Monday, October 31, 2022

Poll Shows Iowa "Keep and Bear Arms" Amendment will pass on November 8, 2022


A new poll shows overwhelming support for the Right to Keep and bear arms amendment to the Iowa Constitution.


A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll found 58% of likely voters  plan to vote for the proposed amendment in the Nov. 8 midterm election. Thirty-seven percent of likely voters would vote against it, and another 6% are not sure.

The great seal of Iowa features a citizen soldier armed with a musket. The Great Seal, has, in bold letters emblazoned on the banner near the top of the Seal:

"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain."

In spite of those bold words, Iowa is one of only six states which do not have a protection in the state constitution for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time of the adoption, in 1847, the right to keep and bear arms was not controversial. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made the argument that black people could not be recognized as citizens, because if they were, they would have the same rights as white men. From the infamous Dred Scott opinion, bold added:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized 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. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

The Dred Scott decision was written only ten years after the Great Seal was adopted by the state of Iowa.

Iowans thought their rights were protected by the Second Amendment. 174 years of experience has shown many powerful people have worked hard to negate the protections of the Second Amendment.

Iowa Second Amendment activists have been attempting to rectify the lack of protection in the Iowa constitution for several years. They have seen courts claim the militia clause of the Second Amendment rendered the right of the people toothless. They have seen courts, such as the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ignore protections which were considered to be plain, which is why the "fundamental right" and "strict scrutiny" language were added.

Here is the text of the amendment which will appear on the 2022 ballot:

Right to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1A. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.[4]

The procedure for amending the Iowa constitution is long and difficult.

First, the proposed amendment must be passed by both houses of the legislature.

Second,  a regular election of the legislature must happen.

Third, the proposed amendment must be passed by both houses again.

Fourth, the proposed amendment is offered as a choice on the ballot of the next election.

If the proposed amendment passes by vote of the electorate, the amendment becomes part of the Iowa Constitution.

Proponents of the amendment started moving it in the Iowa legislature in 2017, the first year in decades when Republicans held control of both houses of the Iowa legislature.

Amendment proponents suffered a setback when the Secretary of State forgot to publish the amendment, as required by law, in 2018. This set back the effort on the amendment by two years, and another set of votes was required in both houses of the Iowa legislature.

In 2021, Iowa passed Constitutional Carry on April 2. There are now 25 states in the Constitutional Carry club.

In recent decades, several states have passed right to keep and bear arms amendments or upgrades.

Wisconsin Constitution’s Section 25 passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote. Kansas passed an amendment in 2010. It received 88% of the vote. Louisiana's amendment in 2012, passed with 74% of the vote. Alabama passed a similar amendment in 2014. It received 72% of the vote. Missouri strengthened their rkba amendment in 2014 with 61% of the vote.

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court published the Bruen decision. In the decision, the court eliminated the use of various "levels of scrutiny". If the rights protected by the Second Amendment were infringed upon, the laws infringing on them are unconstitutional, period.  In the Bruen decision, the Second Amendment is considered a fundamental right, not a "second class" right.

The Second Amendment is now more protective than the proposed Iowa Amendment. The Iowa amendment cannot be changed. It will appear on the 2022 ballot as written.

Prediction: The Iowa constitutional amendment will pass by a large margin. 

The right of Iowans to keep and bear arms will be protected in both the federal and state constitutions.

The five states which will continue without a protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IN: Intruder Identified in Fatal LaPorte Shooting

The LaPorte County Sheriff’s Office has identified the man shot to death inside a home southeast of LaPorte yesterday morning.

42-year-old Jacob Borders is described by police as a, “intruder”.

A man, woman and one juvenile who live at the home in the 20-thousand block of State Road 4 were unhurt.


More Here

FL: Man Shoots Man who Pointed Fake Gun at Him

The shooter told investigators he was sitting in his car, parked in a friend’s driveway, when the other man parked his vehicle in the street, got out, put a handgun in his waistband, approached the shooter’s vehicle and knocked on the window. The shooter told police he lowered his window and the other man “yelled something unknown before raising the gun toward him,” a news release states.

The shooter told police he thought the man was going to shoot him, so he retrieved his own gun and shot the man. Investigators determined the man’s gun was fake.


More Here

Saturday, October 29, 2022

NV: Intruder Threatened to "Kill you all" before being shot

A man who broke into a west Las Vegas Valley home and was telling the residents, “Let me in, I will kill you all” was shot in the leg by a resident of the home, according to a police arrest report.

And the aftermath of the shooting was caught on video, with a neighbor recording footage of the wounded man writhing in pain on the lawn after being brought out of the house by police.

“I think everybody’s kind of shocked about what happened,” said Heath Horvat, 50, the next-door neighbor who recorded the video, speaking of the bizarre incident in the usually quiet, tight-knit neighborhood near West Sahara Avenue and South Hualapai Way.

More Here

PA: Liam Huges was Justified in Shooting Death of two Men

The 21-year-old man who shot and killed two men who were attacking him in the parking lot of the Steam Pub in Upper Southampton Township was justified in using deadly force, District Attorney Matt Weintraub announced on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2022.

Liam Hughes and a friend were returning to Hughes’ car on the night of Oct. 7, 2022, after leaving the Steam Pub, 606 Second Street Pike, Southampton PA 18966, when a group of men gathered near his car confronted and attacked him, Weintraub explained.

More Here

Friday, October 28, 2022

Hawaii Court Dismisses Two Firearms Charges because of Supreme Court Bruen Decision

On December 6, 2017, about an hour before midnight, Maui police were called about suspected trespassers on a trail controlled by Flyin Hawaii Zip Lines.

The police did not explore the trail or look for trespassers. They waited for the owner of Flyin Hawaii Zip Lines, armed with an AR15 style rifle, to search the trail and locate those accused of trespassing.  From an August 22, 2022 article in

Wilson, 46, had faced the felony charge of keeping a firearm in an improper place and the misdemeanor charge of keeping ammunition in an improper place after he was arrested Dec. 7, 2017.

Police were called after the owner of Flyin Hawaii Zip Lines in the West Maui Mountains was alerted at 11 p.m. Dec. 6, 2017, that trespassers had entered the property, according to information in court records.

Police waited on the roadside while the owner, who was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, and an employee located three hikers who told police they were hiking to look at the moon and native plants, according to the information.

On December 6-7, 2017, the moon was nearly full.

Upon information from the accused trespassers, the owner and an employee searched again and brought out Christopher Wilson. Wilson told police he had a .22 caliber handgun in his waistband. Wilson was arrested in the early morning hours on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 2017.

On August 17, 2022, over four years and eight months later, the trial judge, Kirsten Hamman, dismissed the felony charge for keeping a firearm in an improper place and the misdemeanor charge of keeping ammunition in an improper place, citing the June 22, 2022, Supreme Court decision in Bruen.

An inquiry to the public defender, about what motions might have kept the case from trial, did not receive a reply in time for this writing. From an October 19, 2022 article in

After a hiker said others might be on the private trail, the owner went back to search and returned about 10 minutes later with Wilson, who
told police he had a handgun in his front waistband that he was carrying for self-defense, according to the court information.

Police reported recovering a .22-caliber handgun loaded with a 10-round magazine.

In an Aug. 17 ruling, 2nd Circuit Judge Kirstin Hamman granted a defense request to dismiss the two charges.

The ruling said Wilson “was carrying the firearm on the trail for self-defense purposes — conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”

Judge Kirsten Hamman, Hawaii, assumed office October 29, 2021, less than a year before the Second Amendment claim was made, and more than three years after the alleged offense occurred.

Here is the oath of office for Hawaii officeholder, which applies to Judge Kirsten. Hawaii oath of office:

"I,..............., do solemnly swear and declare, on oath that if elected to office I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Hawaii, and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that if elected I will
faithfully discharge my duties as.....(name of office) the best of my ability; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; So help me God."

On September 22, 2022, Maui County Prosecutor Richard Rost appealed the decision. From

Maui County Assistant District Attorney Richard Rost appealed the dismissal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals on September 22.

In the same article, the public defender for Wilson, Ben Lowenthal, makes an unusual claim. He seems to suggest prosecutors should drop the case because it may be a good test case to restore rights protected by the Second Amendment:

 “Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to keep and bear arms in self-defense extend beyond the home. Maui prosecutors seem eager to explore and uncover the contours of this right. They risk a flood of constitutional challenges around the state that could repeal our gun laws and make us all less safe,” he said.

Ben Lowenthal appears to lean left. In 2020, he was one of the finalists on a short list to be appointed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Christopher Wilson still faces misdemeanor charges of first degree criminal trespass and failure to obtain a permit to acquire a firearm.

Hawaii has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the USA. The requirements for carry permits are already under judicial scrutiny.

Numerous restrictive firearms laws are being challenged across the United States. The Bruen decision by the Supreme Court shows the way for courts to restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.

A challenge to the requirement to obtain a permit in order to acquire a firearm is in process in Maryland in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A related case exists in Illinois, where a challenge to the Firearms Owners IDentification card (FOID) is ongoing.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


MD: Permit Holder Draws Weapon, Carjack Suspects Fire and Flee

Police said two men approached the 42-year-old victim armed with handguns around 12:30 p.m. Sunday. When the victim drew his licensed handgun to defend himself, the men fired their weapons. The victim was not hit.

Police said the victim was licensed to carry the handgun and did not fire his weapon. The two men fled in a silver sedan, police said.

More Here

FL: Armed Samaritan stops Brutal Attack on Woman

Pinellas County deputies said at around 5:17 p.m., Cole Joseph Danisment, 27, of Largo got angry with the victim at a Publix parking lot and began punching her in the face several times.

The victim ended up falling to the ground — at which point Danisment began stomping on the woman’s head and upper body, according to the arrest report.

The report said a witness who saw the attack said it was “so brutal in nature” that he feared that the victim would die. Danisment only stopped attacking the victim after the witness pulled a gun on him.

Deputies said the attack left the woman “covered in large amounts of blood” and a possibly broken nose.

According to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, the victim and Danisment had been dating for a year and lived together for around a month.

More Here

Thursday, October 27, 2022

PA: Homeowner Shoots Intruder who Kicked in Door

Keon J. Washington, 32, kicked in a back door of a home in the area of Disbrow and Carnation streets around 4:45 p.m. Friday and was confronted by the homeowner, according to city police.

Police said the homeowner — who legally owned a firearm — gave Washington warnings to stop and leave before shooting Washington.


More Here

The Bump Stock Court Case Coming up: Cargill v Garland.

On October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to two promising bump stock cases, one in the Tenth Circuit, another in the Sixth Circuit. The appeals process for those two cases is finished.

Another bump  stock case Cargill v. Garland, is in the Fifth Circuit, and may tip the balance.

The case is being considered en banc.  It is a well argued and supported case.

The case was filed on March 25, 2019, originally titled as Cargill v. Barr.

In all three cases, the arguments are not about the Second Amendment. They are about the ability of bureaucrats to make law and the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.

In Cargill v. Garland, supported by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the district court decided in favor of the government on November 23, 2020. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and a three judge panel upheld the district court.

A three judge panel issued an opinion on the case in the Fifth Circuit on December 14, 2022.

The three judge panel refused to consider either the separation of powers issues, or the Chevron doctrine, claiming they were irrelevant because the panel ruled bump stocks were machine guns.

The Fifth Circuit was asked to consider the case en banc,  which is to say, before the entire court, by a member of the Court. A majority of the members of the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the case, en banc.

The trend of the case follows the GOA case in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit agreed to hear the bump stock case en banc. The Sixth Circuit split evenly, with 8 members voting to rule the bump stock regulation invalid, and eight member voting to rule for the government.  In the case of a tie vote, the district court ruling was upheld. The GOA case was denied a writ of certiorari on October 3 of 2022.

The Cargill v. Garland oral arguments were heard by the Fifth Circuit, en banc, on September 13, 2022.

There is a good chance the Fifth Circuit will reverse the opinion of the district court. A majority of the Court  agreed to hear the case, starting fresh, en banc. If the Fifth Circuit reverses the opinion and finds for Cargill, the case will create a split in the Circuits between the Tenth, the Sixth, and the Fifth circuits.

This gives the Supreme Court a strong incentive to hear the case.

There is an Owellian quality to the circumstances. For over a decade, the ATF assured Americans that "bump stocks" were *not* machineguns. 

About half a million Americans purchased the devices on the assurance they were legal.

To reverse the longstanding interpretation of the law based on presidential preference  smacks of the Orwellian imagery.  In George Orwell's novel, 1984, history and legal reality were reversed at the whim of the ruling elite.  "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia", even though they were allies yesterday.

With the bump stock  regulation, we are told:

bump stocks were always machine guns before the law, even though we were told they were not machine guns for over a decade.

How can a citizen make informed decisions, if the law can be changed by whim of the executive branch?


There is the issue of timing. The Supreme Court has made momentous decisions this term, attempting to restore the rule of law to the nation, away from the insanity of the Progressive notion of the Constitution as a "living document", which can be altered at any time by the judicial branch.

Concurrent is the notion the executive branch can change the law at the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

The justices may not want to tie such a significant change as restoring the separation of powers, as demanded by the Constitution, to a controversial issue such as guns.

Separation of powers cases are percolating through the courts. One of those may be settled at the Supreme Court before the Cargill case.  Hat tip to (Mark W. Smith at the Four Boxes Diner.)

The mass of unconstitutional law in the United States is enormous. The Supreme Court justices are not fools. Declaring half of federal law unconstitutional, all at once, might provoke the left into open revolution.

It is better to proceed incrementally, as the infringements were put into place.


©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

IN: Shooting of Daniel Dunsmore Investigated as Self Defense

MUNCIE, Ind. — Muncie police are investigating the fatal shooting of a local man early Monday on the city's south side.

Officers were called to the 1900 block of West Memorial Drive at 12:17 a.m. and found Daniel Eugene Dunsmore, 56, suffering from a gunshot wound, reportedly in the chest.

He was taken to IU Health Ball Memorial Hospital, where he later died, according to Gavin Greene, Delaware County's chief deputy coroner.

More Here

Monday, October 24, 2022

Maryland Licensing Case Taking Supreme Court Bruen Decision into Consideration





Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., a Second Amendment protection activist organization based in Maryland, has submitted a brief for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, so the Court can take notice of the landmark Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Plaintiffs or Appellants are Maryland Shall Issue. The defendants are the State of Maryland. 

Maryland is one of the six states which do not have a protection in the State constitution similar to the Second Amendment. 

Here is a timeline of important events in the timeline of the case :

The complaint was filed on September 30, 2016.

An order by the district court granting defendants' (the State) motions for dismissal in part of and denying them in part, was issued on September 6, 2017.

An order granting defendants motion for summary judgement against Maryland Shall Issue was issued on March 3rd, 2019.

The case was appealed to the 4th Circuit on April 25, 2019.

Judgement was rendered in part, the case was remanded to District Court on August 3rd, 2020

The District court issued an opinion dismissing suit on August 23, 2021.

The case was appealed again to the 4th Circuit on September 16, 2021.

A notice considering Bruen was filed with the Court by Maryland Shall Issue on June 23, 2022.

A Brief by the appellees (the State) was filed on October 17, 2022.

A response by the appellants (Maryland Shall Issue) is due on November 16, 2022.

The crux of the case is whether the Maryland Handgun Qualification License, (HQL) based on the statute enacted in 2013, violates the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. From Maryland Shall Issue, Original complaint filed in 2016:

The HQL requirement violates the Second Amendment because: a) by the very nature of a right versus a privilege, a constitutional right may not be denied until a license to exercise that right is issued; b) the HQL process, both on the face of the statute and as applied, is unconstitutionally burdensome; c) the HQL process, both on the face of the statute and as applied, was designed to ration and deny constitutional rights

The long list of court decision and appeals came about because Maryland and the Fourth Circuit were using the discredited two part system of analysis of Second Amendment cases developed in Circuits hostile to the protection of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, in the Bruen decision struck down that system and instructed the lower courts to use a relatively simple system based on the text of the Second Amendment, and what regulation of the right to keep and bear arms was historically and culturally accepted at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 or to a lesser extent, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. 

In the Heller decision, the Court rejected any interest-balancing approach to interpreting the Second Amendment. The interest-balancing took place when the Bill of Rights was ratified.  

In the Bruen decision the rejection of interest-balancing, also known as a means-ends test, is reinforced. From Bruen, p. 2:

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

The Bruen decision was legally inserted into this long running Maryland case with the letter to the court submitted on June 23, 2022.  The State seems intent on pursuing a means-end or interest-balancing test. From the State's breif submitted on October 17, 2022: 

Plaintiffs challenge specific aspects of Maryland’s handgun-qualification-license law, which requires handgun-permit applicants to pass a background check and take a firearm-safety-training course, there bye insuring that those who acquire handguns are “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27, 635(2008)(“Heller I”). The district court correctly found that Maryland’s law furthers that permissible goal through objective, clearly defined criteria and minimal administrative requirements that do not prevent ordinary law-abiding, responsible citizens from obtaining handgun licenses.(J.A.1843-45, 1869.) Accordingly, the district court should be affirmed.


To this correspondent, it appears the attorneys for the State of Maryland are asking the appeals court to ignore the clear words of Bruen. Interest-balancing  tests are not allowed to determine whether the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment.  Using a First Amendment analogy, they are a prior restraint on the exercise of a right. The arguments in the above paragraph are interest balancing.

If the rights protected by the Second Amendment come down to: You have the right to keep and bear arms, unless the state decides it has an interest in preventing you from exercising those rights, the Second Amendment is an effective dead letter. Which is exactly what those promoting unlimited state power, and a disarmed population, desire.


©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


NV: Deadly Shooting near Atlantis Casino was Self Defense

According to Lieutenant Anthony Elges with the Reno Police Department, officers responded around 4:45 a.m. on Oct. 23 to the 3000 block of S. Virginia St. on reports of a shooting and found a man who was suffering from a gunshot wound. The man died on scene.

Detectives determined the shooting appears to be in self-defense, so no one has been arrested. The person who shot in self-defense remained on scene and is cooperating with the investigation.

More Here

Sunday, October 23, 2022

PA: Shooting Death of Diaz-Rivera was Justified Self Defense

Witnesses and video surveillance showed Diaz-Rivera and the other people forced their way into the home, and that the victim from the first assault was shoved into a glass coffee table that shattered, authorities said.

One of the occupants of the home, who legally owned and possessed a handgun, shot and killed Diaz-Rivera and then called 911, Martin said. The district attorney said he would not release the person’s identity.

More  Here

Saturday, October 22, 2022

NV: Shooting at University of Nevada, Reno, was Self Defense

When officers arrived on scene, the found a man suffering from gunshot wounds. Elges said the man was taken to the hospital where he later died from his injuries.

Elges said all involved parties remained on scene of the shooting and are cooperating with the investigation. No one has been arrested at this time because the incident appears to be an act of self defense.


More Here

Friday, October 21, 2022

Federal Judge Schedules Washington State Mag Ban Trial for December, 2023


In 2021, the Washington State legislature passed a ban on future sales or manufacturing of magazines, or other feeding devices which hold over 10 rounds. It does not include .22 rimfire tubular magazines. From the law:

(36)"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts are in possession of or under the control of the same person, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

The Washington State magazine ban is being challenged in the courts. One of the prime movers in the case is the Second Amendment Foundation.

The trial judge for the Federal District Court has scheduled an eight day bench trial to start on December 4, 2023.

As mentioned in a previous article on AmmoLand, the magazine ban has been a strategy used by those pushing for a disarmed society since Bill Ruger brought forward the idea in1989. 

Ruger, the company, paid a heavy price as millions of irate Second Amendment supporters shunned their products.  The company actively changed its stance on the issue.  Ruger products have since been accepted by most Second Amendment supporters, especially after Bill Ruger died.

A few states have passed magazine bans. 

Some appeals circuits have upheld them under the discredited "two step" procedure used by lower courts as a work around to the Heller decision.

On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court, in the Bruen decision, decisively chided the lower courts for relegating the Second Amendment to second class status.

A few days later, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari to four cases, vacated the rulings on those cases, and sent them back to the lower courts to be reheard, taking the clear guidance of Bruen into account. 

Two of those cases were magazine bans. 

The message is clear: magazine bans are a direct infringement on the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. 

One of those cases was returned to the Ninth Circuit, where it is being heard by Judge Roger T. Benitez in California. 

Washington State is in the Ninth Circuit. 

There is a good possibility the ban will be found to be unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit before the trial on the Washington state ban begins on December 4th, 2023. If that occurs, the Washington state trial would almost certainly be rendered moot.

Judge Benitez already issued an opinion showing the magazine ban to be unconstitutional. It seems unlikely there will be any substantial new evidence to change that opinion. Judge Benitez, in his previous opinion, already showed the ban was unconstituional under the Heller decision. 

The Bruen decision simply restated and amplified the Heller decision. It eliminated the "two step" method the lower courts had devised. The Bruen decision clarified and emphasized the requirement for governments to prove statutes which infringe on Second Amendment protected rights are consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation. If no historical tradition can be shown by the government, the law is prohibited by the Second Amendment. 

The historical tradition has to date from the time of ratification of the Second Amendment, in 1791, or the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1868.

No such historical tradition has been found. Repeaters with magazine capacity of over 20 rounds (the Girandoni air rifle used on the Lewis and Clark expedition) existed, and were well known, before 1791. Repeating rifles with magazines holding 15 rounds were used during the Civil War, or War Between the States, if you prefer. They were popular, without government restraint, to US citizens, in 1868.

The next few months will tell us if the Ninth Circuit is willing to comply with the instruction of the Supreme Court, or if they will devise some other scheme to avoid treating the Second Amendment with as much respect as the First Amendment.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

NE: Followup Shooting Death of Ryan Schuman found to be Self Defense

Called to the 300 block of North Oakland Ave., Oakland, Neb., at 9 p.m. Sept. 27, officers found Ryan Schuman, 32, with a gunshot wound. He was transported to the hospital where he died.

A Nebraska State Patrol investigation requested by the Burt County Attorney indicated that Schuman had attempted to prevent a man and a woman from leaving an apartment, struck the woman repeatedly and then was shot one time by the male, who left the apartment with the female and called 911 for help.

More Here

TN: "Road Rage" ends with Man being Shot

Officers responded to the Welcome Center after hearing reports of an active fight. When they arrived, they spoke with the woman, Samantha Griffin, who called 911. She told police that her husband, Joshua Griffin, and she were driving on Winfield Dunn Parkway when they were cut off by a Dodge Ram driven by Earl Lane, the report stated.

When the husband moved to the middle lane, the truck again cut them off. The report stated that when they went to the right lane, the truck moved in front of them and slammed on its brakes, forcing both vehicles to quickly stop.

Samantha Griffin said that when both vehicles were stopped, Lane got out of his truck, walked over to their car and started to punch Joshua Griffin in the face. She told officers that she suddenly heard gunshots.

More Here

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Law Against Possession of Gun Without Serial Number ruled Unconstitutional in WV

On October 12, 2022, in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Joseph R. Gordon granted a motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k) as being facially unconstitutional. Judge Gordon was appointed by President Bill ClintonFrom the decision:

Assume, for example, that a law-abiding citizen purchases a firearm from a sporting goods store. At the time of the sale, that firearm complies with the commercial regulation that it bear a serial number. The law-abiding citizen takes the firearm home and removes the serial number. He has no ill intent and never takes any otherwise unlawful action with the firearm. Contrary to the Government’s argument that Section 922(k) does not amount to an “infringement” on the law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right, the practical application is that while the law-abiding citizen’s possession of the firearm was originally legal, it became illegal only because the serial number was removed. He could be prosecuted federally for his possession of it. That is the definition of an infringement on one’s right to possess a firearm.

Now, assume that the law-abiding citizen dies and leaves his gun collection to his law-abiding daughter. The daughter takes the firearms, the one with the removed serial number among them, to her home and displays them in her father’s memory. As it stands, Section 922(k) also makes her possession of the firearm illegal, despite the fact that it was legally purchased by her father and despite the fact that she was not the person who removed the serial number. These scenarios make clear that Section 922(k) is far more than the mere commercial regulation the Government claims it to be. Rather, it is a blatant prohibition on possession. The conduct prohibited by Section 922(k) falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text.

This decision strikes at the heart of the ineffective and unconstitutional scheme to place government control over the possession of firearms in the United States. Such a scheme is blatantly unconstitutional under the protections afforded by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The primary purpose of requiring serial numbers on firearms is to allow for registration of particular firearms to a particular individual.

The government then has effective control over the possession of the registered firearms. 

If particular firearms can be legally linked to particular individuals, and the link is required by law, the government can demand the firearms be turned in, one by one, or en mass.

This is because government agencies would be able to require specific firearms to be turned in, under numerous possibilities for penalties and punishment.

Gun registration is effectively, gun confiscation.

Firearms can be gradually confiscated over time, as happened in England and has been happening, in small increments, in California, New York, and Illinois.

The key to registration is the ability to identify a particular firearm and link it to a particular individual.

Every attempt to impose national gun registration in the United States has relied on the requirement for individual guns to be uniquely identified.

In 1938 and in 1968 the provisions requiring mandatory national firearms registration were removed from the gun control bills by Congress. 

Those pushing for gun registration gained federal control over serial numbers.

In 1938, removing a serial number and possessing a firearm from which the serial number had been removed were made illegal under federal law.

In 1968, manufacturers were required to place serial numbers on all cartridge firearms.


Such "tracing" has always been ineffective, yielding a very poor cost to benefit ratio in preventing and controlling crime. Benefits, (of tracing), for preventing crime, are small to non-existent. Costs are high.

The unstated purpose was to make national firearms registration possible.

Crime immediately went up after the Gun Control Act of 1968, and continued rising for decades.

If the West Virginia decision stands, which seems likely under Bruen, the ability to use serial numbers for gun registration and confiscation is dead. The decision does not remove the requirement for manufacturers to mark their guns with serial numbers.

It has the effect of allowing people who fear government confiscation to legally possess guns without serial numbers. It eliminates the ability of governments in the USA from banning the possession of guns without serial numbers.

It will have virtually no effect on crime or public safety from criminals.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IA: Followup Daytrell Pendelton found Not Guilty of all Charges

WATERLOO — A former school bus driver has been found not guilty of shooting his mother’s husband with a shotgun in 2016.

Jurors deliberated Friday before returning to the courthouse Monday and acquitting Daytrell Pendleton, 33, of all charges.

More Here

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

MO: Police Say Woman was Shot in Self Defense

Columbia police say a woman they arrested after she showed up to a hospital with gunshot wounds early Sunday had earlier exchanged gunfire with two people in a parked vehicle.

Officers arrested Laronya Brown, 25, of Columbia, after finding out that a woman had been hospitalized with gunshot wounds following a shooting at about 3 a.m. in the 200 block of East Texas Avenue, according to a Columbia Police Department news release.

More Here

TX: Security Guard Fires Shots to Stop Assault on Woman

A security guard shot a man who may have been assaulting a woman near an international bridge in El Paso on Friday, police said.

The security guard witnessed the apparent assault taking place inside a car waiting in the southbound lane leading up to the Stanton Bridge, El Paso police said.

More Here

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Two Successful Defensive uses of .22 Mag Agains Bears in Boundary Waters Canoe Area


A Boundary Waters Canoe Area camp site, image courtesy Chris Larsen

On Tuesday, August 30, at about 6:50 p.m., James Little was settling into campsite 674 in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA). His youngest child was a few feet away.  His youngest cried out, and James grabbed the child, and took a couple of steps, uncertain what had happened. 

Then his oldest yelled "Bear!", and James turned around. The bear was about six feet from him. It had been within 3-4 feet of his back when the child was startled. This was the start of the remarkable incident. In James' words:

 Just finished a trip to Horseshoe that should have been three nights, but turn to one.

(Campsite 674) Had a bear walk right into camp and within four feet of my youngest! Nothing would discourage him till I fired a couple of rounds. 

We packed up and bolted to an open site (campsite 677) a half mile away on the other side of the lake. Weren’t there five minutes and was pulling up the food bag and my wife screamed. There was another bear fifteen feet away heading to our canoe with our kids in it. I had to fire another round before he would be deterred. 

Left that site and unexpected member Ausable and his crew took my family and me in for the night. (Campsite 672)

Early the next morning, we broke came and headed out. My family had had too much. Across from the portage from Caribou to Lizz, (campsite 645) the campers there had their breakfast intruded upon by a bear who would not be deterred till he had taken their food bag. 

This correspondent was able to talk to James, who reported the incident to the BWCA authorities. 

James used a North American Arms mini revolver, the Wasp model in .22 magnum, with a 1 5/8 inch barrel. The revolver was loaded with Speer Gold Dot defensive ammunition. 

James was certain there were two bears, not one. To reach campsite 677 in time, the first bear would have had to swim across a lake. The second bear was not wet.  Both bears were adults, weighing over 200 lbs. In James’ estimation, the bears were in the 300 lb range.

Both bears were persistent and would not leave. They would retreat a few feet, then come back. 

With the first bear, when James fired the warning shot, the bear ran off about 100 yards, then stopped and looked back. James fired a second warning shot, and the bear ran out of sight. 

The .22 magnum mini-revolvers are quite loud.

At campsite 677, the second bear came within six feet, then retreated, then came back, then moved toward the canoe where the children were. That is when James fired a warning shot in the second encounter. At the warning shot, the bear retreated to the surrounding forest.

Acknowledged bear expert Stephen Herrero considered just such a possibility when musing about the utility of firearms as a defense against bears.  The advice has remained the same since 1981. From "Bear Attacks" third edition, 2018, p. 243:

A firearm is also useful when a very aggressive bear shows up around camp and cannot be persuaded to leave. Such bears normally have a history of feeding on people's food or garbage, and may have to be killed.

In James’ case, the bears were sufficiently startled by the warning shots to run off. Whether the bears would have returned is uncertain.  

James’ wife questioned the utility of a firearm on a camping trip. Now she is glad James was armed.

In about 10% of documented cases where a pistol was fired in defense against bears, warning shots were sufficient. Some cases are uncertain because people aimed at the bear but it could not be determined if the bear had been hit. 

It is likely one of the two bears scared off by James pistol shots stole the food supply of the campers at campsite 645.

This correspondent believes most cases of successful warning shots are not recorded. No person was injured, no bear was wounded or killed, so the event was not newsworthy.  

One of this correspondent's colleague's related an incident which happened 30+ years ago, in which warning shots from a .41 magnum worked to dissuade a grizzly bear. Because there was no precise date or location (other than central Alaska), the incident is not considered documented and is not included in the data base. 

In a significant number of cases, using a firearm as a noisemaker is sufficient to deter problem bears.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


FL: Jewelry Store Owner Shoots, Kills, 2 of 4 Armed Robbery Suspects

Two robbery suspects were shot and killed by a jewelry store owner during a robbery attempt inside a Florida shopping mall, and two other suspects are being sought, police said. 

The robbery occurred at the Magic Mall in Orlando when four suspects robbed a jewelry booth with at least one of them armed, the Orlando Police Department told Fox News.

More Here

KS: Armed Samaritan hold Man who Brandished Knife for Police

A passerby stopped a road rage incident where a knife was brandished after he held a man at gunpoint until police arrived Friday night on 21st Street North near I-135, Wichita police spokesperson Chad Ditch said.

More Here

Monday, October 17, 2022

New York City Defies Supreme Court, Creates Times Square "Gun-Free Zone"

Times Square by Terabass, CC 3.0

On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued the long awaited and anticipated decision in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case. The decision ended more than a decade of silence by the Court as lower courts eviserated Second Amendment right restored by the Heller and McDonald decision in 2008 and 2011, respectively.

Bruen decisively restored the right to carry portable arms outside the home, and clearly ordered lower courts to abide by the standards of the Heller and McDonald decisions, rather than use the "two step" process the lower courts had established to evade the restoration of Second Amendment protections.

The Governor Hochel of New York reacted within hours of the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, with an emergency session designed specifically to void the effect of Bruen.

On October 3, 2022, a federal district judge in New York found most of the "emergency" New York law to be unconstitutional, specifically a portion forbidding the legal carry of firearms in Times Square. From that decision:

Based on the historical analogues located thus far, it does not appear permissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry in the following place: “the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage” (as stated in subsection “2(t) of the CCIA).

On October 11, 2022, the City of New York defied the Supreme Court and the federal district court by imposing a City law banning the legal carry of guns by ordinary citizens in Times Square, with local law 0602-2022. The local law is to take effect immediately.

There will almost certainly be challenges to the law in short order. As this is written, those challenges have yet to be seen.


The New York and California responses to the restoration of Second Amendment protections for the right to keep and bear arms remind this correspondent of the Democratic response to the Brown v. Board of education decision in the segregated South of the 1960's.

The response was strong from Democrat George Wallace:

Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom- loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . .. segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.

Here is part of the message put forth by New York Mayor Eric Adams, defying the Supreme Court:

NEW YORK – New York City Mayor Eric Adams today signed two bills aimed at tackling the scourge of gun violence in New York City and ensure that the city is safer for all, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The first of the bills helps to track data from illegal gun trafficking within New York City, while the second bill designates the new boundaries of the Times Square sensitive location, which prohibits the concealed carrying of firearms within the sensitive zone, even by permit.

The mayor does not mention most mass murder public killings occur in "gun free zones", as shown by research from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Gun free zones are a tiny proportion of the land area of the United States. Yet, most mass public murders committed with guns occur in gun free zones.

It does not take much imagination to understand why: people who plan mass public murder want to run up the body count, so as to take advantage of the Media making them famous, for a bit of media immortality.

A "gun free" zone increases their chance of racking up the body count, because they are unlikely to meet armed resistance.

For ideological reasons, Progressives are never willing to admit that reality.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


TX: American Deli Gunfight was Self Defense Shooting

In a post on Facebook. the Warner Robins Police Department says their officers were called to the area near American Deli on Watson Blvd. just after 2 p.m. Their investigation shows that 22-year-old Tamar Lewis was shot and later died at the hospital. Investigators say Lewis approached another man and started shooting at him. That man returned fire and then ran away and called 911. Investigators are treating this shooting as self-defense.

More Here

OK: Squatter shot by Homeowner

Police say a neighbor called the homeowner saying people were breaking into and squatting in the home.

The owner arrived and confronted them.

Police say during an argument one of the squatters pulled out a gun.

The owner pulled out their own gun and the two shot at each other.

The squatter was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

More Here

TX: Naked Man Breaks in, Gets Shot Attempting to Steal Cat

A Texas man is in jail after investigators say a homeowner awakened to find the suspect naked inside his home and trying to steal his cat.

More Here

Saturday, October 15, 2022

MI: Macomb County Refuses to Press Charges in Road Rage Shooting Death of Ty Hale

According to the department, the incident was initiated by road rage on Eight Mile Road.

“Just like any other road rage, two vehicles, one was cutting the other one off, brake-checking, making gestures with their hand, and instead of going the opposite direction, this individual followed the other person, and that’s when this ultimately ended up happening,” said Eastpointe Detective Lt. Robert Koenigsmann. “Just a typical, somebody’s upset over somebody else’s driving.”

The incident, which was caught on a nearby Ring doorbell camera, showed the teen — who has been identified as Ty Hale — have an exchange with a 60-year-old man driving a Dodge Ram pickup before being shot and killed.

 The driver of the truck was taken into custody. Charges were presented to the Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office several days later. The Prosecutor’s Office denied a request for a warrant.

More Here

MI: Detroit Domestic Defense?

According to police, someone inside the home fired several shots at the man and he was struck and killed. Police are calling the incident "domestic in nature."

Detroit police say two people were detained for additional questioning. It's unclear if the victim had a relationship with was the shooter. Police also did not say if the two people detained will be facing charges.

More Here

Friday, October 14, 2022

Supreme Court Reverses a Massachusetts Second Amendment Case and Sends it Back

Dean Weingarten in front of Supreme Court

More fruit of Bruen:

On Monday, October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court struck down another unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, restoring more Second Amendment rights. 

The Court granted the writ of ceriorari. Then it vacated the existing opinion by the lower court. Then it sent the case back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard in light of the Second Amendment decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. 

The case is Morin, Alfred V. Lyver, William, et al. From the Supreme


The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

Massachusetts has extremely restrictive firearms laws. 

The case is an especially egregious infringement on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. First, Massachusetts required the plaintiff to jump through numerous legal circus hoops to exercise his rights. 

Moran attempted to exercising his rights in D.C., with a carry permit from Massachusetts, in 2004, believing his permit would be honored. 

The District of Columbia was also egregiously infringing on Second Amendment rights.

Attempting to follow the law, he asked a security guard to hold his pistol for him, because a sign informed him it was illegal to bear arms inside the American Museum of Natural History. For this outrageous attempt to follow the law, the District of Columbia punished him and Massachusetts deprived him of all Second Amendment rights. 

Here is how the federal court in Massachusetts presented the case. From the case text, in the United States District Court of  Massachusetts:

Alfred Morin ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against William Lyver ("Chief Lyver") in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Town of Northborough, alleging that the Massachusetts firearms licensing scheme, which renders him ineligible for a license to carry, or a permit to purchase, a firearm, violates his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his home for self-defense. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has intervened as a Defendant, and all parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, I find the statute constitutional and deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 19), grant the Commonwealth's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 25), and grant Chief Lyver's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 29).


The Commonwealth issued Plaintiff a Class A license to carry firearms in 1985. His Class A license allowed him to carry a concealed firearm in public, and he had a habit of always carrying a loaded pistol on his person. In October 2004, Plaintiff drove from Massachusetts to Washington, DC, to visit his daughter. Unaware that the District of Columbia would not recognize his Massachusetts license, he carried his pistol with him. While visiting the American Museum of Natural History during his trip, Plaintiff noticed a sign banning firearms. He approached a guard at the museum and asked to check his weapon. The guard contacted the police, who arrested Plaintiff and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Plaintiff pled guilty to attempting to carry a pistol without a license, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3204(a)(1) (2004), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of D.C. Code § 6-2376 (2004). (Docket No. 21-3). The court sentenced him to sixty days in prison on each count, to run concurrently, as well as three months of supervised probation and twenty hours of community service. His prison sentence was suspended.

 The case was decided on the discredited "two-step" approach. 

Several lower courts had formulated the "two step" approach as a complex way to invalidate the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. 

The judge in the case,  D. J. Hillman, practically glories in his ability to strip away the right to keep and bear arms from the eminently law-abiding Alfred Morin.  

Judge Hillman was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012. 

The First Circuit also applied the two-step approach, coming down on the side of the greatest restriction of the right to keep and bear arms which it could justify.

The Supreme Court reversed the findings by Judge Hillman and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  

They sent the case back to be reheard in the First Circuit, to reconsider in light of the Bruen decision.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IL: Chicago Couple Fight Intruder, Hold Carreer Criminal at Gunpoint

A seven-time convicted felon allegedly climbed construction scaffolding to enter a seventh-floor condo in downtown Chicago early Monday, only to be confronted by a woman who lives there and then detained by her gun-owning fiancé.

Juan Gonzalez, also known as Javier Rosales, is on parole for his sixth and seventh felony convictions. Now, he’s charged with Class X felony home invasion.

Around 3:10 a.m., a woman woke up and started getting ready for work in her Loop condo, which had scaffolding rising outside the balcony door. She thought she heard noises while going about her routine, but she assumed it was coming from another unit, prosecutor Rhianna Biernat said.

More Here

CA: Chico Teen Gang Member not Guilty by reason of Self Defense in Teichert Ponds Killing

Charges against a now 17-year-old teenager for shooting and killing a man, and wounding another, at Chico's Teichert Ponds in September of last year were dismissed in Butte County Juvenile Court on Tuesday, according to the Butte County District Attorney's Office.

District Attorney Mike Ramsey said, at the end of the prosecution case, the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to overcome a claim of self-defense in the incident and dismissed the case before the presentation of any defense evidence.

More Here

Thursday, October 13, 2022

LA: Livingston Parish Homeowner shoots Armed Burglar

WALKER - A burglar was shot after she accidentally woke up an armed homeowner while breaking into a house early Monday morning. 

The Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office said residents woke up around 2 a.m. after hearing a "popping" sound under the carport at their home on Friendship Road. The department said one of the homeowners then grabbed a gun and shot the female intruder, who was also armed.

More Here

Wednesday, October 12, 2022

OR: Storage Worker in Grants Pass Shoots, Wounds, Suspect

Oct. 10—A storage facility worker shot a suspected thief Saturday night at a Grants Pass storage unit business, according to police.

At approximately 11:27 p.m., Grants Pass police said they began receiving calls about shouting coming from U-Stow-It Mini Storage on Willow Lane off Redwood Highway. Callers reported they heard a person shouting, "Get down, or I'll shoot!"

More Here

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

PA: Followup, Southhampton Bar shooting deaths were Self Defense

The shooter was one of the callers, and remained on scene until police arrived, according to the DA's office.

Two men were found dead on the scene. A third victim, a 24-year-old man, was also struck in the shooting, but suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

The victims have been identified as 30-year-old Steven A. Panebianoc, of Bensalem; and 28-year-old Raymond A. Farrell, of Philadelphia, according to the coroner's office.


More Here

Monday, October 10, 2022

Gun "Buyback" success: Man Prints 110 guns, Obtains $21,000 dollars from NY AG

Image of FGC9 3D printed Hybrid carbine

On August 28, 2022, in Utica, New York, the Attorney General's office of Letitia James paid out over $21,000 in gift cards for 3D printed "ghost guns". The guns were printed by an anonymous entrepreneur on a $200 printer he received for Christmas.

Letitia James took credit for the "buyback" of "ghost guns" at Utica. "Buyback" is an Orwellian term. The guns which are turned in were never owned by the governmnt.  The AG did not mention the mass purchase of 3D printed guns, although they mentioned 177 "ghost guns". From the

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that 296 firearms, including 177 ghost guns, were turned in to law enforcement at a gun buyback event hosted by her office and the Utica Police Department. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) accepts — with no questions asked — working and non-working, unloaded firearms in exchange for compensation on site. Yesterday’s event is a part of Attorney General James’ ongoing efforts to combat gun violence and protect New Yorkers throughout the state. To date, Attorney General James has taken more than 3,300 firearms out of communities through gun buyback events and other initiatives since taking office in 2019.

The man interviewed by assumed the nom de guerre of "Kem". Kem stated he obtained $21,000 in gift cards for 110 3D printed guns he created and turned in at the "buyback".


"I'm sure handing over $21,000 in gift cards to some punk kid after getting a bunch of plastic junk was a rousing success," laughed Kem. "Gun buybacks are a fantastic way of showing, number one, that your policies don't work, and, number 2, you're creating perverse demand. You're causing people to show up to these events, and, they don't actually reduce crime whatsoever."

The AG said the event netted 177 "ghost guns". It appears more than one
"Kem" utilized the event to obtain some of the valuta Letitia James was
handing out.

177 "ghost guns" reported to have been turned in at the Utica event. 110 turned in by "Kem". That leaves 67 turned in by others. Considering Kem's success, the 67 others would have brought in another $13,400 for the anonymous  entrepreneur(s).

As reported from the Letitia James' New York AG office:

“It’s shameful that this individual exploited a program that has successfully taken thousands of guns off the streets to protect our communities from gun violence. We have partnered with local police throughout the state to recover more than 3,500 guns, and one individual’s greedy behavior won’t tarnish our work to promote public safety. We have adjusted our policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.”

The program in Utica was advertised as paying out $250 per "assault rifle" and $150 per handgun. "Kem" says he printed out a variety of firearms. The payout of $21,000 was negotiated over hours.

From one day before the event, on the

The OAG accepts both working and non-working firearms and there is no limit on the number of firearms an individual can turn in. The guns must be transported to the drop-off site unloaded, in the trunk of the
vehicle, in a plastic or paper bag, or box. This is an amnesty program,
in which no questions will be asked about the gun or the person dropping off the gun.

Sounds like an actionable contract.

Anonymous. No questions asked. No limit on the number of firearms which may be turned in.

It was a golden opportunity for Kem and anonymous others to cash in and do some human rights activism, while showing the cupidity or perfidy of Letitia James.

 Academic studies show the events do more harm than good.

Most of the other guns turned in appear to be rather ordinary. Here is an image from Letitia James' office:

[caption id="attachment_500078" align="alignnone" width="600"] Image of Utica guns turned in:  AG Letitia James' office[/caption]

The three "assault rifles" appear to be a Hipoint carbine, a .22 rimfire version of the AR15, and a tricked out Ruger ranch rifle with a large scope and an aftermarket stock.

At least four of the handguns are air/CO2 guns; there are about a dozen antiques, and a couple of modern cap and ball revolvers. One of the antiques appears to be an Allen and Wheelock Sidehammer revolver. Only about a thousand were produced, because of a patent infringement lawsuit by Smith & Wesson. They are a highly sought after collectible pistol. None were manufactured after 1862. The revolver is at least 160 years old.

  ©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


TN: Chickasaw Shooting Death was Self Defense

UPDATE: Investigators determined that the deceased man who entered the home had recently done work there. Evidence was presented to the DA’s Office and it was determined that this was an instance of justifiable force in self-defense.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A man is dead after Memphis Police responded to a shooting call Friday night.

Police responded to the 3000 block of Goodwyn Circle in the Chickasaw Gardens neighborhood and found a man suffering from a gunshot wound.

More Here

Sunday, October 09, 2022

IL: Chicago, Chinatown, Homeowner Shoots, Wounds Burglar

Prosecutors say a concealed carry holder shot a burglar who charged at him when he returned to his home in Chinatown on Monday evening. Now, the burglar is hospitalized and charged with a felony.

Chicago police responded to the victim’s home in the 300 block of West 24th Place around 6:30 p.m. and found Tywone Underwood, 30, with a gunshot wound to his abdomen.

More Here

Saturday, October 08, 2022

How Much are gun laws Repressing Exercise of Second Amendment Rights?

The states with the most restrictive gun laws are repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  How much damage are they doing?

In the 2022 Bruen decision, released by the Supreme Court on June 22, the court named six states and the District of Columbia as polities where the governments were violating the rights of their residents to keep and bear arms.

Those states were California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.

There are reasonably good measures to compare those states to the rest of the country where laws restricting the sale, ownership and carry of arms are less burdensome.

The National Instant background Check System (NICS) tracks retail gun sales in all the states. Gun sales are much closer than NICS background checks alone, because NICS checks are done for many other things as well.

Gun sales, measured in the NICS system, give us a strong representation of how many guns were purchased in a given year, in each state.

Looking at the restrictive states compared to the non-restrictive states will show if the restrictive state laws are repressing the exercise of the right to keep arms, by repressing the number of people who purchase firearms.

The number of people who have permits to carry is not as easily obtained. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) has worked to determine how many carry permits exist in each state. The numbers reported in 2021 will be used for this comparison.

This is a quick, first order comparison to see if any obvious disparity exists. If no disparity exists, a more sophisticated analysis may or may not show those laws repress the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Population figures for the states were taken from the 2020 census. Gun sales and carry permits will be expressed as rates, so as to make a state to state comparison meaningful. The numbers of gun sales are from two years, 2020, and 2021.

2020 is a particularly useful year, as there was both a significant increase in violent crime and political posturing to restrict firearms sales and possession. The motivation to exercise Second Amendment rights should have been high.

2020 recorded all time records for gun sales.

Gun sales for the restrictive states and the District of Columbia, in 2020, as calculated from the NICS data, were 2.05 million. Per capita firearm sales were .024 firearms per person.

In 2021, for the restrictive states and DC, the numbers were: 1.93 million, .023 firearms sold per person.

Restrictive states gun sales per capita: 2020 - .024; 2021 - .023.

Gun sales for the rest of the USA in 2020 were 18.6 million, .075 firearms sold per person. In 2021, there were 16.2 million firearms sold, .065 firearms sold per person.

Less restrictive states, gun sales per capita: 2020 - .075; 2021 - .065.

This is significant evidence of repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  In 2020 and 2021 the sales of firearms in the restrictive states were only one third as many per capita as in non-repressive states.

So much for the right to keep arms.

How about the right to bear arms?

The number of permits in the restrictive states are, using the CRPC numbers, 817,888. The permits per capita in those states is .0097.

The number of permits in the rest of the country, using the CRPC numbers, is 20.7 million.  The permits per capita in those states is .084.

Carry permits per capita: Restrictive states .0097. Nonrestrictive  states: .084

There are 8.64 times as many permits per capita in the non-restrictive states than in the restrictive states.  There is an 88% reduction in carry permits in the restrictive states. This indicates a large repression of the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

The permit numbers do not take into account the half of states in the United States, where no permit is required to go armed in most places. This policy is commonly known as "Constitutional Carry".

As a first order approximation of the effects of the restrictive state laws on exercise of Second Amendment rights, a significant correlation is obvious.

In restrictive states, only about one third as many people exercise the right to keep arms (as measured by purchases) protected by the Second Amendment.

In restrictive states, only about one ninth as many people exercise the right to bear arms (as measured by permits) protected by the Second Amendment.

Other factors may play a part in these numbers. A sophisticated analysis may take into account hunting, crime rates, incomes, and other factors.

The first order look shows an obvious disparity in line with the restrictive laws.

The underlying hypothesis for the laws seems to be: Less guns, less problems.

There is no academic consensus to that effect. The closest seems to be: more or less guns, no measurable effect.

A tenable hypothesis is: more legal restrictions, more repression of Second Amendment rights. It is nearly a truism, which the Supreme Court is starting to address.

Some may say the results are obvious. No measurement was needed.

If you cannot measure a thing, it is not science.

The results above are measurements which can be replicated and agreed to.

They are facts, not matters of opinion.


©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch






Looking at the numbers.

Restrictive states, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Laws are designed to restrict the exercise of Second Amendment rights 

NY and Governor Hochul, for example.

Theory - more guns, more problems

NICS source of gun checks and gun sales in 2020 and 2021, 


NC: Home Invasion Suspect Shot by 29-Year-Old Woman

Deputies spoke with a 29 year-old woman who said she was awaken by a “banging” noise coming from her door. She told deputies she observed and confronted the suspect who was attempting to take her pet dog. She reportedly told the intruder to leave but he failed to do so.

Fearing for her safety as the intruder stared at her, she shot the suspect, who then fled the premises, according to a press release.

More Here

Friday, October 07, 2022

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Bump Stock Cases

On October 3, 2022, it was revealed the Supreme Court refused to review two cases challenging the rule implementing a bump stock ban put in place by the ATF, at the request of President Donald Trump.

The two cases which had been appealed to the Supreme Court were distributed for conference where decisions are made to hear the case (grant a writ of certiorari) or not, on September 12. Both had been rescheduled earlier in the year. Both cases were denied as of October 3, 2022.

The appeals process for the bump stock ban has ended.

The two cases were:

Aposhian v. Garland  and Gun Owners of America v. Garland.

The Aposhian case was in the Tenth Circuit.  The GOA case was in the Sixth Circuit.

Both cases had gone through three judge panels at the appeals courts. The Aposhian case had lost at both. The GOA case won at the three judge panel, but was tied at the en banc panel. The GOA case then reverted to the District court decision, where the ATF had prevailed.

Both cases challenged the power of the ATF to unilaterally change federal law about the definition of what is a machinegun. Another part of the challenge was whether an agency could refuse to rely on the Chevron decision. The Chevron decision involved a case about whether the courts should defer to the administrative "expertise" of an agency to make decisions independent of Congressional votes.

The ATF claimed they were simply interpreting the law, as the statute allowed them to do.  That interpretation means an agency can reverse long standing precedent of law, simply because an executive asks them to do so, or they decide to do so.

This destroys the idea of the rule of law. How can a citzen, or anyone who is subject to American law, know whether their property will be safe, when an agency can reverse a previously longstanding rule, and declare their property contraband without any congressional vote?

How can this be considered a representative republic?

The Supreme Court refusing to hear a case does not mean the court endorses the existing law. It means they refused to hear the case, or perhaps more specifically, it means less than four Supreme Court justices voted to hear the case.


As someone following these cases, it appeared there was a good chance the Supreme Court would hear them.

A good chance is not a certainty. The Supreme Court has now, officially, refused to hear them. There is no more appeal.

It is a bit hard to take, after a tie at the en banc hearing for the Sixth circuit. If GOA had won that vote, it would be a clear and obvious circuit split, and the court would have been much more likely to take the case.

There are many more Second Amendment related cases are coming up in the near future.  Some of those will involve the "final rule" of the ATF. Most of them will be citing the Bruen decision. The bump stock cases did not cite Bruen, as I recall. They were about regulatory overreach on the part of the ATF and the Trump administration.


©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch