Tuesday, November 30, 2021

PA: Holmberg Homeowner Wounds Intruder

The shooting happened around 11 p.m. on the 4700 block of Ashville Street.

Police say they arrived to find a 31-year-old suspect shot in the face in the basement.

More Here

TN: Attempted Disarm Results in Wounded Person, Self Defense is Claimed

According to police, the victim entered into the shooters apartment on Rosa L. Parks Blvd. and attempted to take the residents gun.

The resident fired and shot the man. He is being treated for non-life threatening injuries.


More here

VA: Estranged Husband Shot during Claimed Attack with Knife

According to the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office, the homeowner of this house called police to report her estranged husband had attempted to attack her with a knife. That man was 40-year-old Daniel Wayne Eades.

After the alleged attack, Eades was shot multiple times by a friend of the homeowner’s inside the house. Eades died from the gunfire. When police arrived, they found multiple knives and a handgun. But as of now, authorities have not confirmed any arrests.

More Here

Monday, November 29, 2021

CO: Planned Gun "Buyback" in Denver and Aurora Likely Illegal/Unworkable

Image courtesy Dean Weingarten, small portion of guns turned in, Phoenix, May, 2013

Colorado politicians have planned a gun "buyback" for March of 2022. They probably will not be able to hold the event, as Colorado law makes if nearly impossible to hold a "buyback" legally.

Those who want a disarmed population coined the Orwellian term "buyback" to describe events were people turn guns in to police, to be destroyed, for money. The police cannot "buyback" guns they never owned to begin with. 

About 2013, people started fighting back against this propaganda effort by privately purchasing guns at these events. 

At some events people used the money to buy better guns.

States started requiring guns purchased by local governments be sold, and the money used for the public good. 

Local entrepreneurs/activists started selling home made guns at these events, earning a profit and making for good photo opportunities.

Organizations such as Guns Save Life organized turn-in of junk guns in order to buy good guns for youth programs.

The number of "buybacks" fell precipitously. A few continued in states where draconian law prevented private parties from purchasing firearms at these events, such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California.

Academic studies have confirmed these events do not reduce crime or suicides, and may have a small effect of increasing crime for a short period. 

Colorado banned such events as a byproduct of a push for gun control. 

Most people who initiate these programs do not research them. They insist on doing them for illogical or propaganda reasons. That seems to be the case of Denver and Aurora "buybacks" planned for 2022. From cbslocal.com:

Starting in March 2022, a new gun buyback program will be implemented in hopes of remedying the problem.

“Our goal is to get guns off the street. What we’re seeing is an extraordinary uptick in crime in both Denver and Aurora,” Denver District 5 Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer told CBS4’s Mekialaya White via Zoom.

Sawyer says now is the time to take action, after a massive increase in violent and property crime in recent weeks. That includes two shootings in Aurora injuring several teenagers just last week.

“I think for a long time there’s been a hesitancy for government to get involved in a program like this, especially in the metro area. There’s a crisis in our communities, especially with young people,” echoed Aurora Councilman-at-Large Curtis Gardner. “So, we are partnering with Colorado Springs-based nonprofit RawTools that will take guns volunteered at our buyback that will turn them into garden tools and jewelry. It creates a really neat synergy for the community.”

“We think it’ll be a really valuable partnership between both cities,” added Sawyer.

At each buyback, residents can turn in firearms anonymously.

Such events are not allowed by Colorado law. Every transfer has to go through a federally licensed dealer. The dealer charges a fee. It makes an anonymous turn-in unworkable, and almost certainly illegal. It is an unintended consequence of the draconian "Universal Background Check" law.

The law, passed in 2013, made private sales illegal. All transfers have to be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licenses, making them subject to government approval, thus, no longer private.  Permanently giving a weapon in to another entity to be destroyed, is a transfer, under the law.  

In 2013, Colorado "buyback" events were cancelled because they were made nearly impossible by the new Colorado law. 

It seems unlikely the proposed event organizers will be able to get an exception to the Colorado law passed before March of 2021. It appears the event organizers and those promoting the event in the Media, have not considered the legal implications before publishing their efforts. 

Ignorance of gun laws is common among those who push for disarming the public. 

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

Gun Watch

TX: Video Released of Chad Read Shooting in Lubbock

Nearly three weeks after the death of Chad Read, his widow and her attorney released video Wednesday of the deadly shooting altercation between Read and Lubbock land developer and businessman, Kyle Carruth.

Carruth is the now ex-husband of Judge of the 72nd Judicial District Court in Lubbock and Crosby Counties, Anne-Marie Carruth. Because of that, the Lubbock District Attorney’s Office recused itself from the case that will now be handled by the Texas Attorney General’s Office. The couple was separated for months before Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. The divorce was finalized last week, according to court records.

More Here

Sunday, November 28, 2021

WY: Casper Man Shoots Suspect who Attempted to Force his way into a Home

The shooting occurred at about 9:30 p.m. Friday at a home on the 3800 block of Greenway Street on the city's east side. Police were told a 51-year-old man from Cheyenne tried to force his way inside a home through the front door. 

The Casper man, identified only as a 33-year-old, ordered the suspect to leave several times, police said. The 51-year-old man, whose name was not released, refused to comply, and when he continued to try and force his way inside, the Casper man retrieved a gun and shot through the door.

More Here

WA: gunfight in Parking lot, Robbery Suspect Alexander Richard Yell Wounded

An armed shoplifter and a security officer exchanged gunfire on Black Friday in the parking lot of the Kennewick Walmart, sending fearful shoppers and employees running for safety. 

Robbery suspect Alexander Richard Yell, 31, was the only one wounded after reportedly being shot two to three times at close range, according to initial broadcast reports.

More Here

Saturday, November 27, 2021

MI: Homeowner Holds Habitual Criminal at Gunpoint for Police

Daniel Earl, 38, of Quincy could have gotten shot Tuesday by homeowner Jim Johnson, authorities said, instead Earl is in jail, where he faces a prison sentence on a charge of home invasion as a habitual offender. 

Johnson arrived at his Sebring Road home and observed the front door ajar. He looked into the living room and saw Earl facing away from him with a hatchet in his hand, authorities said. Johnson went back to his truck, got a handgun, and held Earl at gunpoint.

More Here

Friday, November 26, 2021

WA: Homeowner and Police involved in Gunfight with Armed Suspects

When officers arrived, they encountered an armed suspect and officers opened fire. 

The armed suspect that confronted the officers was taken to Harborview Medical Center and is expected to survive his injuries.

According to investigators, a second suspect was also involved in a shooting with the homeowner. 

Police said two Des Moines Police Department officers were involved in the shooting.

More Here

MO: Assault leads to Self Defense Claim in Springfield Shooting

KYTV-TV reports that the man told investigators that a stranger to the homeowner knocked on the door around 11:30 a.m. Sunday and an altercation began. Police say the homeowner accused the stranger of assaulting him, prompting the homeowner to shoot and kill him.

More Here

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Ohio Constitutional Carry Passes House


Ohio Statehouse

In Ohio, the Constitutional Carry bill, HB227 is moving forward.  It passed the House Oversight committee on October 28.  On November 17, it passed the House, 60 to 32. From dayton247now.com:

“The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I am proudly pro-Second Amendment and this bill is pro-Second Amendment,” said Senator Niraj Antani, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The bill would also make the mandatory eight hours of training optional.

“People should get training, but it doesn't have to be required. The Constitution does not require training in order to have your constitutional rights,” Senator Antani said.

Dayton 24/7 Now’s Mamie Bah asked Antani, “Are there any concerns of safety here?”

He said, “Concealed firearm carriers by and large are law-abiding citizens who are trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Now the bill goes to the Senate. The Republicans have a supermajority in the Senate, 25 to 8. The bill should pass in the Senate, but each legislative fight involves personalities. Several states have had Constitutional Carry delayed because of one or two Republicans in powerful committees were not committed to fight for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the bill passes the Senate, then it goes to Governor DeWine.

Governor DeWine has been ambivalent on Second Amendment rights. He has not threatened to veto Constitutional Carry. He has not supported it either. In January of 2021, he signed a bill eliminating one of the last state "duty to retreat" statutes.

In January, GOP Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill into law eliminating an individual’s duty to retreat before using force. The measure expands the so-called “stand your ground” right from an individual’s house and car to any place, “if that person is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be.”

DeWine had previously signaled he might veto the bill, and had expressed dissatisfaction lawmakers were ignoring his own legislation proposed after the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton that killed nine. Instead, he signed the stand your ground bill in “the spirit of cooperation” with the General Assembly.

It is a good time for Ohio Second Amendment supporters to be pushing for Constitutional Carry. Many Republicans believe they need to show their support of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to separate themselves from the Democrats and their unpopular policies and president.

Constitutional Carry is a way to prove their bona fides with little risk. 21 states, including Texas, have already enacted the reforms. No state has seen measurable downsides. Not one state has voted on a bill to repeal Constitutional Carry, once enacted. This correspondent does not recall any state where such a bill has been introduced.

In Ohio, 60% of the votes in both chambers are needed to override a governor's veto. The Republicans have 64 seats in the House. They need 60 votes to override. The Republicans have 25 seats in the Senate. They need 20 votes to override a veto.

There is a good chance of Constitutional Carry being enacted in Ohio this year. Adding another state to the 21 existing Constitutional Carry states sends a positive message to the Supreme Court in the NYR&PA carry outside the home case. That case is under consideration at this time. The decision in the case is expected in June of 2022.

Five states have reformed their laws to Constitutional Carry in 2021, so far. Ohio could be number six.

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

Gun Watch


CA: Security Guards Wound Robbery Suspect at Marijuana Business

Police said more than 10 people in several cars came to the Pendleton Way site at 12:27 a.m. Sunday and gained entry after threatening someone inside at gunpoint.

Once inside, the robbers grabbed a large amount of marijuana and started to flee, police said.They were confronted by two security guards outside, and a gun battle ensued, police said.

One of the suspected robbers, a 32-year-old Oakland man, was wounded in the exchange of shots. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was in stable condition, police said. The other suspects fled.

More Here

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Pennsylvania Constitutional Carry Moves Forward, in Spite of Veto Threat


Constitutional Carry is advancing in Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 565 is a strong Constitutional Carry bill, which mostly removes current prohibitions on carrying concealed, the requirement for a permit to carry openly or concealed in Philadelphia, and maintains the possibility of obtaining an optional license to carry if one is desire.

On November 9, 2021, the Pennsylvania Senate passes Senate Bill 565 by a vote of 29 to 21.

On November 17, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 565 by a vote of 107 to 92

The bill will almost certainly be vetoed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D). From wgal.com

Opponents pointed out the proposal is unlikely to be enacted, as Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s office said he will veto the legislation, and argued the bill would make people less safe by making guns more readily accessible.

Senate Bill 565 started in the Senate on April 16, 2021. Here is the short synopsis: 

An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, repealing provisions relating to firearms not to be carried without a license, providing for license not required, further providing for prohibited conduct during emergency, repealing provisions relating to carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, providing for sportsman's firearm permit, further providing for licenses and repealing provisions relating to proof of license and exception.

The General Assembly states the purpose of the bill. They say most firearms laws are ineffectual:

The General Assembly finds that:
(1) The laws in existence regulating firearms ownership,
possession and use LICENSING are ineffectual in preventing
crime and only interfere with the natural rights of law-
abiding citizens.
(2) It is necessary to codify the inherent right to the
carrying of firearms, whether openly or concealed, and that
the right to self-defense is an inherent natural right that
shall not be questioned as stated in section 21 of Article I
of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. Section 6106 of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is repealed:
Then follows a long list of requirements for licensing and exceptions for the usual list of police, military, constables, etc.  After that list, which is to be deleted, upon passage of the bill, we see the following text, which would become law:
Section 2. Title 18 is amended by adding a section to read:
§ 6106.2. License not required.
(a) Declaration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, every person present in this Commonwealth WHO IS NOT
PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH shall have an affirmative, fundamental and constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, including the right to carry openly or concealed, carry loaded or unloaded, train with, transport, possess, use, acquire, purchase, transfer, inherit, buy, sell, give or otherwise dispose of or receive any firearm or self-defense device without a license , permission or restriction TO CARRY A FIREARM of any kind from or by this Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions.
(b) Optional license.--Obtaining a license to carry a
firearm under this chapter shall be optional. The voluntary
nature of the license shall not be construed to require that any
person obtain a license to carry a firearm under this chapter.
Then the law shows how an optional license may be applied for and obtained. 
These are significant movements to restore the right to keep and bear arms to Ohio.
Yes, Democrat Governor Wolf will likely veto the law. There are probably not enough votes to override the veto. A veto in Pennsylvania requires a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. There are 50 senators and 203 representatives in the General Assembly.
The long term consequences bode well for Constitutional Carry. All the people who voted for Constitutional Carry have made the psychological leap to do so. They have made their decision. It will be difficult to backtrack on it.
It appears a conservative (red) political wave is building for 2022.  Governor Wolf will be term limited out.  
The votes for Constitutional Carry are likely to be there after the 2022 elections. If there is a Republican governor in Pennsylvania in 2022, the chances of passing Constitutional Carry look very good.

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

Gun Watch

FL: Woman, Motorcyclists Clash, Woman Pulls Gun, is Shot

"We don't know why she hit him." Sampsell said. "She swerved into him and prior to the vehicle making impact he warned her to stay away, and he is pulling away and she gets to the side of him and comes right into him."

The motorcyclist and two other witnesses, who did not know each other, then followed Morales to her home in attempt to help identify her for police, Sampsell said. 

Once at the home, Morales exchanged words with Derr and the witnesses and then went into her house and came back with a gun, the lieutenant said.

"Morales pointed a handgun at the witnesses and Derr," a press release states. "Derr having a valid Florida concealed weapons permit, drew his concealed handgun and fired multiple rounds, striking Morales."

More Here

GA: Armed Neighbor Shot and Killed, Four Teens Charges with Felony Murder

All four were indicted for felony murder in the death of Steven Boothe, said Brad Shealey, district attorney. The four were also indicted for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony armed robbery, criminal attempt to commit a felony and aggravated assault, records show.

Tucker and Ramsey were 17 at the time of the incident, the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office said; Williams was 16 and Stallings was 15, but both will be tried as adults, Shealey said.

The killing took place June 13 at 4247 White Water Road in southern Lowndes County, Sheriff Ashley Paulk said in a previous interview. The county’s 911 center received a call regarding the incident at about 3:30 p.m., said Capt. Stryde Jones of the sheriff’s office.

During an apparent home invasion, a resident hid in a closet and phoned a neighbor, saying there was a robbery in progress, Paulk said. The neighbor, Boothe, came over with a pistol but was himself shot to death, Jones said.

More Here

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

NC: Raleigh Man shoots Person Breaking into Home

Police said a man came home to find someone breaking into his house. The homeowner shot the break-in suspect in the leg in what police described as self-defense.

More Here

VA: Fairfax Man Claims Self Defense in Food Star Store Shooting

A Fairfax County police spokesman says a man called police on Saturday evening to report that he had shot somebody in the Food Star store on Leesburg Pike in Fairfax County.

The spokesman says the caller told police he was acting in self-defense when he shot the man.

The wounded man was being treated for injuries that were considered to be life-threatening.

More Here

Monday, November 22, 2021

FL Followup: Charges Dropped against Ocklawaha Man who Claimed Self Defense

Charges against an Ocklawaha man accused of firing shots into a vehicle were dropped by prosecutors who cannot find the witness, and officials believe the alleged suspect may have a self-defense case.

Assistant State Attorney Sasha Kidney said in a report submitted to the court that the only witness/victim in the case able to identify the defendant as the person who fired the gun at the victim's vehicle has fled the country and they've been "unable to locate him after a diligent search."

More Here

FL Followup: Andrew Coffee IV found not Guilty of Second Degree Murder

Fearing for his life, Coffee IV told investigators that he fired two or three rounds. The sheriff's office maintained it announced its presence.

Coffee IV told investigators that he didn't know it was deputies because they did not announce who they were.

His girlfriend, Alteria Woods, who was also at the home, was shot 10 times and died during the gunfire.

A grand jury previously exonerated the officer and deputies who fired their weapons during the incident.

However, a jury on Friday found Coffee IV guilty of possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon

More Here

PA: Gunfight, Delivery Man and Armed Robbers; 1 Killed, 1 Wounded

Police say the armed men approached the victim and demanded money.

The victim then reportedly told the suspects the money was in his car.

While the suspects were looking through the victim's car for cash, he pulled out his gun and fired, according to police.

"I don't really like violence, but it's in self-defense, so if he didn't shoot them, they might have shot him, so I think, in that case, there's not much he can do," said Gail of Mayfair.

Two of the men were hit several times by bullets and taken by police to Jefferson-Torresdale Hospital.

More Here

Sunday, November 21, 2021

WI: Kyle Rittenhouse Freed by a Jury of His Peers in Kenosha


On Friday, November 19, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, was found not guilty by a jury of 12 men and women.

The jury had deliberated for three and a half days. There were five charges and two sub-charges. The jury instructions ran to 34 pages. What the prosecution said about the law and what the judge said were contradictory.

In spite of enormous efforts by the dominant media to create a narrative of a white supremacist targeting black people for cold blooded killing, the overwhelming video evidence showed a young man working to protect the community and help people. When attacked by violent and mentally ill people, he defended himself from deadly harm. He showed admirable restraint; he immediately attempted to turn himself in to the authorities, and was prevented from doing so by the police. He then proceeded to the nearest open police station, near his home, and turned himself about 1 hour after the event.

A jury, enduring threats of violence, saw several hours of Kyle himself on the stand. 

Thomas Jefferson said: 

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

In spite of what appeared to be a politically motivated prosecution, which was willing to bend rules and Constitutional protections in its attempt to win, the jury reached a conclusion most close observers of the evidence had reached in the first two weeks after the event. 

Kyle Rittenhouse is a free man. It remains to be seen if the many media outlets and individuals who lied about him and defamed him prior to the trial will be held to account.

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

Gun Watch


MO: 60-Year-Old Resident Shoots Intruder Climing into Home Through Window

ST. LOUIS — A 60-year-old man shot and killed a suspect who he said was trying to break into his home in the College Hill neighborhood Friday night.

St. Louis police responded at 11 p.m. to a burglary call at a home on the 1500 block of E Grand Avenue. When they arrived, they found a man in his 20s lying on the back porch with a gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

More Here

Saturday, November 20, 2021

WA: Two Teen Armed Robbery Suspects Shot by Cannabis Store Employee

SPANAWAY, Wash. - Two teens were shot Thursday night during an alleged armed robbery at a cannabis store in Spanaway.

The Pierce County Sheriff's Office says a store employee called 911 around 9:30 p.m. to say that their business, Blessings Cannabis, had been robbed by four or five males with guns who were wearing hooded jackets and masks.

The employees told deputies that the suspects pointed guns at them while they stole money and marijuana. At one point, an employee retrieved a gun and shot at the suspects.

More Here

LA: Disarm, or Access to gun by Burglar? St. Helena Man Shot with Own Gun

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) - The St. Helena Parish Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting of an elderly man who was shot at his home with his own gun by an intruder.

According to a spokesman with the St Helena Sheriff’s Office, a 72-year-old man was shot inside his home on November 18, just after 12:00 P.M.

More Here

Friday, November 19, 2021

Kyle Rittenhouse, Dominick Black, Wisconsin Weapons Law and The Kenosha Prosecutor


Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten.

On August 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people who attacked him, during the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killing two, in claimed self defense. There is no question he was attacked. It is all on video. As of this writing, the jury is in deliberations. We should know the results soon. 

One result was reached before the jury was given their final instructions. The weapons possession charge against Kyle Rittenhouse was dismissed by Judge Schroeder. This author has written the charge should never have been made. There were reasons to keep the charge. It served several political purposes.

Dismissing the weapons charge is far more significant for Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, Dominick Black, than for Kyle.

Video link on Youtube.

Dominick Black started dating Kyle's sister, McKenzie, in 2020. Kyle and Dominick grew close. They called each other brother.

In May of 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse, his close friend Dominick Black, Kyle's sister, McKenzie, who was dating Dominick, and a couple other people traveled to Dominick's family acreage in northern Wisconsin, near Ladysmith. The family has a 13 acre property with an old gravel pit used as a gun range.

About May 1, 2020, Dominick Black purchased a gun with money provided by Kyle. The agreement was that Dominick would retain legal and physical possession of the rifle until Kyle reached the age of 18. Then Dominick would transfer legal and physical possession of the rifle to Kyle. One of the reasons Kyle wanted an AR15 type rifle was because Dominick had purchased his own AR15 type rifle 2-3 months earlier. Kyle would turn 18 eight months later.

Kyle could not legally purchase the rifle until he was 18 years old. Kyle could legally possess the rifle in Wisconsin. He could not legally possess the rifle in Illinois until he obtained a Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID). Kyle applied for an FOID in May of 2020. The FOID process was backed up several months. Months after Kyle was charged, the Illinois authorities refused to issue an FOID because of the Wisconsin charges.

Before August 25, Kyle had shot the rifle once, at Dominick's family's range in Ladysmith. After the single shooting, the rifle had been kept in the gun safe of Dominick's stepfather, at Dominick's residence. There was no substantial transfer of the rifle to Kyle. This is important. A "straw purchase" under federal law requires a substantial transfer, not a short and temporary transfer. A rifle can be loaned to a friend for a hunting trip, for example, without the transfer creating a "straw purchase".  Neither federal nor Wisconsin state law forbid Kyle Rittenhouse from possessing a rifle.

On August 27, 2020, Assistant District Attorney ADA Binger filed charges against Kyle Rittenhouse. The Kyle maintained he had defended himself in Kenosha a little before midnight on August 25. Seven charges were filed in less than two days, probably less than 36 hours. This was done in what Judge Bruce Schroeder described as the most complicated case he has seen in his 40 year career. This is one reason the weapons charge was included. The charges were placed very, very fast, before most facts were known, or evidence even gathered, in a case where the defendant had voluntarily turned himself in to the police.

ADA Binger is not familiar with guns. It is obvious from his presentations in court. He probably was not familiar with 948.60. The charges were rushed, without serious investigation.

Most of the facts of the case were already known by September 14, 2020. It was clear at that time, there was a very strong case for self defense.

It was clear, by September, 2020, that neither Kyle or Dominick had violated 948.60. The penalties for the weapons charge are much more severe for Dominick than for Kyle.

On November 3, 2020, over two months later,  ADA Binger charged Kyle's friend, Dominick Black with two charges of providing a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, where the person discharges the weapon, and someone dies as a result. 

The statute is 948.60(2)(c):


(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

A subparagraph of the statute creates an exception which show Kyle and Dominick were not in violation:  948.60(3)(c)

 (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
One of the things which happened during Kyle's testimony in his case, was he demonstrated he understood Wisconsin weapons law better than ADA Binger did.

For Kyle the maximum penalties are a fine of up to $10,000 and or up to nine months in jail. 

For Dominick, the maximum penalties are a fine of up to $10,000 and/or six years in prison for each charge. Dominick is facing up to twelve years in prison.

The charges against Dominick are a powerful weapon for a prosecutor to use to compel cooperation by a witness. 

It is likely one of ADA Binger's main goals to confiscate and destroy the two rifles. As Dominick was the legal owner of the rifles, the rifles would normally be returned to him, if he were not convicted of a crime. The gun confiscation would send a powerful message to the population, that owning guns is a bad idea.

In the McClosky trial in St. Louis Missouri, the prosecutor stated one of his main goals was confiscate the weapons used by the McClosky couple in defending their home.

Dominick's trial was moved to be after Kyle's trial, months before Kyle's trial.

With Judge Schroeder dismissing the weapons charges against Kyle, it appears the weapons charges against Dominick go away as well. How can a person be convicted of supplying a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, when it did not happen? The exception in the law for Dominick is in the same subsection of the law, 948.60 (3)(c) as for Kyle.

Judge Bruce Schroeder is the same presiding judge in Dominick's case as in Kyle's case.

The logical thing to happen, is for ADA Binger to drop the charges against Dominick, once Kyle's trial is over. Barring that, Dominick's attorney should file a motion to dismiss the charges to Judge Schroeder. 

Dominick Black is a victim of incompetent and/or corrupt prosecutors in this case.

Having the charges dropped mean the rifles legally owned by Dominick Black should be returned to him. They are likely to be very valuable.  Based on past famous trials, they could easily be worth a quarter million dollars.

If Kyle is found not guilty of all charges, then Dominick should honor their contract and transfer the rifle Kyle provided the money for, to Kyle.

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

Gun Watch

IA: Woman Homeowner Shoots, Kills Intruder

An Anderson woman shoots and kills a man suspected of breaking into her home. 911 dispatchers received a call from a female homeowner in the 1300 block of E. 8th Street around 12:47 a.m. The woman told police there was a break-in at the home, and she shot the suspected burglar. By the time police arrived, they found the alleged suspect dead in an upstairs bedroom.


More Here

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Armed Encounter with a Yuma County Sheriff's Deputy

On November 1, 2021, I was doing some target shooting and chronograph work on public land, in an unused sand and gravel pit with a good backstop, off a dirt track north of the Foothills/I8 interchange. The weather was clear and calm, about 72 degrees.

I had just fired my last shot when a Yuma County deputy pulled up behind my vehicle. 

It was about 0940. I put down the pistol I was shooting. It was suppressed. I waited for the deputy to advance about 50 feet. The pistol was in full view.

The deputy asked if I knew how far I was from houses, I said it was more than a quarter mile. A quarter mile distance from occupied dwellings is required to shoot on public land in Arizona. The deputy said that I was an adequate distance from any buildings.

I was carrying my old Glock17, concealed. 

He asked if I had a firearm on me. I said I did. He asked if I would please refrain from touching it while we talked. I said that was fine.

He indicated someone had called in about someone shooting in the area, and, while what I was doing was legal, I might consider changing the location or geometry a bit. 

He asked for, and I handed him, ID. It was my Arizona drivers license, with the option of not having the Social Security number on it. 

Was that necessary? Probably not. I believe you pick your battles and choose your ground. This ground was about legal shooting, not whether the deputy had the authority to demand to check my ID.  

This correspondent had been in his shoes. I knew he was following protocol. It doesn't hurt that I am known in the county.  There have been other incidents where deputies have contacted me during Second Amendment activism.

He checked it out with dispatch. The acoustics were very good on his earpeace. I could not hear anything of the reply.  He asked if I lived in the area. I said, yes, then corrected myself and said, I have a place in the area. I asked if he minded if I retrieved my target (25 yards away). He did not have a problem with that.

He reiterated that many people walk in the area, so I should be very careful. He said more winter visitors (snowbirds) were showing up, now that the weather was cooler. He mentioned there was traffic in the area, and I had to be sure of my backstop.

He recorded my information, made a mild suggestion that I orient to obtain a better backstop, and wished me a good day.

It was about 9:56 when we finished. 

He went back to his vehicle.

I loaded up my vehicle. He backed up from blocking me in and drove off. I followed.

He did not ask for any permits. Arizona does not require permits. He immediately recognized I was acting legally, said so, and shifted to promoting firearms safety. He let me know we want to accommodate out winter visitors. (They support many local businesses.)

My suspicion is a winter visitor called. It has happened to this correspondent while open carrying. In a previous case, one deputy opined it was likely someone from Canada. 

With the current border restrictions, the Canadian possibility was less likely than other visitors.

Most states are not as free as Arizona. In some states, target shooting on public land is rigorously restricted. In other states there is very little public land. Visitors from those areas are sometimes startled with the freedom we have in Arizona.

Significantly, while I had all the paperwork necessary to prevent legal hassles, the deputy never asked about the suppressor on my pistol. 

This correspondent would like to see Arizona emulate Texas with the silencer/suppressor law passed there in the last legislative session.

If Arizona would pass such a law, the deputy would be forbidden from any legal hassle about silencers/suppressors. They would be specifically protected.

The incident shows the importance of selecting sheriffs who are sensitive to Constitutional issues, especially Second Amendment rights. 

Most contact with peace officers will be with local peace officers. If the local jurisdiction is administered by peace officers who are Constitutionally sensitive, the chances of problems with exercising your rights are much less likely.

Knowledge of the local laws is useful in preventing problems with deputies and other peace officers. 

The Internet makes information about local laws fairly easy to find.

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

Gun Watch

OH: Domestic Defense, Woman Shoots Estranged Boyfriend

Deputies responded to the 300 block of Township Road 1057 in Proctorville, Ohio. The occupant of the home, 31-year-old Natasha Clark told deputies that she had shot her estranged boyfriend as he tried to enter through her front door.

The man suffered one wound to the chest from a small-caliber handgun, and he was transported to St. Mary’s Hospital in Huntington, West Virginia. He is in stable condition.

More Here

TX: Homeowner shoot Suspect Twice, is Disarmed

A Camp County Sheriff’s Office deputy was dispatched at 4:40 a.m. to a residence on a Camp County road. The homeowner stated that he heard a truck with a loud exhaust driving down the dead end road in front of his house at around 4:30 a.m. before hearing the engine turn off in the road in front of his house. A short time later, the homeowner stated he heard a noise outside and observed a male subject breaking into his storage shed. The reports states the homeowner grabbed his shotgun and went out and confronted the subject who was allegedly breaking into the building with tools belonging to the homeowner.

“He shot the intruder. However, the man got up and they then struggled for the gun. The suspect was shot again before he managed to take the gun and flee,” Camp County Sheriff John Cortelyou said.

More Here

IL: Homeowner Shoots Man in Leg

A homeowner in the 100 block of north Entrance Ace.in Kankakee shot a man who was trying to get into his home about 4 Sunday morning.  City police the intruder was not trying to take anything he was seeking safety from two other men who were beating him just minutes earlier.

More Here

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Book Review: Dred Scott The Inside Story by David T. Hardy


Dred Scott The Inside story, by David T. Hardy, 2019, 84 pages, paperback

The Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court, delivered an opinion, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, in 1857, that rocked the nation. Many claim the decision precipitated the secession of the southern states and the War Between the States, or the Civil War, as many prefer. 

One of the most famous passages in the decision is where Chief Justice Taney is explaining why black people cannot be allowed to be citizens:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

David Hardy has done fascinating original research on the Dred Scott case. The case is one of the most studied in American history. There are several mysteries involved. Hardy explores them and is able to uncover what Chief Justice Taney and others on the Court expected to accomplish with the case. 

The book is only 84 pages long. It is crammed with excellent scholarship and references. This is a very well done example of historical detective work.  

In his youth, Chief Justice Taney was anti-slavery. As he grew older, he became pro-slavery. To those interested in conspiracies, there was a conspiracy to bring the Dred Scott case to the Supreme Court. The expected outcome of the case, by Chief Justice Taney, was to end the controversy over slavery, by taking the issue out of the hands of the Congress. Thus, the conspirators thought, they could preserve the United States and prevent future conflicts.

The book illustrates the problem with grand conspiracies; the law of unintended consequences.  Hardy persuasively argues the Dred Scott decision lead directly to the election of Abraham Lincoln, and the war that followed.

The book is filled with interesting historical facts about the case and the people involved. A mountain man who married well and became one of the richest men in society. The bond between an illiterate slave and the son of the man who owned him, which was maintained over decades and lead to the slave's freedom; the four military officers who all claimed Dred Scott as their servant, to increase their monthly pay by nearly 50%, all at the same time.

For students of history, the book gives a fascinating look into the dynamics of 1850's politics, and how they lead to a radically changed society through the War Between the States and its aftermath. 

There is no question the Supreme Court justices of the time believed the Second Amendment protected an individual right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Whatever Chief Justice Taney got wrong in the Dred Scott decision, the right of individual citizens to keep and carry arms was well understood in 1857.

Highly recommended, five stars.

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

Gun Watch



OR: 74-Year-Old Woman Holds Burglary Suspect for Police

Karges told us, “Deputies arrived on scene and observed a 74-year-old an elderly female in possession of a firearm, detaining a male suspect. The resident complied with deputies’ requests to set aside the weapon and the firearm was rendered safe.”

Deputies took the suspect, whom Karges identified as 21-year-old Dustin Beau Campbell into custody.

“Through their investigation, deputies learned that the resident arrived home to find the door open and several items out of place,”Karges told us. “While inside the home, the resident located Campbell. At that time, the resident drew her personal firearm, holding Campbell at gunpoint until deputies’ arrival.”

More Here

Guam: Armed Neighbor Uses Gun to Stop Home Invasion

“I grabbed my gun and I went and made sure that the front area was clear, because you don’t know how many are there. Then I ran back and I saw him and I chased him,” Manansala recalled.

Manansala then did what he prayed he would never have to do.

“I put a gun on his face and I said ‘I want to see your hands, let me see your hands, I don’t want to shoot you today,’” Manansala said.

The man he stopped, Eric Fortes, was released from prison a few days earlier. He was serving time on a theft by receiving charge after he had been found driving a stolen vehicle in 2019. He had also been charged with possession of a Schedule II controlled substance in 2018, according to court documents.

More Here

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Rittenhouse Trial, Day Nine: Jury Instructions on Gun Charge make Conviction Unlikely!

Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten.

Update: (the gun possession charges were dismissed by Judge Schroeder just before final arguments, on 15 November)

Early in the course of the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the prosecution decided to charge Rittenhouse with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18, Wisconsin statute 948.60. Several commentators immediately noted the prosecution was misapplying the law. By the letter of the law, Rittenhouse fell under the exception in 948.60  3(c). From the statute:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 941.28 applies to short barreled rifles and shotguns. It is a legal definition. The rifle Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying was not a short barreled rifle under the law. 

SS 29.304 only applies to people who are less than 16 years of age. SS 29.593 requires a person who is hunting to possess a valid hunter safety certificate.  Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old. Kyle Rittenhouse was not hunting.

The Rittenhouse defense team attempted to have the weapons charge dismissed at the initial hearing. Then Rittenhouse changed his defense team. 

The new defense team filed motions to have the weapons charge dismissed prior to the trial. During hearings on the jury instructions, Judge Schroeder was considering dismissing the charge, based on the defense motion. There was a later motion to re-consider, by the Defense, based on extensive research involving the legislative history of the law. 

Judge Schroeder did not dismiss the charge. He said he would wait until later to decide. On the first day of the Rittenhouse trial, Judge Schroeder said he would delay his decision further.

On November 9, more than a week into the trial, Judge Schroeder gives his decision. It is terse, at the very start of the Rittenhouse trial that day. He says: 

For reasons related in the brief which was filed by Mr. Kraus (one of the prosecutors), the motion for reconsideration on count six is denied.

Count six is the weapons charge. Judge Schroeder refused to dismiss the charge.

On the next day, Kyle Rittenhouse gives testimony. There is a brief exchange about the issue between DA Binger and Rittenhouse during extensive cross examination.

A 1:19 in this video, Kyle Rittenhouse is asked, by DA Binger, why he bought an AR15 instead of some other rifle or shotgun or pistol. From the video:

Why did you pick or want Dominick Black, to buy for you, an AR15, as opposed to a pistol a shotgun or some other type of rifle?


I cannot legally possess or carry a pistol because I am not 18. In Wisconsin, I believe its 18 in Wisconsin for a pistol. But with the law, with the rifle, I knew I could possess that rifle, I knew I couldn't buy it,  but I knew I could like, take it to the shooting range or possess it. And with shotguns, they didn't have any shotguns in stock. That was my original plan to get a shotgun for trapshooting. But there weren't any at that Ladysmith store, and I didn't want to go to Walmart and buy one.

DA Binger:

So you're understanding at that time, was that Wisconsin law prohibited you from having a pistol but you could have an AR15?

Kyle: Yes. 

After a bit more of back and forth between DA Binger and Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle says officers in northern Wisconsin told him he could not carry a pistol, but could carry a rifle or shotgun.

DA Binger asks the judge to strike that testimony as hearsay. Judge Schroeder says, "you asked him". Then Judge Schroeder gives an explanation that only He is allowed to tell the jury what the law is. Not the defendant, not the prosecutor, not the defense. Then he gives this instruction: 

Judge Schroeder:

I will tell you, when I instruct you what the law of Wisconsin is pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a person under 18, and that will be the source of your knowledge.

Judge Schroeder, a little later:

It is quite complicated, hopefully it will sort out when I instruct you at the end.

After the prosecution and the defense have rested their cases, and all evidence has been submitted, Judge Schroeder schedules Friday, November 12, for the prosecution, the defense, and the Judge, to work out the jury instructions. He anticipates the instructions for charge six will be the most time consuming.

On the morning of November 12, there are some unanticipated motions by the prosecutor to add additional lesser charges. This is allowed under the law if elements of the lesser charge can be found to be relevant, independent of the greater charge. Then they start considering the weapons possession charge, charge 6. 

The prosecutors spring a surprise. 

They say, ordinary jury instructions will do. They did not prepare any special instructions, because the defense never presented any evidence of a weapons charge defense! Therefore the defense has no say in jury instructions in the matter! 

Ordinary Wisconsin jury instructions for the charge do not mention any exceptions to the law.

Judge Schroeder says, is that true?, directed at the defense. 

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi, responds. He says, we did bring up the defense on that issue! He asked a detective if he thought the rifle barrel was of legal length. Later, he says they brought up the age issue of Kyle Rittenhouse being under age 18 but more than 16.

No one seems to remember that Kyle himself brought up the affirmative defense (I would argue it is an exception in the law) in his own testimony, and the judge remarked on it!

Judge Schroeder tells everyone, ordinary people are expected to be able to read the law and understand what it means. 

Defense Attorney Chirafisi reminds Judge Schroeder of the motion to reconsider, and of all the legislative history and research.  He expounds on how the exception in 3(c) applies to Kyle. The only way it does not apply, is if he violates the short barreled rifle statute or both the hunting certificate statute and 29.304, the age restriction statute. As he is 17, he cannot violate 29.304, which is all about age restrictions.

Judge Schroeder states he denied the motion to reconsider because the charge was properly made by the prosecutors office. Therefore, he could not dismiss it out of hand.

Judge Schroeder waxes eloquent, in the video, for some time, on how important it is that ordinary citizens be able to understand the law.  Judge Schroeder in the video, about 1:16:

I have been wrestling with this, and I know there's  a lot brighter  judges in this world  than me; I have been wrestling with this  statue, I hate to count the hours I have put into it.  And, I am still trying to figure out what it says, what is prohibited?  Now, I have the good fortune to have some experience, and a liberal education. How is the ordinary person supposed to acquaint themselves with what this law says.

In the ensuing exchange, DA Kraus says, speaking of a part of SS 648:60: 

2(a) is very clear.

Judge Schroeder says, responding to DA Kraus stating 948.60 "2(a) is very clear": 

I wish it were to me.  

Then Judge Schroeder makes his decision. 

My intention is to instruct on what he (Defense Attorney Chriafisi) has submitted, without page numbers, I might add.  

Looks like the third page, which starts statutory definition of crime, down to where it says "or". 

So it will be "exception, the state must prove", etc. Then number 1, the defendant was under 18, number 2 and that the dangerous weapon, was either a rifle, etc. And you can search the evidence to find out if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is true, so that it can go to the jury. 

Alright, now, is that it?

Jury instructions are held fairly tight to the vest, so to speak, so even here, Judge Schroeder is not allowing the public to see the entire jury instructions for charge 6, until they are given to the jury, presumably Monday morning the November 15, 2021.

This is a major win for the defense team. It is not particularly surprising, because Judge Schroeder has been hinting at it for months. In addition, it is precisely the letter of the law. 

This is very good news for Kyle Rittenhouse, but it is superb, supremely excellent news for his friend, Dominick Black.

If Kyle is convicted of the gun possession charge, which now seems very unlikely, Kyle has a penalty of a Class A misdemeanor, which could be a fine of up to $10,000, 9 months in jail, or both. 

If Kyle is convicted of the gun possession charge, Dominick Black can be convicted of two felonies, with potential penalties of up to six years in prison for each.

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

Gun Watch

AL: Man Shoots Large, Aggressive Dog, Owner Understands

"It was a handgun that he was legally carrying and had a legal right to carry. It's sad that he had to do it, but he felt that he did do it in order to protect himself. I believe his family was close by as well," said Sgt. Steven Mooney with the Spanish Fort Police Department. Mooney describes the incident as justified. The shooting, he says, happened on the man's property.

Witnesses say the dog had been barking at and chasing people, that's when the homeowner stepped in. He called out to the dog to distract it and that's when police say the dog charged at him

More Here

CA: Home Invasion, Resident Kills 1, wounds 1 of 5 Home Invaders

OCEANSIDE, Calif. (CNS) -- A resident grabbed a gun and opened fire on two men taking part in a predawn home-invasion robbery along with four other accomplices in Oceanside today, killing one of them, authorities said.

More Here

SC: Man Shoots Dog which was Chasing his Cat; no Charges

A Swansea man reported that someone shot and killed his dog on Monday, but a magistrate said there’s no probable cause for charges.

The Old Swamp Road man claimed that his neighbor’s cats antagonize his dogs and the dogs break free from the underground fence, according to a sheriff’s office incident report.

The neighbor claims the man’s dogs come onto his property and chase his cats.

The neighbor also alleges the man’s dogs have killed four of his cats in the past, the incident report said.

More Here

Monday, November 15, 2021

PA: Resident Shoots Intruder who Broke into Philadelphia Home

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- Police say an intruder was shot by someone inside a home in the Logan section of Philadelphia.

It happened around 4:30 p.m. Sunday on the 4600 block of Newhall Street

According to police, the 58-year-old suspect broke into the home through a back window.

More Here

MD: Armed Off-Duty Officer Kills Suspect, Stopping Killing Spree

Southeast District Homicide / Police Involved
On November 13, 2021, at approximately 3:16 p.m., officers were dispatched to a Barber shop located in the 5700 block of O’Donnell Street, to investigate a reported shooting involving an off-duty Baltimore Police Officer. 
When officers arrived at the location, they learned that an armed gunman walked into the business and shot and killed a male employee. An off-duty Baltimore police officer was inside of the business at the time of the incident and shot the suspect, killing him.
Preliminarily, Investigators believe that the suspect involved in this shooting was also responsible for the shooting that occurred today in the 5000 block of East Oliver Street and the Homicide that occurred in the 4600 block of Eastern Avenue.
Investigators from S.I.R.T. along with Homicide detectives are continuing to investigate these cases.

More Here

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Oral Arguments on the NYR&PA Second Amendment Case at the Supreme Court Nov 3, 2021

The oral arguments for the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen were presented on November 3, 2021 to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Oral arguments do not carry much weight with the Court, generally. They allow some public interpretation of the issues the Court members are interested in. All of the arguments have already been stated in the written briefs to the Court. With those limits, the presentation to the Court and the questions asked were interesting.

The oral arguments took almost two hours. They were scheduled for 70 minutes. This showed (no surprise) this is a very important case, important to the justices and the general public, as well as to the nation.

They can be listened to at this link

Transcripts of the arguments (122 pages) are available at this link.

Three people presented arguments to the Court, although questions by the justices often resembled arguments more than mere questions. The three people presenting were:

Paul Clement, Esquire, Washington D.C. for the Petitioners (in favor of Second Amendment rights outside the home);

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, NY, NY, for the Respondents (generally against a Second Amendment right outside the home); and

Brian H. Fletcher, Principle Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for the United States, supporting the respondents.

Paul Clement presented a well argued and professional case for Second Amendment rights outside the home. It appeared designed to gain a moderate advance in restoring Second Amendment rights. He answered questions well. 

This correspondent found Clements use of the words "allow" and "granted" in describing fundamental Constitutional rights to be an unnecessary ceding of fundamental principles. The rights, in Natural Law Theory, are intrinsic to the existence of humans; they are not "allowed" or "granted".

Clement was careful to argue he was only asking for a reasonable granting of rights that most people in other states already enjoy. It appears he was not willing to argue for more, fearing he would obtain too little.

The Justices, with their questions and comments were divided into two camps. 

Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanauh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, seemed in favor of a straightforward, rational interpretation of the Second Amendment, with Justice John Roberts leaning that way.

Justices Kagan, Sotomeyer, and Breyer seemed in favor of limiting Second Amendment rights outside the home as much as possible.  Justice Breyer was openly hostile to the historical findings in Heller.

In general, the debate mirrored the public debate over the Second Amendment, albeit in a more subtle, nuanced and scholarly manner. 

Those opposed leaned heavily on the Progressive assumption more guns mean more danger, even though such danger was not shown in significant evidence.

Those in favor leaned heavily on the words of the Constitution and the facts of successful shall issue laws in 42+ other states and territories. 

Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, referred to as "General Underwood" in the oral arguments seemed a bit overwhelmed by the experience. Her presentation appeared  a bit nervous, perhaps understandable, but unusual for presentations at this level. At about one hour and 21 minutes into the oral arguments, Justice Alito confronts General Underwood with a false presentation in the New York brief. He quoted the brief from page 23: 

 But on page 23, you say that in founding-era America, legal reference guides advised local officials to "arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed." And this is a citation to John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina, 1814. So I looked at this manual, and what it actually says is "you shall arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed offensively." And somehow that word "offensively" got dropped -- from your brief.
Justice Alito asks if Underwood thinks "offensively" is an irrelevant word. He gives Underwood plenty of room to back off, and say it was an error, they should have included the word. Instead, she doubles down. She says the word is irrelevant, her team discussed the issue, and essentially admits they deliberately misquoted the manual. It seemed a major blunder, to this correspondent.

Mr. Fletcher from the Biden Department of Justice, was another matter. He showed his considerable talents for making a case smoothly and his command of the facts and the law. He made the most of a weak case with authority and  sang-froid. He showed himself to be an able adversary in the Court. 

He relied heavily on  one statute, which was overturned by the state court in Tennessee, in 1821, and the post bellum case in Texas from 1871, which this correspondent discussed previously. Then there were a flurry of cases as states worked hard to restrict freed slaves and new immigrants. It was not persuasive to those who had read the cases; it was enough for a justice to hang their hat on if they wanted to limit the reach of the Second Amendment.

Justice Roberts said it was hard to believe a fundamental Constitutional right would be consistent with a permit system. 

There was considerable discussion of how an expanded definition of "sensitive places" might be used by New York if the law was struck down.

Justice Alito brought up the Sullivan law, and how the purpose may have been deliberately discriminatory to disfavored groups.

This correspondent was disappointed no one mentioned the ties of the Sullivan law to protecting organized crime through the law's namesake,  "Big Tim Sullivan".

Justice Alito summed up the argument from Mr. Fletcher, I believe, framed as a question:

JUSTICE ALITO: I think one more question about the major point that you've made this morning, which is that there are scattered statutes, local ordinances, judicial decisions from various points in the 19th century extending into the 20th century, the early 20th century with the Sullivan Law and the other laws that you mentioned, that are inconsistent with Mr. Clement's argument. 

But what does that show about the original understanding of the right that's protected by the Second Amendment? Would --would we be receptive to arguments like that if we were interpreting, let's say, the First Amendment or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment? Would we say, well, you know, you can find a lot of state laws and state court decisions from the late -- from the 19th century, early 20th century, that are inconsistent with a claim that is made based on the original meaning of -- of a provision of the Bill of Rights, and that shows that's what that was understood to mean at the time?

It is the crux of the matter. Just because a few jurisdictions flagrantly violated the Second Amendment doesn't mean the Second Amendment should not have any Constitutional force.

Oral arguments are primarily for public consumption. It is unlikely they do much to influence the Court. From these oral arguments, this correspondent predicts a 6-3 decision striking down the New York law, and requiring a Shall Issue permit system, to be enacted within, perhaps, six months or a year of the decision. 

The court is likely to issue an opinion near the end of June, 2022.

It will not stop all infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. No one made an argument about "Shall not be infringed". It is likely to make a large difference for millions of people in those few states where the Second Amendment is treated as a second class Constitutional right.

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

Gun Watch

IL: Chicago, Armed Career Criminal Opens Fire on Armed Citizen, is Shot, Killed

Update 3:59 p.m. — Based on statements made by CPD, the deceased man, Darion Blackman, is the 51st person accused of killing, trying to kill, or shooting another person in Chicago this year while on felony bail.

Update 3:20 p.m. — In addition to being on bail for a felony gun offense in Cook County, Blackman was also charged with a felony gun offense in Will County over the summer. Once again, the Illinois Department of Corrections decided not to revoke his parole for the alleged violation.

Update 7:09 a.m. — The Cook County medical examiner’s office has now publicly identified the deceased man as Darion Blackman. Our original report, which did not refer to him by name, follows.

More Here

Saturday, November 13, 2021

NICS and Gun Sales for October, 2021 Continue Trend for Second Highest Year Ever

As has become the norm for 2021, October gun sales in 2021 were the second highest on record. Less commonly, the total NICS background checks were also the second highest October on record. There is a significant difference between the NICS checks and gun sales. Gun sales have been running at about half of NICS checks for a while, but in October, they were 54% NICS checks.  What seems to have happened is permit and permit rechecks have fallen off a bit.

In October, the number of gun sales, calculated as handguns + long guns + other guns + 2.5 x multiple sales on one 4473 are a bit more than 1.38 million guns out of 2.58 million background checks. In October of 2020, gun sales were 56% of total NICS.  

There have been about 15.2 million guns added to the private stock in 2021, so far. That translates to approximately 478 million privately owned firearms in the United States. 3.8 million more gun sales are required to reach 482 million privately owned guns by the end of 2021. 

The rate of gun sales in 2021 translates to another 3.45 million sales in November and December of 2021. November and December are traditionally the two highest months for gun sales. 

With supply chain disruptions becoming significant, it is unknown how gun sales will be affected.  Some gun parts are made in other countries, but most parts appear to be made in the United States.  

The ammunition bubble remains inflated, prices remain high. Even ammunition components are expensive and difficult to find. 

Limited ammunition supplies may be what is keeping gun sales from the record levels of 2021. 90% of 2020 sales is enough to make 2021 the second highest year for gun sales on the record. 

Many of the gun buyers are new gun owners. This transtates to a higher level of base ammunition demand. Eventually demand will fall either when confidence in a stable United States returns, or draconian controls drive demand into the black and grey markets.  Most Americans today have never known significant hardship or need. 

The idea that basic supplies can be in short supply is alien to most Americans alive today. . 

Shortages of certain brands, and the prospect of empty shelves on occasion looms ahead. Such things tend to remind one of vulnerablilities and kindle a desire for more independence. 

With that desire comes demand for firearms and ammunition.

This shows the demand for firearms can continue at high levels.

It is unknown how high bad the current shortages will become. 

This correspondent does not see a return to "normal" conditions until the grip on power in the American government by those who are pushing to remake American society is broken. 

 More than 8% of all American adults have a firearms carry permit. 21 states do not require a permit for open or concealed carry.  Over 32% of the adults in Alabama have a carry permit; Over 21 percent of adults in Indiana, and over 16% of adults in Iowa have carry permits. This indicates the 8.3% average for the nation has considerable room to grow. It could easily double or quadruple.

President Biden's proposed "build back better" initiative assumes American society is broken and requires fundamental change. "Build back better" implies the destruction of American society as we know it.

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

Gun Watch

NM: Albuquerque Jury Finds Christopher Taber not guilty in Shooting Death of Daniel Salazar

A jury found Christopher Taber, 41, not guilty of first-degree murder last week in the 2019 shooting death of his neighbor during a dispute outside their Northwest Albuquerque homes.

The 2nd Judicial District Court jury apparently accepted the narrative of defense attorneys that Tabor was defending himself when he fatally shot Daniel Salazar on June 30, 2019.

More Here

LA: In Grant Parish, Off Duty Agent Shoots Intruder who Attacked Him

The preliminary investigation revealed an armed subject, later identified as 39-year-old Chad Scott of Pollock, forcefully entered an off-duty Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Agent’s residence. As Scott entered the residence, an altercation ensued and the property owner discharged a firearm. Scott was struck and sustained critical injuries. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment. There were no other injuries reported.

More Here

Friday, November 12, 2021

OH: Constitutional Carry passes House Committee; has Chance to Become Law

Ohio Statehouse

On October 28, the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee, after 5 hearings starting on April 15, voted to pass HB227 to the full House for a vote. HB227 is the Constitutional Carry bill in Ohio, and passed on a party line, 8-4 vote, as reported by buckeyefirearms.org

The bill changes Ohio law from dealing with concealed handguns to concealed weapons; it changes the law so that any non-prohibited person 21 years old or older can carry concealed weapons where people can carry with a permit, now. From HB227:

..a person who is twenty-one years of age or older and is not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under any law of this state or the United States may carry a concealed deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon anywhere in this state. The person's right to carry a concealed deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon that is granted under this division is the same right as is granted to a person who has been issued a concealed weapons license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code, and the person described in this division is subject to the same restrictions as apply to a person who has been issued a concealed weapons license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.

(B) The mere carrying or possession of a deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon pursuant to the right described in division (A) of this section, with or without a concealed weapons license issued under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a concealed weapons license issued by another state, does not constitute grounds for any law enforcement officer or any agent of the state, a county, a municipal corporation, or a township to conduct any search, seizure, or detention, no matter how temporary in duration, of an otherwise law-abiding person.
The House bill is more comprehensive than the Senate bill.

The companion bill in the Senate,  SB 215, had a second hearing on October fifth. Its provisions for permitless carry are very similar to the House bill. From the Senate version of the bill.

Notwithstanding any other Revised Code section to the contrary:

(1) A person who is a qualifying adult shall not be required to obtain a concealed handgun license in order to carry in this state, under authority of division (B)(2) of this section, a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm.

(2) Regardless of whether the person has been issued aconcealed handgun license, subject to the limitations specified in divisions (B)(3) and (D)(2) of this section, a person who is a qualifying adult may carry a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm anywhere in this state in which a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license may carry a concealed handgun.

(3) The right of a person who is a qualifying adult to carry a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm that is granted under divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section is the same right as is granted to a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license, and a qualifying adult who is granted the right is subject to the same restrictions as apply to a person who has been issued a concealed handgun license.(C) The mere carrying or possession of a handgun that is not a restricted firearm pursuant to the right described in divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, with or without a concealed handgun license, does not constitute grounds for any law enforcement officer or any agent of the state, a county, a municipal corporation, or a township to conduct any search, seizure, or detention, no matter how temporary in duration, of an otherwise law-abiding person.

The future of permitless or Constitutional carry in Ohio is uncertain. Ohio has a super majority of Republicans in the House, 64 to 35. In the Senate, they have more than a supermajority, 25 to 8. The legislature overrode Governor DeWine's veto of  SB 22, which reformed and decreased the governor's emergency powers on March 24, 2021.  In Ohio, it takes 60%, 3/5 of each house to override a veto. That is 60 votes in the House, and  20 in the Senate.

Governor DeWine has not stated if he would sign or veto a permitless carry bill.  With a general resistance to governmental and federal overreach rising in the population, Governor DeWine may feel compelled to sign a bill to show his willingness to protect the individual from the government.

The passage of Constitutional (permitless) carry in Texas created a momentum of legitimacy for Constitutional carry. With 21 states now having permitlesss carry, and another 17 having permitless carry for open carry, the lack of any measurable bad consequences makes permitless carry difficult to argue against. Here is an example, from the testimony of Shannon Gallagher:

We oppose permitless carry because it takes away personal responsibility—

Law enforcement experts, gun instructors, and military personnel overwhelmingly agree that people who carry concealed weapons in public should take firearm training, including live-fire training. Permitless carry strips law enforcement of this authority, forcing them to allow people with violent criminal histories to carry concealed guns throughout the state

This bill goes against our values in Ohio, disregarding the devastating consequences of gun violence to our communities, shown by Ohio’s alarming rates of gun injury and death.

Opponents are reduced to generic "guns are bad" arguments. Those arguments are undercut by the experience of the United States over the last 30 years. 

When government excesses are being highlighted, reforms which might otherwise be ignored, have better chances of passage. 

This correspondent will not be surprised if Constitutional carry passes in Ohio this year. 

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

Gun Watch