burglar.


More Here

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

NE: Legal Gun Carrier Stands Guard in Gun Free Zone During Shooting at Mall (video interview)

 


 Link to video

On 17 April, about noon, there was a shooting at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. One person was killed, another was wounded.  A police officer had been shot at in the Mall a month earlier.

The Westroads Mall is reported to be a gun free zone. When the shooting happened on 17 April, 2021, Scott Tafoya was carrying his pistol with a Nebraska permit. He drew the pistol to protect himself and others, knowing there might be legal consequences.

From kcci.com:

"Every indication said our lives were in danger and I was going to do everything in my power to make sure we got out of there OK,” Tafoya said.

He's a legal conceal carry permit holder, even though Westroads Mall is a weapon-free zone.

"I knew that if I ever pulled that out it would truly be a life and death situation and I would deal with the consequences later," he said.

As Von Maur employees shuttled shoppers into a bathroom, he stood guard.

"I said I have a permit, I’m legal,” he said.

He said he stood near the escalators to draw any threat away from where his family was.

"Everyone else on the third floor just got added into that because the best way to keep my family safe was to make sure nobody with ill intentions came up that escalator.”

 When the police came to investigate the shooting and provide security, he unloaded his pistol placed it in his holster with the slide locked back, and approached the police with his hands up. The police told him to leave, and have not charged him with any offence, yet.

In 2007, a mass murderer killed seven people and himself on 5 December, using a stolen Century WASR-10 (AKM clone) rifle.  

Nebraska had become the 48th state to allow for legal concealed carry in January of 2007.  There were probably very few permits issued in the first year. The permit fee was $100, and two sets of fingerprints had to be taken by the Nebraska State Patrol. The application for a Nebraska permit requires photographs.  About 4.6% of Nebraska adults have a permit to carry as of 2020.

To be charged with illegally carrying at the mall, the Nebraska legislature requires a prominent notice be posted, or a request be made in person to remove the handgun from the premises. From nebraskalegislature.gov:  

(2) If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permitholder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permitholder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permitholder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.

 In the various images of entrances to the Westroads mall in Omaha, this correspondent did not notice any prominent signs prohibiting concealed firearms.

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


 

 

VA: Aid to Sen. Amanda Chase uses AR-15 style Pistol to Defend Her

The driver, Shayne Snavely, said in an interview Friday that a small sedan tried to drive the campaign van off the road as it exited the highway, following directions from the GPS to Chase’s home in Chesterfield County.

Snavely said the campaign van pulled off at a median and was confronted by a member of the other vehicle.

“He jumps out of the car, has his hands in his waistband charging towards the car. That’s when you hear the click of my gun, pointed at him. He spun around and got back in his car,” Snavely said.


More Here

PA: Domestic Defense, Brian Miller, 44 Violates Protective Order, is Shot, Killed

Jeremy Weston, who admits to shooting and killing Miller in self-defense, says it all started when Miller drove his car into his fiancé's mother's trailer earlier in the day. Weston described Miller was the former boyfriend of his fiancé's mother and both of them had active Protection From Abuse Orders against Miller. Weston says at the time, he was trying to leave with his step-daughter, when Miller started following him, eventually hitting his car. Weston says he left the area in an attempt to deescalate the situation and when he came back, Miller was gone.

He says Miller came back a couple of hours later and that's when Weston witnessed Miller beating his fiancé's mother in a car.

"I grabbed the gun, put it in my pocket and he chased my fiancé down to the front of my trailer and he tripped and I told him look you need to leave and then he stood up and he started coming towards me," Weston said. "And I said look you need to go and by the third time I told him ,I was backed up against the trailer and pulled my pistol out and I said listen I'm going to give you one more chance, you need to leave."

More Here

MO: 1 of 3 Home Invaders shot, Killed, Other 2 Charged under Felony Murder rule

Detectives said Johnson admitted to going to the home in Independence that night with friends, including Lockhart, to rob the homeowner's son of marijuana and cash. Documents show Johnson told detectives that after he, Lockhart, and Mays got into a fight at the front door of the home, a person inside the home started shooting at them.

Lockhart was killed while Johnson and Mays fled.

Charging documents state Mays told detectives that the robbery was Johnson's idea, and that he didn't know the target of the robbery, just that Johnson said the target had $12,000 they could all split.

The Jackson County Prosecutors Office has charged Johnson and Mays each with second-degree murder, attempted first-degree robbery, and armed criminal action in connection with his accomplice's death.


More Here

Monday, May 03, 2021

Restoring Second Amendment Rights: Incrementalism vs All or Nothing


Dean Weingarten at the Supreme Court, courtesy Dean Weingarten

This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn't the NRA bring a case to the Supreme Court? 

The assumption was the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the clear words of the Second Amendment, and all those unconstitutional infringements would go away. 

The assumption was Supreme Court justices were honorable men and women who would do their job to uphold the Constitution. 

The assumption was wrong.

The NRA would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives. 

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.  

Let me be clear: The policies promoted by Progressives were and are actually regressive. They worked to return us to a period where government has unlimited power, and a small, powerful, wealthy group rules over everyone else. Still, they call themselves Progressives. In a way it is fitting, as much of their policy is based on the ability to deceive. 

The Progressive revolution in the courts was greatly accelerated by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration. The revolution in the courts was underway in 1932, but the FDR administration made the courts a center of Progressive power. Progressives have been a majority on the Supreme Court for decades. Progressive ideology holds the Constitution has no fixed meaning. 

Progressives hold that limitations on government power are bad policy.  Progressive ideology holds the ruling elite must shape public opinion to what Progressives want public policy to be.

President Reagan was able to place Justice Scalia, an originalist, to the Supreme Court in 1986, and wishy-washy Kennedy in 1988. President G.W. Bush appointed the stalwart Thomas in 1991. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to be an originalist, was appointed in 2005.  Justice Alito, an originalist, was appointed in 2006. Those five were just enough to overturn the ban on the ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia in D.C. vs Heller in 2008.  The decision was severely restricted by the insistence of including limitations on the Second Amendment, to obtain the vote of Justice Kennedy, as engineered by Justice Stevens. From the abajournal.com:

Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias.

In the book, Stevens said he had hoped to persuade Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to agree with him that the amendment was intended to prevent the disarmament of state militias. He circulated his dissent emphasizing historical texts supporting his view in hopes it would prove persuasive.

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

Here is the limiting language Justice Stevens claims to have been influential in having  inserted, in trade for Justice Kennedy's vote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Reliance on the courts to uphold the Second Amendment was futile from 1939 until at least 2006. Even then, the Heller Decision barely squeaked past the activist Progressive justices.

Unable to restore Second Amendment rights in the Courts before 2006, Second Amendment supporters turned to the legislative branch. At the Federal level, it was primarily a defensive fight. At the state level, Second Amendment supporters started passing significant legislation in the 1980's. 

A major point of disagreement among Second Amendment supporters was how to approach the problem. One group claimed anything but full and complete recognition of Second Amendment rights was futile and counter-productive. The argument was: any lesser legislation, moving incrementally toward full Second Amendment rights, would only legitimize infringements on those rights. They were/are the "All or Nothing" group. Some called/call themselves "principled".

The other group of Second Amendment supporters argued Second Amendment rights could be restored bit by bit. Pass legislation first, for a permit system. Keep reforming and improving the permit system. Reduce requirements, reduce fees, reduce "gun free zones".  Keep on incrementally improving the law, until Second Amendment rights were fully restored. They were/are the "Incrementalists".  In the middle 1990's it was not clear if either approach would be effective.  

Twenty years later, it was clear. Incrementalism worked.

One of the all or nothing group was talented author Claire Wolfe, who made a splash with her book "101 Things to do  'Til the Revolution", published in 1999. In 2016, She wrote:

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

Back in the day — those dark old days of seemingly unstoppable federal overreach — I thought we’d have to fight (real “blood in the streets”) to restore our gun rights. Of course, we may yet have to fight to preserve our freedom.

But thanks to the new and expanded gun culture across the land — a culture in part built and normalized by the very activists I doubted — We the People are becoming an ever more formidable power.

Every one of the states which restored Constitutional Carry first adopted a shall-issue concealed carry permit law. 

The "principled" or "all or nothing" group have the end goal correctly identified. It is important to keep the goal in mind. It is important to understand the progress which has been made, and how it was made. 

It was made incrementally. Part of the incrementalism was to expand the number of people who own guns, who have real potential to become part of the gun culture.  Part of the process was/is to teach about the Second Amendment, and what reform should be aiming for. 

When this correspondent taught his own concealed carry course in Arizona (before the law was changed to mandate a standard state lesson plan), the lesson plan made clear the permit was an infringement on the rights guaranteed by both the U.S. and Arizona Constituons. 

The goal of Constitutional Carry was always in mind, and explained in the classroom.

The permit was a lesser infringement than the complete ban on concealed carry.

The Second Amendment is a beautiful lodestone to detect which politicians take the Constitution and Bill of Rights seriously, and which do not. 

Politicians tend to be accomplished liars. You have to study what they do, not just what they say. 

Even voting records can be deliberately misleading. Politicians routinely cite votes which had no real effect, or which were rigged specifically for them to be able to claim to their constituents they had voted the "correct" way, in order to be re-elected.

Most politicians are not particularly interested in principles. They are interested in perks and power and being re-elected. Thus, they can be swayed and persuaded to vote, incrementally, by interested and engaged voters. There are far more interested and engaged Second Amendment supporters than there are those who wish for an unarmed population.

It is important to realize incrementalism, while valuable in itself, has a goal: Full recognition and practical application of the Second Amendment, so that people in the United States can be practically and legally armed as they go about their daily lives; and they can be practically and legally armed so as to prevent tyranny by the governments they have created.

When Alaska became the first state to restore Constitutional Carry in 2003, a Democrat legislator in the state explained how it happened. He said carry legislation kept coming up, year after year. He was sick of it. It was popular. He did not want to deal with it any more. Just pass Constitutional Carry, and be done with it.  

Those who insist on full implementation of Second Amendment rights, immediately, have made valuable contributions. As a practical effect, they show incrementalists to be practical "moderates".

Those who have had the most practical effect are those who insisted on the ultimate goal, while accepting incremental movement toward the goal. 

When Claire Wolf made her statement praising the work of the incrementalists who had restored Constitutional Carry in 2016, eight states had restored Constitutional Carry. Today there are eighteen states with Constitutional Carry. 

Idaho moved from Constitutional Carry for residents only (a dubious Constitutional provision), to Constitutional Carry for all who can legally own guns, a year ago. 

Utah and Montana became the latest members of the Constitutional Carry club early in 2021. 

It is very likely one or more states will join the club before the end of 2021. 

The disagreement between those who preach "all or nothing" and those who practice incrementalism to achieve the goal, will never end. It is often seen in comments on this correspondent's articles.

The practical effect is no longer in doubt. Incrementalism works. It has worked wonders in the states. Virtually no one in 1990 would have predicted the almost miraculous results we have seen in restoring Second Amendment rights by 2021. 

There are numerous Second Amendment cases in the pipeline to the Supreme Court. Today, there is hope a majority of justices will uphold their oaths of office and honor the Second Amendment.

Every victory in the States for Constitutional Carry improves the odds. Those justices read the papers. They know the state of the law in the States.  If they don't, the amicus briefs on the cases will make sure they do.

Upholding the Second Amendment may no longer seem miraculous. 

Prayer for the Justices to be guided by divine providence in their decisions, would not hurt.  

©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


AZ: Domestic Defense; Woman asks for Help, Armed Samaritan Shoots Man

Officers were called to a shooting in the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot, in the 1700 block of West Valencia Road, just after 7:30 p.m. and located a man with gunshot wounds. Despite first aid, the man was pronounced dead at the scene. Police identified him as Juan Carlos Velderrain, 32.

Detectives determined that Velderrain was physically assaulting his girlfriend in the bank's parking lot before the shooting. The woman managed to get away from Velderrain and approached a bystander for help. The woman got into the bystander's vehicle as Velderrain verbally confronted them, police said.

During the confrontation, the bystander, an adult male, pulled a handgun and shot Velderrain, police said.


More Here

TX: Intruder Shot, Husband and Wife Injured in Struggle

"I have a firearm. … I keep a pistol, and I grabbed it," DeHoyos said, according to KHOU-TV of Houston.

The suspect entered the home in Pearland, outside Houston, just after DeHoyos and wife Lisa had gone to bed April 17, he said.

When David went downstairs to investigate, the suspect came at him with a hammer, according to the report. 

"I stuck the pistol in his side and I pulled the trigger three times," he said.

At some point during the struggle, Lisa DeHoyos tried to help her husband and wound up struck twice in her head with the hammer, the report said.

 

More Here