Sunday, June 30, 2024

NE: Alliance Intruder Shot, Killed by Homeowner

Leavitt said that Alliance Police responded at 2:24 a.m. Wednesday to a call from an Alliance man, James Haller. Haller told dispatchers that he had shot an intruder who forcibly entered his home at 101 S. Flack Ave.

The man, identified as Jerome Robb, had been shot once in the head and died at the scene. An autopsy is being conducted

More Here

AL: Domestic Defense, Man Experincing Severe Mental Episode Shot by Brother

The victim was found with a gunshot wound to the arm, said Lt. Daniel Lowe. He was treated on the scene by Hoover fire medics and then taken to Grandview Medical Center.

Lowe said the victim’s brother was taken into custody at the home for questioning.

“Detectives began an investigation and determined the shooting victim likely experienced a severe mental health crisis during which his brother fired one round,’’ Lowe said.

More Here

GA: Terrel County Burglary Suspect Attacks Homeowner, is Shot

According to Terrell County Sheriff John Bowens, the incident happened on Monday, June 24, when the suspect, Carderio Laney, allegedly broke into a home, resulting in him getting shot.

Laney has been arrested and is being held at the Terrell County Jail. He is being charged with aggravated assault and burglary.

More Here

Saturday, June 29, 2024

Posting will be spotty for a week - Traveling Where Internet Connection is unreliable

IN: Homeowner Shoots Armed Invader Trying to break in (His Cousin)

Three armed and masked men had been trying to kick in Gibbs’ back door.

”A busted door jamb where they kept trying to kick it in,” said Gibbs as he surveyed the damage. “It held long enough to hold ‘em back. But I got bullet holes to the windows and the door window and to the door itself and the wall inside.”

Gibbs said his son told him that he traded gunfire with a man in the backyard.

“I see the intruder laying here on the ground, and he wanted me to make a call for him, and ‘You know me, you know me,’” Gibbs said of what the wounded man told him. “You don’t come knocking in somebody’s back door … and he lost his gun on this side of the ground over by the fire pit, and he was laying there in the weeds there.”


More Here

Friday, June 28, 2024

FL: DeSantis Signs Bill Restoring Ability of People to Defend Themselves, Pets and Homes from Bears

Image from Winter Springs, Florida, Police Department

In spite of intense pressure by deep green "environmentalist" and "animal rights" groups, Florida Governor DeSantis has signed HB 87 on June 21, 2024. If Governor DeSantis had not signed the bill, it would have become law on June 22. HB 87 restores the right of people to protect themselves, their pets, and their homes from destructive, rogue black bears.

The animal rights groups wanted to continue a failed policy which demanded people ask permission from a bureaucratic agency before they be "allowed" to shoot a destructive bear. Note how characterizes the bill. From

DeSantis signed HB 87, Taking of Bears, which allows people to claim self defense in shooting a bear on their property.

 Shooters will have to notify the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of bears being killed within 24 hours of the shooting, and they cannot keep or sell bear carcasses.

The bill does not "allow" people to claim self-defense. People could always claim self-defense. The bill restores the right to defend self, others, pets, and dwellings without first obtaining authority to do so from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC). The FWC siezed the power to demand people ask them for permission in 2012. The FWC unilaterally created a regulation which required people to apply to them before taking a bear which was destroying livestock or property.  68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear Conservation:

  1. No person shall take, possess, injure, shoot, collect, or sell black bears or their parts or to attempt to engage in such conduct except as authorized by Commission rule or by permit from the Commission.

The legislature never voted on the rule change. It was a major change in the law. People with property and assets follow the law for fear of losing both. People were calling the Sheriffs' offices to determine if they were allowed to shoot a bear which had invaded their home. Pets were being attacked. People were attacked. Legislators from North Florida, where the problem was most acute, responded. HB 87 does not fully restore the rights of people to protect their property from destructive pests. People who have bears which are destroying property and livestock must still apply for depredation permits, after attempting "non lethal" methods. All bears which are taken under this measure have to be reported to the FWC within 24 hours.

Legislators and sheriffs, which depend on voters to keep their jobs, are far more responsive than bureaucrats. Bureaucrats often cater to special interest groups. Regulatory agencies are often captured by activists with an agenda.

The bill goes into effect on July 1, 2024. In a year, we will know how many rogue bears, who have learned to raid human property with no consequences, will be removed.

Prediction: The number of black bears removed will be less than 50 in a year. The number will decrease over the years as black bears learn to avoid humans.

Several hundred bear cubs are killed and eaten by adult male bears each year in Florida. About 300 black bears die in vehicle accidents each year in Florida. The level of illegal killing of black bears in Florida is usually less than 20 a year. That number should decrease as people have the legal right to deal with destructive bears.

Black bears in Florida started with a population of about 300 in 1976. by 2015, the population was over 4,300. With the natural increase of about 15% after cannibalism by adult male bears and vehicle accidents, the population in 2024 is expect to be above 7,000.  Black bears were removed from the "threatened" list by the FWC several years ago.


©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

FL: Jacksonville Gunfight, Suspect Wounded in Face

Around 3 a.m., officers responded to a shooting at 10000 Atlantic Blvd. A man in his 40s was taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, suffering a gunshot to the face.

The person suffering a gunshot wound is potentially the suspect, JSO said of its investigation. The suspect and a group of three people were in a dispute and the suspect he discharged a shotgun at the group.

The agency said one person in the group fired at the suspect "in an act of self-defense." The victims are being cooperative, police said.


More Here

TN: Nashville Armed Samaritan Shoots Thief who attacked Store Employee

Police said a gas station employee told detectives that the man who was shot was trying to steal two cases of beer along with another man, prompting the employee to follow the two men to the parking lot to try and get the beer back. That’s when the men allegedly assaulted the employee, causing a customer to try and intervene.

The customer reportedly had a gun and tired to hit the 26-year-old man with it. The gun then went off and hit the 26-year-old man in the arm, according to police. The customer with the gun then left the store.

More Here

FL: Jacksonville Gunfight, Victim Returned fire, Wounded Attacker

According to reports, the suspect approached the victim outside a convenience store and fired several shots, missing the intended target. The victim, reportedly acting in self-defense, returned fire and struck the suspect before fleeing the scene. The victim has not yet contacted law enforcement or returned to the area.

Crime Scene Unit Detectives are actively processing the scene, while Violent Crime Detectives are canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses and surveillance footage.

More Here

WI: Milwaukee Respects Second Amendment Supporters

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the City Council respects activists who are Second Amendment supporters. The admission came when City alder Bob Bauman attempted to ban guns near the scheduled Republican National Convention, in violation of state law and the United States and State of Wisconsin constitutions. From

Bauman introduced an amendment Friday encouraging the city's public safety committee to bypass state law and ban guns within the soft perimeter anyway.

"We may be sued. I'm not afraid of being sued," Bauman told his colleagues.

Bauman knows his proposal is against the law.  From

Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke told WTMJ it would be difficult for the Common Council to restrict guns in the area even if they wanted to.

“State statute precludes local government from regulating firearm possession beyond what is regulated in state statute,” Goyke said. “Every local unit of government, including the City of Milwaukee is preempted, or precluded from, additional regulations beyond state statute.”

Wiser heads prevailed. It wasn't fear of the state government which stopped them. The executive branch is firmly controlled by their ideological bothers in Madison, including Governor Evers.  It was fear of Second Amendment activists which stopped their illegal usurpation of power. Wisconsin Second Amendment activists have demonstrated they are savvy and passionate protectors of their constitutional rights. The majority on the City Council understood this history. From

Those in opposition of the amendment, though, cited concerns surrounding the timing of a possible lawsuit with the convention now just about one month away, but they were also concerned with who this ban could attract to Milwaukee.

"We would be potentially encouraging groups who feel very strongly about their second amendment rights, which no harm with that, but we would encourage them then to come and say, 'I dare you to stop me,'" Alderman Scott Spiker told WISN 12 News.

Notice the respect in Alderman Spiker's statement, recognizing the legitimacy of supporting the Second Amendment "no harm in that". Notice the Alderman Spiker's wise reluctance to challenge Wisconsin's Second Amendment supporters.

Wisconsin Second Amendment Activists pushed through the Wisconsin Constitution's  strong protection of the right to keep and bear arms, Section 25, in November of 1998, with 74% of the vote. In 2008, Brad Krause refused to plead to a disorderly conduct charge for openly carrying a holstered pistol while planting a tree in his yard. The case led to a finding by the Attorney General that open carry was not disorderly conduct. As with other states, Wisconsin activists used their right to open carry to promote legal concealed carry. Wisconsin passed their "shall issue" law in  2011. Five open carriers in Madison sued the police for false arrest in 2018. The settled for $10,000 in 2019. There have been several other settlements. In 2017, Madison lost a case challenging a ban on the carry of weapons on city buses.  In 2021, Judge Bruce Schroeder upheld Kyle Rittenhouse' right to bear arms. The jury upheld Kyle's right to self defense in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Principled activism combined with strategic action has earned the respect of Wisconsin's political class. It wasn't always so. This correspondent recalls a conversation with a Milwaukee policeman while waiting to compete in an International Practical Shooting Confederation competition, about four decades ago. He was asked what he would do if a person open carried in Milwaukee. He said "I would arrest them for disorderly conduct." In response to the question of what were they doing which was disorderly, He said "Someone had to call in a complaint. That makes it disorderly."

Much has changed in the past four decades. Today, if a Wisconsin policeman made such an arrest, the department would face a lawsuit and would settle.  Wisconsin Second amendment supporters have earned their respect.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




TX: Spring Homeowner Shoots, Kills Intruder

SPRING, TX -- On June 22, 2024, at about 6:20 am, deputies with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office District 6 Patrol were dispatched to the 3000 block of Shadowcrest Lane Spring, TX, in reference to an Assault Firearm call. The homeowner on location called 911 and stated he had shot an intruder who came to his home and ‘rushed’ him. While speaking with 911, the homeowner began lifesaving measures. The intruder was pronounced deceased on scene by EMS personnel. The homeowner is currently with deputies and is cooperating with this investigation.

More Here

WI: Tenant Shot, Killed Burglary Suspect in Self Defense

According to police, Izerion Cooper, 24, and Dieonte Lee, 20, committed a burglary at the Wood Creek apartments near 15th Street and 30th Avenue on Friday, June 21. Police said the two stole a gun from the apartment. Later, around 4:25 a.m., Cooper realized he had forgotten some of his belongings at the apartment and went back to get them.

When Cooper returned, the apartment was back home at the residence. Cooper and the tenant got into a physical fight. Police said Cooper was armed during the fight.

According to the Kenosha County District Attorney's Office and the Kenosha Police Department, the apartment tenant was within his right of self-defense when he shot and killed Cooper. At this time, no homicide-related charges will be referred or filed.

More Here

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

MO: McCloskeys' Convictions Expunged: Demand Return of Guns


 Image screenshot of public announcement by Kim Gardner, disgraced prosecutor 

On June 6, 2024, Judge Joseph P. Whyte ordered the convictions of Mark and Patricia McClosky be expunged.  The McCloskys gained fame for defending their home in St. Louis, Missouri, from an unruly mob of BLM protestors who threatened them. Disgraced prosecutor Kim Gardner brought the prosecutions against the McCloskys. Gardner was politically aligned with the BLM protestors.

The pistol Patricia McClosky brandished appears to have been inoperable. When the police impounded the McCloskys' guns, it was reported they did not find ammunition for the rifle which was held by Mark McClosky. The McCloskys may have been bluffing.  Eventually Kim Gardner was removed from the case, and the McCloskys negotiated a plea deal to misdemeanor charges. Missouri Governor Mike Parson granted pardons to Mark and Patricia McCloskey on July 30, 2021. The McCloskys were placed on probation for a year, with their law licenses facing suspension, by the Missouri Supreme Court in February of 2022. The pardons for misdemeanors by the Governor did not affect the disciplinary action by the Supreme Court. Both McCloskys are lawyers. The potential loss of their law licenses is a  serious threat.

Now, in 2024, the misdemeanor convictions have been expunged. From the

Attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey filed a request in January to have the convictions wiped away. Judge Joseph P. Whyte wrote in an order Wednesday that the purpose of an expungement is to give people who have rehabilitated themselves a second chance, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

Most media have characterized the incident as the McCloskys "waving guns at racial justice protestors". Video of the incident has been shown widely. The entry into the private community was planned and executed by organizers, probably affiliated with BLM. The protestors were unruly. Some of them were armed.

Mark McCloskey, whose convictions have now been expunged, is demanding their guns be returned. The action is mostly symbolic. The firearms may have some value as historical artifacts. The Bryco pistol has little practical value. The AR15 type rifle is likely worth less than a thousand dollars. After what the McCloskeys have been through, a thousand dollars is a relatively small amount. If the City of St. Louis refuses to return the disputed firearms, McClosky has said he will file a lawsuit.

Analysis: The continued persecution of the McCloskys is part of the pattern by the far left to use lawfare to attack anyone who dares to oppose the supremacy of far left street activists. Opposition to the activists who threaten people, destroy property, and intimidate the population, is not to be allowed. The poster child for this is Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  The McCloskys are another example in St. Louis, Missouri.  A third is Daniel Perry in Austin, Texas.

The point is to make it impossible for Americans to exercise their birthright to armed self-defense.  When armed self defense is discredited, the takeover of the streets by leftist thugs will be unopposed. Defense of the individual against a mob does not require significant organization. Such defense is embedded in the United States Constitution with the Second Amendment. The street activists are careful to organize these efforts where the local government, or at least local prosecutors, are ideologically aligned with the street activists. This was certainly the case in Kenosha, in St. Louis, and became the case in Austin when Jose Garza was elected prosecutor.

 ©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




AL: Birmingham Robbery Crew Target Wrong Victim, 2 Killed, Vicim Wounded

Both men who were killed were wearing black nylon face masks, similar to the mask often worn by rapper Pooh Sheisty.

“We believe all of this stemmed from a robbery gone wrong,’’ said Officer Truman Fitzgerald. “Two of the victims both have ski masks on, the Pooh Sheisty mask.”

“We believe the third non-life-threatening victim may have shot them in attempted robbery,’’ he said.

He said detectives don’t believe Friday’s robbery attempt was a crime of opportunity – the person being robbed was likely targeted.

More Here

Monday, June 24, 2024

Traveling today. May not be able to post until June 26.

Border Cross Carry Case at appeal level in Massachusetts

On August 8, 2023, Associate Justice John F. Coffee, in the Lowell District Court of Massachusetts, wrote an opinion the charge of carrying a firearm without a license is unconstitutional on its face, when applied to non-residents. The opinion was based on the Supreme Court decision of Bruen.

The case involves a New Hampshire resident, Dean Donnell, who was charged with carrying a firearm without a license, in Massachusetts. Donnell could legally carry a firearm in his home state. The court held the right to carry outside the home was at issue, the conduct in this case clearly is covered by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the burden falls to the Commonwealth to show historical examples of law which evince a comparable tradition of regulation.

As Associate Justice John F. Coffee concluded, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not show any historical precedent which limits the rights protected by the Second Amendment to the boundaries of a person's state of residence. The historical evidence is precisely the opposite. The strictest law of the colonial era specifically exempted people who are traveling from such weapons regulation. From amici curaiae brief at the Supreme Court:

In 1686, East New Jersey enacted a law providing that no person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol, skeines, stilettoes, daggers or dirks, or other unusual or unlawful weapons,”  and that “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol or dagger” except certain officials and “strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions through this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”3

The opinion of the Lowell District Court is being appealed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Justices on the appellate court have solicited amicus briefs. From ma-appellate

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Justices are soliciting amicus briefs. Whether the district court judge erred in concluding pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 10 (2022), that G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), and G. L. c. 140, § 131F, violated the defendants' constitutional rights to equal protection and interstate travel, as well as their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where the defendants were non-residents of Massachusetts charged in Massachusetts with carrying a firearm without a license, where the defendants could legally possess a firearm in their home State, and where there is no evidence that they applied for any license pursuant to the Massachusetts firearms licensing laws. (Note this matter will be argued with SJC-13562, Commonwealth vs. Phillip Marquis).

As of this writing, amicus briefs have been filed by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in support of the Commonwealth.  An amicus brief has been filed by New Hampshire Representative Jason Gerhard in support of Dean Donnell.

No other amicus briefs have been filed.

Analysis: As a practical matter, the requirement to obtain a license from every state or commonwealth a person might travel to or through becomes a ban on the exercise of Second Amendment right in large areas of the United States. Massachusetts is a difficult state to obtain an permit for a non-resident.  Non-resident permits must be applied for in person, and a class must be taken from an instructor certified by the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police. Non-citizen residents of other states are only allowed to be issued a License to Carry for the purposes of competition. These are nearly insurmountable barriers to most people. An enormous amount of time and effort would be required to be able to exercise rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment in all fifty states and other non-state territories under the jurisdiction of the United States.  Such regulatory excesses are incompatible with Bruen.

 ©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

MS: Homeowner Shoots, Kills, Man who Threatened Him

When police arrived, Parker was found dead on the driveway. During their investigation, police said they learned Parker had previously threatened the homeowner.

The homeowner and several others were taken to the police department for questioning. After interviews were completed and surveillance video from the area was reviewed, police said Parker arrived at the home with a firearm and displayed it in a threatening manner.

Deputy Chief Griffin said the homeowner shot Parker with a single bullet.

More Here

MO: Denis Sanchez-Cortez shot in Self Defense

WEBB CITY, Mo. — A shooting near Webb City Wednesday evening is reportedly an act of self-defense, Jasper County authorities said Thursday.

It happened near Sunrise Lane where Jasper County Deputies located a man with a gunshot wound, identified as Denis Sanchez-Cortez, 33. Sanchez-Cortez was later taken to Springfield for treatment.

More Here

Supreme Court - Bump Stocks are not Machine Guns

Link to Jerry Miculek video with bump stock


Bump stocks are not machine guns. Not only are they not machine guns in the legal definition, they are significantly different from machine guns in other ways as well.

In the recent Supreme Court decision on Garland v Cargill, Justice Clarance Thomas wrote:

A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.”

Far left VOX claimed Thomas was lying. From

 The six Republican justices handed down a decision on Friday that effectively legalizes civilian ownership of automatic weapons. All three of the Court’s Democrats dissented.

In fairness, Ian Millhiser at Vox goes on to explain the arguments on both sides of the decision. Ian's blind spot is in equating rate of fire with the definition of a machine gun. This is the argument put forward by the leftist justices. Ian incorrectly states it is illegal to own machine guns.

Machine guns are not defined in the law or in a practical sense by rate of fire. Simple skill can produce rates of fire in a revolver at the levels of common machine guns. As Justice Clarence Thomas notes, on page 12 of the opinion:

A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does.

As noted in one of the lawsuits challenging the ATF administrative rule banning bump stocks, Jerry Miculek has demonstrated shooting a revolver at a faster rate than bump stocks generally do, at eight shots per second, or 480 shots per minute.    As noted in the legal brief:

Thus, as individuals can achieve, with greater accuracy, faster cyclic rates than those utilizing bump-stock-devices, the underlying premise of this proceeding is completely arbitrary and capricious.

Any law banning items based on a rate of fire would ban common revolvers and all semi-automatic firearms, because all can be fired at the same rate of fire without a bump stock as with a bump stock.  Because bump stocks typically move the trigger finger much further than is necessary with an ordinary semi-auto, the rate if fire with a bump stock will be less than that of a person with a "lightning-fast trigger finger".

In specific, carefully controlled situations, semi-autos equipped with bump stocks can attain the same rate of fire as machine guns. So can people who train to fire semiautomatic rifles rapidly. During oral arguments in Garland v Cargill, on February 28, 2024, Justice Barrett said she watched all the videos explaining what bump stocks did and how they worked. Justice Barrett knew bump firing could be easily done without a bump stock. From the oral argument transcript, page 11:

JUSTICE BARRETT: Mr. Fletcher, so I did watch all of these videos and try to figure out exactly what this looks like. And I just want to ask you about this bump-firing thing.

Simple rate of fire does not make a machine gun effective. To be effective, a machine gun has to be controllable. Semi-autos equipped with bump fire stocks are more difficult to control than  machine guns.  Bump fire stocks are less reliable than machine guns.  Because bump stocks require a relatively complex balancing of tensions by the operator, they are far less reliable in practice than a machine gun.  If you had a choice between having an opponent armed with a machine gun or a semi-automatic equipped with a bump-fire stock, the obvious preference is for them to be equipped with a  bump stock, as the chances of malfunction are much greater.

Bump stocks are not as accurate as machine guns. Because the bump stock introduces movement in the stock of the firearm, and requires a balance of tensions by the shooter instead of a simple activation of the trigger, bump stocks are inherently less accurate.

Currently, the reason machine guns are not as protected by the Second Amendment as semi-automatic firearms is because semi-automatic firearms have been in common use in the United States for over a century. They are ubiquitous, as Justice Sotomeyor mentioned in the dissent of Garland v Cargill (bold added) :

He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

Semiautomatic rifles are commonly available. Machine guns are not. Under the Heller decision, reinforced by the Caetano and Bruen decisions, arms which are commonly available (in common use for lawful purposes) are protected by the Second Amendment.

This does not mean machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. The argument was never presented in the Gargill case. The Cargill case was about whether the ATF had the legal authority to change the law.  If, however, bump stocks are "machine guns" then machine guns are in common use; and machine guns are therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

This does not mean progressive judges will accept the Second Amendment at face value. Progressives look at outcomes they want, not at what the law says.  If the country ends up with a Progressive court some time in the future, they will ignore the Second Amendment again, or define it out of existence.

The wording of Justice Sotomeyor will be used in future legal actions to show even Justice Sotomeyor, on the record, admits semiautomatic firearms are commonly available.


©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch





SC: Armed Woman Threatens Co-Worker, is Shot, Killed

Investigators believe that Lindsay and the man were coworkers at a nearby store who got into an altercation at work. Lindsay got into a car driven by her girlfriend, 32-year-old Brittney Reed of Lancaster. When the man got into his car and drove off, Reed blocked his car with hers.

Lindsay then walked up to the man’s window with a handgun, and he pulled out his own handgun, shooting Lindsay, according to authorities. Reed punched the man in the face but left him alone after he yelled at her to get away. He waited for the police to arrive.

More Here

Saturday, June 22, 2024

NICS for May, 2024 Fith Highest Gun Sales, Sixth Highest NICS Checks


The National Instant background Check System (NICS) numbers are in for May of 2024. May of 2024 shows the fifth highest estimated gun sales for May on record over the 25 years recorded in the NICS system. NICS shows May of 2024 to be the sixth highest number of NICS checks for May in the 25 years recorded. Gun sales are no longer reliably tied to the NICS checks because the checks are used for many other purposes than gun sales. The FBI system shows checks done for various categories of gun sales individually. This allows an estimate of gun sales to be calculated separately from the overall NICS checks.

The number of gun sales is an estimate because one NICS check can be used for multiple sales. Twenty-four states have at least one type of permit which allows for gun sales based on the check done to obtain the permit. Most private sales are not recorded in the NICS system. The vast majority of homemade guns are not recorded in the NICS system. Destruction of guns is not recorded in the NICS system.


Four types of gun sales shown by NICS for 2023 (lines) and 2024 (bars)

While the numbers for gun sales from NICS are an estimate, they are likely to be close to reality. Homemade guns tend to offset destruction of guns. Private sales are mostly of guns which came through the system at one time or another. They do not increase or decrease the number of guns in the private stock. As a means of determining how many guns are in the private stock of the United States population, NICS is a good estimate for month to month comparisons. For long term numbers over years and decades, records maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (ATF) are available.

To determine the total number of guns added the private stock in the United States, The records of manufacturing and import/export kept by the ATF are a better source, with estimates going back to 1899. The ATF records are not as easily accessed as NICS. The manufacturers numbers are withheld for a year after they are recorded. This is done to protect the proprietary interest manufacturers have in their closely guarded numbers.  Manufacturer numbers reported by the ATF are, at minimum, a year old.  Guns sold to the military, then sold as surplus to the population, are not included in the manufacturer figures.  This is not an important a source of guns in recent years, but millions of guns were sold surplus after WWI and WWII. Large numbers were sold to private citizens as late as the 1960s.

Back to recent numbers: May of 2024 continues the trend of 2024 becoming the fifth highest year for gun sales on record. May continues the trend noted by the National Shooting Sports Federation, of gun sales over a million a month for the last 58 months. There has been a steady decrease in gun sales from the record breaking year of 2020. Prices for many popular models have dropped. Ammunition prices, after correcting for inflation, are historically low. It is likely most people have had their disposable income curtailed by the inflation of the money supply, which is reducing demand for firearms and ammunition. Significant numbers of people who value guns and ammunition as a high priority, may have already purchased the guns and ammunition they desire, thus reducing demand. In spite of drops over the last five years, sales continue at the level brought about by the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

The best estimate of the total number of guns in the United States, using the method pioneered by Newton and Zimring in 1972, expanded by Professor Gary Kleck in 1987, and currently used by the Small Arms Survey, is over 500 million guns. The additional guns from May sales bring the current calculation to 508 million privately owned guns in the United States.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



TN: Raleigh Gunfight, Door Dash Man Defends Self, Shoots Attacker

According to police, an employee at American Deli, which is nearby in the same shopping center, said a man doing DoorDash came inside to pick up food, and when he walked out to his red van, he saw someone trying to pull something out of their pants.

The employee said that is when the shooting started, but the DoorDasher did not shoot first.

Once Memphis Police got to the scene, they found a man inside a restroom at Margarita’s who had been shot in his left leg at least three times.

More Here

FL: Lake Wales Gunfight, Victim Uses Rifle, Survives

According to a Sheriff's Office news release, Vincent Thomas Jr., 21, and at least three other people drove to a home on Northside Drive in Lake Wales about 7 p.m. There, Thomas got out of the car armed with a handgun and confronted Bernard Smith, 20, outside the home, threatening to shoot him.

The Sheriff's Office said Smith and Thomas went to Lake Wales High School together and had a disagreement.

During the argument, Smith armed himself with a rifle and shot at Thomas several times, hitting him at least twice, the Sheriff's Office said. Smith remained at the scene and cooperated with detectives.


More Here

Thursday, June 20, 2024

FL: Governor DeDantis Recieves Bill to Restore the Ability to Shoot Bears in Defense of People, Pets, and Dwellings

Image from Winter Springs, Florida, Police Department


On  June 7, 2021, Florida Governor DeSantis received HB0087 along with 24 other bills. Because the bill was sent after the Florida legislature had adjourned for the session, Governor DeSantis has 15 days to sign the bill, allow the bill to become law, or to veto the bill. From the

The Florida legislature overwhelmingly voted for HB0087 on March 8, 2024. The bill is titled Taking of Bears. It restores the ability of people in Florida to protect themselves, their pets and their dwellings from black bears, without having to ask permission of the Florida state bureaucracy first. The legal ability to defend pets and dwellings from bears was stripped away in a regulation created by Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC)in 2012. 68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear Conservation:

  1. No person shall take, possess, injure, shoot, collect, or sell black bears or their parts or to attempt to engage in such conduct except as authorized by Commission rule or by permit from the Commission.

The Florida legislature was not involved. No elected official voted on this major change in the law. Because law abiding citizens with property and assets to lose try to follow the law, the effect of this regulation was to cast doubt on the ability of people to defend even themselves and others from bears, without first obtaining permission from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission. Even when black bears were invading homes and destroying property, residents were worried that shooting the bear might result in adverse legal consequences.

This is a reversal of traditional law which was in effect until 2012. If a bear was destroying property or killing livestock, the bear could be stopped with lethal force. The 2012 regulation requires the owner of the livestock or property to contact the Fish & Wildlife Commission first, then attempt to stop the depredations with non-lethal means. If this fails, then the Fish and Wildlife Commission may issue a depredation permit.

HB007 is a partial restoration to the law which existed before the power grab by the FWC in 2012. It restores the ability of people to use lethal force against bears who are a threat to their persons, pets or dwellings. To protect livestock and other property, people are still required to obtain a depredation permit from the FWC. If a bear is taken in defense of persons, pets or dwellings, the take has to be reported to the FWC within 24 hours. The person who takes the bear is not allowed to keep any part of the bear. The law is set to take effect on July 1, 2024.

The Florida bear population is skyrocketing. Black bears in Florida are not in any danger of extinction. Black bears were removed from the State Threatened Species list by the FWC. The last time the bear population was estimated was in 2016, at about 4,350 bears. Estimating from natural increase in other states, the population is likely over 7,000 today. Another study to estimate the current population is supposed to be ongoing. As the bear population increases, problem bears invade suburbs and cities. Because they are overprotected, they lose their fear of humans. Some of those bears become problem bears and need to be removed from the population.

HB0087 allows people to remove the problem bears as they are being problems. The number of illegal kills of bears is so small, the FWC cannot measure it. The number of bears taken under HB0087 will probably be less than 30 a year. About 300 bears are killed in vehicle accidents each year in Florida. Hundreds of bear cubs are killed and eaten by adult male bears in Florida each year. Most problem bears are male bears.

There is no official record of a black bear killing a person in Florida. There were 37 bear-human conflicts in Florida from 2006 to 2022, where the bear made physical contact with a human. The first human killed by a black bear in California happened with a rising bear population last November. The California Department of Fish & Wildlife is reluctant to issue depredation permits.

Analysis: HB0087 is a commonsense measure to restore the ability of people in Florida to defend themselves, their pets, and their dwellings from problem black bears. It is expected Governor DeSantis will sign the bill.


©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




TX: Burglary Suspect Shot, Wounded in Confrontation with Homeowner

 SHERMAN, Texas — Around 5 p.m., on Monday, June 17, 2024,

 Sherman Police Department officers were dispatched to the 1300 block of E Ida Road in response to a shooting.

The homeowner reported finding an adult male burglarizing his shed. When confronted, the suspect allegedly charged at the homeowner with an object. The homeowner then discharged his firearm, striking the suspect in the hand. 
Officers located the suspect and transported him to a local hospital for non-life-threatening injuries. He is expected to recover.

More Here

TX: Longview Man Flees Hit & Run, Breaks into Home, is Shot, Killed

A Longview man was shot and killed early Sunday after he broke into a home after fleeing the scene of a wreck, Longview police said.

Johan Nino, 23, was shot by a resident in the 3600 block of Clemens Road, Longview police said Monday on Facebook.

More Here

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

CA: Woman Killed by Black Bear in her Home; F&W was in Denial

Link to youtube video

On November 8, 2023, the Sierra County Sheriff deputies performed a welfare check on 71 year old Patrice Miller at her home in Downieville, California. At the house rented by Miller, they found a gruesome scene. The door had been broken in. There was bear scat on the porch. What was left of Miller's body was inside. The bear had been feeding on it for several days. California has a rapidly growing bear population and rapidly increasing numbers of bear-human conflicts.

Downieville is a small village at the confluence of the Yuba and North Downie rivers, 54 miles west of Reno, Nevada, at a few feet less than  3,000 foot elevation. It is home to about 325 people. It was founded during the gold rush in the 1850's, and had a population of over 5,000 population  at its peak. It is wild country, with the town making most of its income from tourism.

Downieville is the county seat for Sierra County. The Sierra County Sheriff is Mike Fisher. Patrice Miller's home was a short walk from Sheriff Fisher's office.  Once Sheriff Fisher determined a bear had been feeding on a human body, He asked the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to issue a depredation permit so the bear could be legally trapped. CDFW refused to issue a permit. They said the request had to come from the house's resident.  From the

CDFW told Fisher that the depredation permit had to be requested by the house’s resident despite the fact that the resident was deceased and that the Sheriff’s Office could not make a request on its own. The homeowner eventually was able to issue a request, after which the permit was issued, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture trapper was called.

Early in the investigation the bear was assumed to have found Patrice dead and had simply started to consume her body.  The Sierra County Coroner thought such was the case. The report by the Placer County pathologist stated Miller had been killed by the bear with a bite to the neck. 20 years earlier, Patrice Miller had multiple organ failures and had not been expected to live.  

Patrice Miller's daughter reported her mother was having constant problems with bears who were attempting to break into her home. From

Miller’s daughter told officials that “bears were constantly trying to get in through broken windows and that her mother had physically hit one to keep it from entering her residence.” Her mother even nicknamed one of the bears that was a “frequent visitor to the residence, and a nuisance,” according to a Sheriff’s Office report.

Sheriff Fisher said he had not been made aware of a bear problem at Patrice Miller's residence.  CDFW stated this was the first documented case of a fatal black bear attack in the history of California.

Within two days of the trap being set for the bear, a bear was caught. The authorities knew the offending bear was a male.  A female CDFW biologist claimed the trapped bear appeared to be female, and should be released. Sheriff Fisher refused to do so, impounded the trap and bear, and insisted the bear be tranquilized so its sex could be determined.  After about 10 hours, and a threat by Sheriff Fisher to call KCRA 3 to document the release of the bear, CDFW tranquilized the bear. It was determined to be a boar (male) and the Sheriff had it euthanized. Several months later, the CDFW released DNA results confirming the bear which had been trapped and killed was the offending bear.

 Man eating bear trapped in Downiesville image by Sierra County Sheriff's Office

A CDFW  departmental bulletin states a decision to kill bears involved in bear-human conflicts may only be made by the Regional Manager (RM) or Response Guidance Team (RGT).

In Conflict Bear incidents where management options have been exhausted, the decision to  remove the bear from the population (i.e., lethally taken, relocated, or captured for long term captivity), may only be made by the RM or RGT.  

Sheriff Fisher reports there has been a change in policy by the CDFW. Before 2022, game wardens in the field could issue depredation permits when necessary. According to the draft bear plan (figure 6 on page 33) about 65 black bears were killed under authority of the permits in 2021. Only 30 were killed in 2022.

California bear depredation permits and kills 2017-2022. 

The number of bears killed is decreasing significantly while the number of bears and bear-human conflicts is growing rapidly.

Bear human conflicts as reported in the draft bear plan. 

As long as the California bureaucracy places emphasis on protecting bears at the expense of human treasure and property rights, the conflicts will continue to rise.

If a bear attempts to enter your home in California, you may shoot it to prevent it from entering. In California, firearms which are not grandfathered in your possession are supposed to be registered. Ammunition purchases are supposed to be registered. You have to take a class to purchase a gun, and wait about two weeks to take possession. With the legal complexity, it may be understandable why Patrice Miller did not have a gun to shoot a bear which was breaking into her home.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

FL: Gunfight after Bar Fight, Both Wounded

The driver of the other vehicle was struck in the leg or foot area.

Pearson said all parties involved have been identified. The case remains under investigation. 

“We haven't had a chance to talk to the individual who's in intensive care at this time, but I'm sure once we talk to them, we'll be able to shed more light onto it,” he said. “Based on the information that the driver left and the motorcycle caught up to him, there's the potential for this being a stand your ground case.”

More Here

Massachusetts Courts ruling against Power of Police Chiefs to Deny the Second Amendment



There have been at least two cases where local judges in Massachusettes have held the license to carry law, which was passed in defiance of the Supreme Court Bruen decision, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. On May 14, 2024,  Judge Kevin J. Finnerty granted a petition against the denial of a Firearm Identification Card (FID). Without an FID, the License to Carry is suspended. On May 20, 2024, Judge William P. Hadley ordered Police Chief David Pratt to issue a License to Carry to Randy Westbrook. The two cases are discussed in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

Smith noted that Fall River District Court Judge Kevin J. Finnerty issued a similar ruling on May 14 in Echeverre v. Cullena case initially seeking judicial review of the denial of a firearm identification card, or FID, and subsequently involving the suspension of an LTC.

In granting the petition, Finnerty said he agreed that “discretionary suspension (or grant) of a constitutionally guaranteed right to which our jurisprudence requires courts to defer is inconsistent with ․ Bruin holding.”

The Westbrook case of denial of an LTC by Hollyoak Police Chief David Pratt:

In his appeal from the denial of the application, the petitioner argued that G.L.c. 140, §131, runs afoul of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and other recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Specifically, Westbrook contended that the “suitability” standard set forth in §131 for a police chief’s assessment of dangerousness is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Judge William P. Hadley agreed, reversing Chief Pratt’s permit denial and ordering issuance of an LTC to Westbrook.

These cases are at the district court level. Other courts are not required to follow their lead. It is unclear if either or both of the cases will be appealed. Other courts are required to respect the precedent of the Bruen decision. The logic of the Echeverre and Westbrook cases is obvious and clear.  The Massachusetts legislature created a substitute subjective standard of "dangerousnes" as a means to avoid following the clear guidance of the Bruen case, set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly points out police chiefs do not want to relinquish their power to deny License to Carry permits. The Massachusetts legislature desires to insure the police chiefs have to power to deny License to Carry permits. The Second Amendment of the Constitution directly forbids the power of government agents to subjectively deny people the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms, which includes handguns.

Massachusetts is already in the radar of the Supreme Court. After the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Morin , Alfred V. Lyver, William, et al, case and sent it back to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to be re-considered under the clear guidance of the Bruen decision. Morin was issued a License to Carry as a result.

Some judges in Massachusetts understand their duty under the Constitution to enforce the limitations on government imposed by the Bill of Rights. Massachusetts residents whose rights to bear arms have been infringed by their local police chief now have two well reasoned cases to use as examples for their own challenges.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Monday, June 17, 2024

Research Confirms: Men who have More Guns have greater Sexual Satisfaction


Recent research shows a significant correlation between the possession of guns and a man's satisfaction with his sexual equipment.

A common fantasy thrown at male gun owners is they are using guns as "compensation" for an undersized penis or sexual disfunction. This speculation has long been a staple of those seeking to discredit the ownership of firearms. This earlier paper gives an overview of the psychosexual insult and its use.

In 2016, an editorial in HuffPost argued that “the compulsion to own firearms stems from an unconscious need to compensate for a deep-seated psychological sense of insecurity and inadequacy in terms of power: in males, specifically for having a small or smaller-than-desired penis” (). In 2020, John Cleese, a famous comedian, quipped on Twitter that “the British are proud that they DON’T [emphasis in original] need a gun to make themselves feel manly” and that Americans need “assault weapons” to “keep ED [erectile dysfunction] away” ().

In the recent paper, researchers decided to test the theory with actual data. The collection of the data was funded by a group which desires to disarm the American population. From

The researchers disclosed that data collection for the study was financially supported by the organization Change the Ref, whose mission is “Shifting America’s social response to gun violence by uniting creativity, activism, disruption, and education.” The researchers state that although Change the Ref has a clear anti-gun stance, it played no role in the planning or implementation of the study.

The study was published in the American Journal of Men’s Health.

The results of the study were precisely opposite of the psychosexual insult thrown at male gun owners. The more male gun owners were satisfied with their penis size, the more they were likely to own guns, to own more guns, and to own "military style" rifles. Here is the abstract from the study, bold added. From


In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older. With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. Alternative theories are posited for the apparent inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and personal gun ownership, including higher levels of testosterone and constructionist explanations.

Another fantasy of those who want to control your access to defensive tools has been exposed. The arguments of those who want to prevent people from owning and using guns are fantasy arguments which do not hold up under examination. More guns do not cause more crime. More guns do not cause more suicides. Concealed Carry permit holders are more law abiding than police.


©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


IL: Chicago Disarm Attempt Fails Victim Shot in Hand

Yet another robbery victim was shot Thursday night on the Far North Side. A 24-year-old man and his 28-year-old girlfriend were walking in the 7200 block of North Ridge when the robber confronted them around 9:04 p.m. Chicago police said the male victim tried to get ahold of the offender’s firearm, but it discharged, striking him in the hand. After getting wallets from the two victims, the robber fled.

More Here

Sunday, June 16, 2024

Newsom’s Proposed Anti-Second Amendment Receives No Support

Governor Newsom, 2019, wikimedia commons


On June 8, 2023,  a year ago, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, and continuous supporter of ever more laws restricting gun ownership and use, proposed an Article V convention of the states for the purpose of amending the Constitution. The amendment would allow for more restrictions on who may own firearms and what type they are allowed to own. Since the convention and amendment were proposed, no other state has passed a resolution to support Governor Newsom's effort.

The initial proposition did not propose language for the Article V convention.  It listed several possible restrictions without statutory language. Resolution 7 was passed on September 21 in the California legislature. After a long list of dubious assumptions, the effective wording of proposed restrictions is as follows:

(a) Affirm that federal, state, and local governments may adopt public safety regulations limiting aspects of firearms acquisition, possession, public carry, and use by individuals, and that such regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the understanding that throughout American history private individuals have possessed firearms for home defense, hunting, and recreational purposes;
(b) Impose, as a matter of national policy, the following firearms regulations and prohibitions: (1) universal background checks as a prerequisite to purchase or acquisition of a firearm, (2) a prohibition on sales, loans, or other transfers of firearms to those under 21 years of age, subject to limited exceptions, (3) a minimum waiting period after the purchase or acquisition of a firearm before that firearm may be delivered to the buyer or acquirer, and (4) a prohibition on the private possession of assault weapons and other weapons of war; and be it further

There is no mention of the balance of power purpose for potential overthrow of a tyrannical government. Many observers suspect Governor Newsom put out the initiative to keep his name in the news as a possible replacement for President Biden, if President Biden pulls out of the 2024 presidential race during the last five months before the election.

Governor Newsom claims the restrictions on firearms ownership and the types of firearms allowed are popular among the electorate. It is hard to see how 2/3 of the states would desire to engage in such a risky political enterprise as an Article V convention, when the proposal is devoted to eviscerating the Second Amendment.  The proposed amendment would do so by specifically granting power to all levels of government to limit the sale, possession, carry, and use by individuals. The Second Amendment would be a dead letter in the law.

Roughly 60% of states are controlled by conservative legislatures and voters. It seems unlikely the necessary two thirds of state legislatures would sign up. In the last year, the only state to support Newsom's measure is California, where he, as Governor, has significant political clout.

An Article V convention is feared by both conservatives and far left activists. No one knows if such a convention would be bound to the terms of its charter.  Obtaining the approval of three quarters of state legislatures or state conventions to approve the results of an Article V convention  appears to be a near impossible task in today's contentious political climate.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

LA: Shreveport, Gunfire leads to Arrest of Suspect

The suspect had called his parents to come get him while he was on the run, having assumed he was shot.

“The owner took shots at the suspect. He ended up calling his mom to come get him so we ended up chasing him for miles,” said Lt. Shawn Hurd with SPD.

SPD chased the man for hours before finding him hiding inside an unaware neighbor’s dryer.

“I was in there reading my Bible and seen these police come up the driveway and went in the back,” said James Wall, the man whose dryer the suspect was found hiding inside. “We have some problems like this every once and a while, but none like this. It was like the whole police force showed up.”


More Here

Saturday, June 15, 2024

WI: Lawsuit Filed Against DNR for Unconstituitonal Rule on Firearms Possession

On June 6, 2024, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a lawsuit against Steven Little in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), demanding the Court temporarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 20.05(2).

Wis. Admin. Code § NR 20.05(2): “No person may...[p]ossess or control any firearm, gun or similar device at any time while on the waters, banks or shores that might be used for the purpose of fishing.”

The DNR regulation bans possession of firearms in a wide variety of locations and activities. It is in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Virtually any firearm "might be used for the purpose of fishing".  The lawsuit does not  claim a violation of the Wisconsin Section 25, although the regulation appears to violate Section 25 as well. Section 25:

 The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting,
recreation, or any other lawful purpose. (Art. 1, § 25)

A far-left Wisconsin Supreme Court essentially nullified Section 25 in State v Hamden in 2003. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently back under the control of far-left judges, because of the election of 2022. This may explain the strategy of citing the U.S. Second Amendment, but not Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The DNR regulation was created in 1999, during a rewrite of the regulations. It was claimed the re-write contained only "minor substantial changes". The ban on firearms in wide areas of the state was administratively created within a year of the passage of the Constitutional amendment, Section 25, which was passed in 1998.

In the history of fishing in Wisconsin, it was common to keep a "kit gun" in a tackle box as a means of subduing large fish as they were played out and brought close to the angler on a boat. My father often kept a Remington Rolling Block single shot .22 pistol for such a purpose. I possess that pistol today. In 1965 a campaign was started to demonize using pistols to dispatch large fish, particularly muskies, in Wisconsin. In 1966, the Wisconsin Conservation Commission created a rule making it illegal to use a firearm to shoot fish.  In 1999 the change was made as shown in the second paragraph. It was an enormously substantive change.

Instead of prohibiting the shooting of fish, the rule prohibited the possession of all firearms at anytime, over vast areas of Wisconsin. I have unknowingly violated the rule thousands of times over the intervening decades. A person cannot travel by boat or canoe, hunt along a river or lake, or hike on a lake shoreline or river bank, or cross a bridge over water, while possessing a firearm, without violating the rule.  The applicability of the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court of the United States is clear. There is no historical precedent before 1999.

The defendant in the lawsuit,  Acting Secretary Steven Little, has not yet responded to the summons, which was filed in Sheboygan County Circuit Court. The defendant has 45 days to respond.

Analysis: This case should be a clear and easy win. The flipping of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the election of 2022 (millions of dollars were spent by ardent leftist to accomplish this), makes the outcome of the case less certain, at least at the Wisconsin Supreme Court level. While the Court was controlled by conservative judges, prosecutors were careful not to bring up cases involving Section 25. Given the gutting of Section 25 by a previous leftist dominated court, current leftist judges might claim the plaintiff has no standing because he has not been arrested or fined.

Wisconsin precedence holds a regulation must be challenged under a separate part of the law. The lawsuit uses this to show the current plaintiff has standing.

If this case goes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the Wisconsin Court holds against the plaintiff, it could be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. This was the route taken in Caetano v Massachusetts. Only a few cases which appeal to the US Supreme Court are heard each year. If appealed the US Supreme Court, victory would be in serious doubt until the Court agreed to hear the case.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

NV: Gunfight in Parking Lot, Armed Victim Shoots Adversary

A fatal shooting at a Walmart parking lot Wednesday afternoon is being investigated as a possible case of self-defense, police said.

No arrests have been made, according to a Henderson Police Department news release.

“Detectives determined a 38-year-old male approached a vehicle with a firearm in his hand in a confrontational manner,” the news release said. “A second male from within this vehicle discharged his firearm at the 38-year-old, striking him. After being shot, the 38-year-old male discharged multiple rounds from his firearm as the confronted subject vehicle drove away.”

The man who was shot died from his injuries at the scene. The Clark County coroner’s office will release his identity and cause and manner of death after relatives have been notified.

More Here

TX: Houston Resident Disarms Assailant, is Wounded, Shoots, Kills, Attacker

The fatal shooting of a man at 8405 Wilcrest Drive about 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday (June 12) will be referred to a Harris County grand jury.

The identity of the deceased male is pending verification by the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences.

The male shooter, 26, was transported to an area hospital with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.

HPD Homicide Division Detectives S. Chettry and M. Barton reported:

HPD patrol officers responded to a home invasion call at an apartment complex at the above address and found two males with gunshot wounds.  Houston Fire Department paramedics responded to the scene and transported both males to an area hospital, where one was pronounced deceased.

A preliminary investigation determined one of the males forced his way into the other male’s apartment and a struggle ensued.  The surviving male (tenant) was shot at least once in the leg before he managed to take the gun away and shoot the other male (suspect).

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office was contacted and it was determined the case will be reviewed by a Harris County grand jury.

More Here

Friday, June 14, 2024

ME: Gun Control Group has Negligent Discharge at Police Station

Mark on ramrod shows position to indicate an unloaded muzzleloader image courtesy Rock Island Auction (RIA)

On June 3rd, 2024, a population disarmament promoting Swedish non-governmental organization known as Humanium Metal, was destroying firearms at a Maine police department at Old Orchard Beach.  The firearms had been collected as part of a push by the disarmament group the Maine Gun Safety Coalition. In the process of destruction, one of the firearms discharged. Fortunately, only two cars were hit by the projectile. It does not appear any person was injured.

The incident was reported in, in a well researched and written article by Seamus Othot. From

One of Maine’s primary gun control advocate groups, the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, oversaw a gun-giveback program on Saturday at local police departments throughout southern Maine.

Despite the focus on gun safety, contractors working with MGSC and the Old Orchard Beach Police Department failed to practice basic gun safety when they attempted to saw a loaded blackpowder rifle, which led to the negligent discharge of the firearm.

Luckily, instead of injuring any bystanders, the musket round instead damaged two vehicles.

Humanium Metal had been tasked with the destruction of the firearms by the Maine Gun Safety Coalition. TheMaineWire reported Humanium Metal specialized in the safe disposal of firearms. Perhaps Humanium had not dealt with muzzleloading firearms before. Perhaps, as the firearms were delivered by police, they assumed the firearms had all been checked to see if they were loaded by police.

The procedure to check a muzzleloader to see if it is loaded is simple. Determine if there is priming in the pan or a cap on the nipple(s) of the muzzleloader. If so, remove the priming and/or  the cap(s). Take the ramrod or a similar rod and slide it down the barrel until it stops.  Mark that location at the muzzle.  Pull the rod out, then slide it along to barrel to see if there is a load in the chamber. Many rods are marked to indicate how far in they will go when the chamber is empty.  If the rod goes in to the mark, the firearm is unloaded. If it does not, assume the gun has gunpowder and in the chamber.

Using a chop saw to cut through a barrel could easily create enough heat to set off a charge of black powder.

This correspondent contacted the Old Orchard Beach police. A press release was sent by email. From the press release:

On June 3 rd ,2024 the Old Orchard Beach Police Department was designated as one of several gun destruction sites for several Southern Maine Police Departments who dropped off guns collected during the event. Representatives of Humanium Metal who break down guns and convert them into sellable products were on site for destruction of the firearms. The weapons were checked on site by police dropping weapons off and police representatives from other departments who organized the event.

As one of the firearms was being cut the weapon discharged expelling a round through the barrel. The round was found to have struck two unoccupied vehicles within the parking lot. Through initial investigation the involved weapon was identified as a muzzle loader style rifle. It was determined that the heat from the cutting tool ignited gun powder still left within the barrel which discharged the round.

This is an unfortunate event, and confirms the gun safety axiom of assuming every gun is loaded until you determine differently.


 ©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch