TX:Pregnant woman shoots at two men breaking into home

The victim of a home invasion in Palmview Saturday asked Action 4 not to show her face on camera. She told us she never wanted to have a gun around the house, but after this ordeal, she's glad she had protection by her side.

(snip)


"I'm a young woman, I'm pregnant, I'm home alone. I'm not going to answer the door - I mean, I know better," said Alex.

Alex said her husband had just left 20 minutes before. Immediately, she knew something wasn't right and made the split decision to grab her husband's handgun.

(snip)

 Once the men realized Alex was armed and ready to defend her home, they ran back towards their truck.

 More Here

TX:Fort Hood issues new policy after soldiers protest for open carry rights

Open carry rally in Texas

FORT HOOD -
After several confrontations between soldiers and civilian police, Fort hood has created a new policy.

In an email outlining the policy, Fort Hood says, "There is a growing trend of soldiers assigned to fort hood openly carrying firearms in private business establishments."

When approached by police, they say soldiers have been refusing to cooperate with civilian police officers who try to assess if the guns are a threat to the public.

 (snip)

This new policy intends to clear things up without overruling state law. Fort Hood Major General Anthony Ierardi is now requiring all military personnel to show proper identification at officer's requests.

The policy reads, "Soldiers are prohibited from refusing to present a driver's license or military identification card to any law enforcement in the exercise of his or her official duties, upon request by the law enforcement officer."


 More Here

IL:Off-duty Officer Shoots Intruder

An off-duty police officer roused by sounds of someone in a downstairs bedroom shot an intruder who came at her after she confronted him in her Wrightwood neighborhood home this morning, officials said.

 More here

India:Shopkeeper Shoots, Kills Robber

HYDERABAD, Sept 5: A robber was shot dead while a shopkeeper was wounded during an armed robbery at his photo shop near Hyder Chowk late Wednesday night.

Two robbers riding a motorcycle came to the photographer’s shop and tried to deprive the shopkeeper of cash, said City SHO Imran Rasheed.

 More Here

France:Thousands Support Jeweller who Shot Fleeing Theif

 French officers take statements at scene of shooting

A 67-year-old French jeweller has received an outpouring of support on the internet after being detained on suspicion of murder for shooting dead a teenager fleeing his shop with stolen gems.

A Facebook page set up in support of Stephan Turk had attracted more than 55,000 likes by yesterday afternoon, a day after the jeweller was placed in custody on suspicion of murder.

Turk, the owner of "La Turquoise" jewellers in the centre of the Riviera city of Nice, was held up at gunpoint by two men wearing motorcycle helmets as he opened his small jewellery shop on Wednesday morning.

Closed circuit video images show he was punched and kicked before being forced to open his safe. One of the robbers then filled a bag with jewels and the pair made off on the same scooter, Nice prosecutor Eric Bedos said.

As they fled, Turk shot at them three times with a small gun, hitting the 18-year-old sitting on the back of the scooter at least once in the back, Bedos added.

 More Here at South China Post

Massad Ayoob:ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 19: LESSONS

This series by Massad Ayoob is the best summation of the case

There was much for us all to learn from this case. For anyone who came in late, let me refer you here http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob143.html for a summary.  It ends with one such lesson. Let’s pick up from there.

In this society, the person who moves toward danger in any respect is seen as “having gone looking for trouble,” and widely blamed accordingly if it does not end well. I’ve explained earlier why I don’t think anything Zimmerman did within the totality of the circumstances was the proximate cause of the death, but there’s a reason for the saying “It’s not about fault, it’s about blame.”

When you’re on trial, you aren’t the player, you’re the stakes. The players are your lawyers, and you want the best. Zimmerman had that, and it saved him.


 The evidence dealt them a powerful hand of cards. I think their two highest cards were Ace of Experts Dr. Vincent DiMaio, Jr. and Ace of Eyewitnesses John Good.  The master forensic pathologist tied it all together and proved from the hard evidence what Good, the closest eyewitness, testified: it was Martin on top brutally beating Zimmerman until the shot. I did a murder case with Dr. DiMaio in Texas years ago, also resulting in an acquittal, and DiMaio was extraordinary there, too.

If anyone still has the fantasy that you’ll always be treated as a hero after a clean shoot, this case teaches us the reality. It’s often an ordeal of lies, misunderstandings, and false accusations…and, as seen here, your family will go through that ordeal with you.

It’s not something you want to face alone. Kudos to those who donated to Zimmerman’s legal defense fund: you helped enormously to do justice.


  O’Mara establishing a website to show the actual evidence (www.GZlegalcase.com)  was powerful and effective, and I think we’ll see other defense lawyers modeling on this strategy in the future.


 One useful ally would be the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, which I’m involved with and have seen do good work. (http://armedcitizensnetwork.net) . Mark O’Mara consulted with ACLDN head Marty Hayes on the case, and appears to have put some of his advice to good use. Hayes’ excellent analysis is found here:  http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.net/images/stories/Network_2013-08.pdf .

Don’t believe everything you see in the papers or on TV when the news in question is a self-defense act. For decades as an expert witness in these cases, I’d get back to the hotel after testifying, watch the news report on the day’s events in court, and wonder what the hell trial the reporter was watching.  We saw that classically here. The honest reporting was more in the blogosphere than in the mainstream media.

Link to Backwoods Home Magazine 

Illinois Court Says FOID Restores Rights

Plaintiff sued for a Firearm Owner ID Card, required for gun possession. He had a misdemeanor DV. Apparently Illinois has no way to get rights restored after a misdemeanor. The State opposed, since its statute doesn't allow FOID cards to be issued to those barred from gun possession by Federal law, and there is the Federal bar against those with misdemeanor DV convictions.

As I read it the court holds that Federal law exempts from its prohibited person categories anyone convicted but who has had their rights restored, and that issuing the FOID is the equivalent of restoring rights (the statute does not say the rights must be restored by a court), ergo there is no Federal bar, and the FOID should issue.

 Source with Link to decision

WI:Appleton PD Refuses to Investigate Rights Violations Against Second Amendment Activists

 Photo by Oleg Volk

In spite of YouTube video and audio showing numerous rights violations as well as conspiracy to violate those rights, the Appleton PD doubles down.    There will be no investigation of the incident where second amendment activists were detained at gunpoint and handcuffed without reasonable suspicion or probable cause last Saturday.  From the Appleton City Website:

Due to the nature of the call, combined with the officers’ observations of the subjects walking toward the farm market armed with rifles, they were briefly detained at the scene. The firearms were identified as AR-15 rifles. Both subjects told officers they were also wearing concealed handguns. The individuals indicated they were walking to the Downtown Appleton Farm Market and were exercising their right to open carry the AR-15 rifles. They possessed the proper paperwork for the concealed handguns on their persons. After determining the subjects did not intend to harm people and were legally able to possess the aforementioned weapons, the individuals were allowed to leave.

The Appleton Police Department has no ongoing investigation and considers the issue resolved.

 I wonder what the officers told their administration?   Did the administration even bother listening to the audio file?   The file clearly shows the officers conspiring to violate Charles and Ross' first and second amendment rights.  They  continued to violate their 4th amendment rights long after determining that they were no threat and were not committing any crimes.   It is clear that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain them.  

This is too bad.  The administration had an excellent chance to nip this in the bud, cheaply, with some much needed training and an investigation into what happened.  Instead, they have chosen to put their head in the sand and hope it will all go away.

There is plenty of precedent that it will not go away.   There have been several settlements already.    I do not know the individuals involved, but they seemed to be prepared activists.  I wish the Appleton PD had done their homework.  This could have been quick and easy.    Now I suspect that the people of Appleton will end up doling out some cash, and the administration of the PD will be made to look foolish.

Link to original article with links to video and audio

Link to Appleton City website

Link to open carry cash settlements in Wisconsin

 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Illinois Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies Outside the Home

Young lady with revolver in Arizona

Today, 12 September, 2013,  the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment of the Bill of Rights applies to the carrying of arms outside of the home.  They did this by declaring the Illinois statute which makes carry of loaded firearms outside of a persons property illegal, to be unconstitutional.  From the decision:

  We begin with section 24-1.6(a)(1),
(a)(3)(A), which states:
“(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful
use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any
vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except
when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed
place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or
other firearm; [and]
***
(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded
and immediately accessible at the time of the
-4-¶ 16
¶ 17
offense[.]” 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West
2008).

  The court then goes on to present the arguments for and against.  The Court finds that the determinations of the Seventh circuit that the second amendment and the Heller and McDonald decisions protect a right to carry arms for self defense outside of the home are persuasive, and rules the above statute to be unconstitutional under the second amendment.

Accordingly, as the Seventh Circuit did in Moore, we here hold
that, on its face, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) violates the right to
keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment to the
United States Constitution. Defendant’s conviction under that section
therefore is reversed.3

 Here is the footnote 3 referred to above:

Following the decision in Moore, the General Assembly enacted the
Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which inter alia amended the AUUW statute
to allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public. See Pub. Act
98-0063 (eff. July 9, 2013), Neither the Firearm Concealed Carry Act nor
the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case.

This is a significant victory for the restoration of second amendment rights in the United States.  It has implications that are just beginning to be understood.

One of the most obvious is the potential that Illinois has become an open carry state.   The statute struck down is the one that made open carry in Illinois illegal.  The Firearm Concealed Carry Act deals with concealed carry, and put into place strong statewide preemption for the regulation of pistols.  It created a situation where people from out of state could carry pistols in their vehicles without a concealed carry permit.

There were separate rules that allowed local governments to regulate long guns.

It appears that the law forbidding the open carry of handguns has been struck down, and that statewide preemption forbids local governments, including Chicago, from imposing their own local infringements.

I would urge caution in exercising second amendment rights under this decision.

Even in Wisconsin, where open carry has never been illegal, police are still harassing and violating the rights of open carriers.

The dynamic that made it hard to get a shall issue concealed carry law passed in Illinois, now works to prevent a swift legislative approach to stop open carry.  A simple majority of either house can stop a bill, and there is a majority of legislators in Illinois that support the second amendment.

That this victory was obtained through criminal proceedings, instead of a carefully selected test case, makes the victory all the more interesting.

Today, Illinois residents have moved a step closer to restoration of their second amendment rights.

 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

TX:Armed Citizen Kills one Carjacker, Wounds Another

According to investigators, he got back in his car and was approached by at least two suspects who attempted to steal his car.

He was forced out of the vehicle and pushed down. The victim had a gun on him and he fired at the suspects. He killed one of the robbers and wounded one of the other suspects who got away.

More Here

VA:Resident Drives off Invaders, Shoots One

Police say two men forced their way into a townhouse in the 3900 block of Bradwater Street in the Comstock community at 10:45 p.m. on Tuesday. According to the residents, the men implied the had weapons, took some items and physically assaulted some of the residents. The residents suffered minor injuries, say police.

According to police, the burglars fled when one resident fired a handgun. Police think one burglar may have been shot.

More Here

Justice Denied:Second Amendment Case Delayed for Years in D.C.

After the historic decision where the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applied to individuals in the Heller decision, the victorious attorney Alan Gura filed another suit in the District of Columbia.   The object of this lawsuit was simple: Require the D.C. government to allow a person to carry a handgun for defense outside of the home. From The Washington Times:

The lawsuit argues that the District’s “laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution. It asks that the District issue licenses to carry guns in public to legal gun owners in the city and to people with valid carry permits from outside the city.

The issue is a simple one: Does the Second Amendment apply outside of the home?  Alan Gura's argument is summarized by an observer who posted on opencarry.org here:

Alan Gura went first. He said this case is pretty simply (sic). He emphasized the Heller decision's definition of bear as to carry on the person a weapon for offensive or defensive use in the event of confrontation. He pointed out that the District has offered no other definition. He pointed out that this is a complete ban on carrying outside the home and is thus very similar to Heller which completely banned possession of handguns. He pointed out that handguns are protected under the second amendment as commonly used arms. He explained that Heller said that the right of self defense is protected by the second amendment and that the DC law bans persons from having handguns for self defense outside the home.

 The case was filed on August 6th, 2009.  Early in the case, a decision was expected by the end of April, 2010.    Judge Kennedy did not rule by April of 2010.

In July of 2010, Alan Gura filed cases concerned with the Second Amendment right to bear arms in New York and in Maryland.

Judge Kennedy did not rule in 2010 at all.   The plaintiffs waited.   Then they waited some more.  The Chief Justice said that all the justices were heavily burdened.   In July of 2011, Palmer v. DC was reassigned to Judge Frederick J. Scullin by Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court.

 Judge Scullin did not rule on the case in 2011.  The case had now been in the courts for two and a half years.

In March, 2012, the Maryland case was favorably ruled on by the original court.

Judge Scullin did not rule on the case in 2012.  However, he did schedule a hearing, cancel it, and reschedule it.  There was a hearing held on October,1, 2012.  The judge said that he would rule quickly, though that is a subjective judgement.

The Maryland case, Woolard, was scheduled to be appealed and heard in the 4th circuit in October, 2012.

In March of 2013, the Fourth Circuit reverses the Woolard District Court ruling.

September 11, 2013.  More than four years have passed since the case was filed.  The Maryland case  has been heard, ruled on, appealed, and ruled on appeal.  The New York Case has been heard, ruled on, appealed, and ruled on appeal.  Both cases were filed nearly a year after the Palmer case was filed in the District of Columbia.

Speculation abounds that the delay in the District court in D.C. is deliberate. From opencarry.org:

This delay is intentional. Why, you ask? It is because there is no States rights issue in the Federal Disttrict (sic) to balance againmst (sic) the rights of citizens. Delaying this case, and bringing only flawed other cases to SCOTUS means they are playing the waiting game. Wait until one of the 5 conservatives dies, then bring in cases to roll back Heller.

Four years is a long time for a simple ruling.  Perhaps this is  a "hot potato" that the judges do not want their name attached to.  Perhaps they have hoped for another case in the courts to overtake this one and render it moot.

Since the case was filed, Illinois was forced by a ruling in the Seventh Circuit to pass a shall issue concealed carry permit law, leaving the District of Columbia the only jurisdiction in the nation that has a complete ban on the carry of handguns outside of the home.

It is clear that Justice has long been delayed in this case.  Actions such as this, though they may be innocent, give the impression of corruption, of a lack of concern for the Constitution.    They erode public confidence in the judicial system.   The time for a decision in this case is long, long, overdue.   To paraphrase the famous quote, justice has long been delayed, and has thus been denied.


 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.


 

WV:Homeowner Shoots at Burglar

Police said the owner of the home got a gun from his safe and then shot several rounds at the suspect as he entered through a rear window.

The burglar jumped back through the window and ran away. Police do not believe he was hit by the gunfire.

More Here

The Colorado Recalls Explained

 I found this article to be the best explanation of what happened in the Colorado Recall elections:

Yesterday voters in Colorado recalled two State Senators. One result was not a surprise, and the other is a shock. Of course the votes are Second Amendment victories for the right to arms, but more fundamentally, they are Fourteenth Amendment victories for Due Process of Law.

Former State Senate President John Morse represented Colorado Springs, plus the somewhat hipster mountain community of Manitou Springs. While El Paso County is strongly Republican, the interior city of Colorado Springs has been center/center-left for years. Senate District 11 was carved to make the election of a Democrat possible, and it worked. Voter registration in SD 11 is about a third, a third, and a third among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with Democrats having the largest third and Republicans the smallest. Morse barely won re-election in 2010, and might have lost if not for the presence of a Libertarian on the ballot.

As the conventional wisdom expected, voter turn-out was relatively low. Morse was recalled by  51-49%. The conventional wisdom of Colorado politics had been that Morse would probably lose, but that the election would be tight, and there was a chance that he might win. As things turned out, Republicans turned out greatly in excess of their registration percentage, and that was probably the difference.

Both sides had hard-working GOTV programs, but apparently the Democrats did not succeed in convincing enough of their less-enthusiastic voters to vote. This is in contrast to 2012, when Obama won the district by 21%.

Pueblo, the largest city in southern Colorado, delivered the result that stunned almost everyone. For more than a century, Pueblo has been a Colorado stronghold of working-class union Democrats. Like most of southern Colorado, it has a large Hispanic population. Obama won Senate District 3 by 19% in 2012. In 2010, Democratic Senator Angela Giron won her race by about 5:4. This year, Giron chaired the Senate’s State Affairs Committee, helping to shepherd gun control bills to the Senate floor.

Pueblo’s Senate District 3  typically has a much higher turnout rate than SD 11 in Colorado Springs. The same was true today: about 36,000 votes cast in Pueblo, compared to 18,000 in Colorado Springs.

Based on the latest campaign disclosure reports, Morse/Giron enjoyed an 8:1 spending advantage over recall advocates, in terms of direct contributions to campaigns. Michael Bloomberg contributed $350,000 to fight the recalls, about equal to the $361,000 contributed by the NRA, which is probably about $3 per NRA member in the state. Another wealthy contributor gave $250,000 to oppose the recalls.

 More Here at the Volokh.com

Iowa Sheriff: Blind People Can Use Guns Safely

A thoughtful response from a sheriff.  Anyone who considers the situation for more than a few seconds, can see how there are situations in which a blind person could effectively use a firearm to defend themselves. 

“I see no way a visually impaired person can operate a motor vehicle safely,” Wethington said. “But a firearm can be drawn and discharged, and truthfully it’s safer that way than a sighted person shooting five or 10 yards away. Because there is a possibility they could miss. If you have someone on top of you, and you rotate the weapon into them and make a contact shot, you’re not going to miss.”

Wethington says sighted people are often in situations in which their vision is impaired, for example at nighttime, yet they are allowed to carry a gun.


More Here

MI:Armed Homeowner Holds Drunk Intruder for Police

BOYNE CITY, Mich. (AP) — A northern Lower Michigan homeowner held a home invasion suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.

#According to Boyne City police, an officer responding to a 911 call at 4:15 a.m. Monday found the suspected intruder being detained in a chair by the armed homeowner.

 More Here

TN:Business Owner Shoots Intruder

POWELL (WATE) - A man was treated for a gunshot wound Sunday morning after being shot by the owner of the business he was allegedly breaking into.

More Here

WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape

Charles and Ross had AR-15 type rifles like this one slung over their shoulders

Last Saturday, the seventh of September, Charles and Ross were exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms under both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin state Constitution.  Neither had been involved in this sort of activism before, but from reading open carry forums had decided that carrying a video camera as well as their firearms, would be a prudent precaution.

They did not expect trouble.  Open carry has been well established in Wisconsin.  Open carry has always been legal, and in 1998, after a long and difficult amendment process, Wisconsin citizens cemented this long standing right into the State Constitution with 74 percent of the votes cast in the referendum.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose

Over the last 5 years, open carry has been tested in the courts.  Several lawsuits have ended in settlements to open carriers including cases in Wisconsin.   The State Attorney General issued an opinion that open carry did not constitute disorderly conduct, because police were abusing the disorderly conduct law in order to arrest open carriers.

Considerable numbers of newspaper, broadcast, and Internet articles were devoted to the issue, which became one of statewide interest in the 2010 elections.  After the elections, in 2011, the Wisconsin government clarified the law to insure that the Constitutional rights would be protected.

Included in the reforms was a section that specifically excluded open carry as disorderly conduct, and provided for a $500 fine and or a month in jail for officials that used excessive force based solely on the persons status as a concealed weapon licensee. 

In spite of the statewide debate, several court settlements, the AG opinion, and the shall issue law with special provisions protecting open carry, the most charitable thing that can be said of some officers in Appleton, is that they were not paying attention.

As Charles and Ross were walking down the street with slung rifles and holstered pistols, some of Appleton's finest approached them, pointed at least one loaded rifle at them, and demanded that they move up against a wall.  Ironically, it is likely that the rifle pointed at them was an AR-15 clone.  (about :35 seconds into the video)

Note that at this point there is no reasonable suspicion of any law being broken.  There is no probable cause.  No gun (other than the officers) has been pointed at anyone.  The audio and video recorder is running.  Open carry has been specifically defined by law in Wisconsin as not being disorderly conduct.

Charles and Ross cooperate with the police, though they have little choice with loaded guns pointed at them.  They answer questions.  They have, but do not require concealed carry permits, because they are not concealing any weapons.

The officers handcuff them and place them in the back seat of one of the squad cars.  One of the officers takes the video camera and turns off the video while allegedly attempting to erase the recording.  This in itself is a violation of the open carriers First Amendment rights.  The Seventh Circuit has ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to record police in the performance of their public duties.

While the officer turned off the video recording, he did not find the right sequence to turn off the audio recording.  The camera was then taken to another police car where the police discussed possible charges against the open carriers.

It is clear that they do not like the idea of people carrying rifles openly, though why is not so clear.   At about 6:52, one officer mentions that they have Charles and Ross' wallets and CCW permits, removing any doubt that they realize that Charles and Ross are not breaking any laws.

It appears that there are at least four officers involved.  At 12:28, one officer, who appears to be the one who impounded the camera, says, "This ain't going on on YouTube"  making clear the intent to violate the First Amendment.

At about 14:05 on the recording, the officers mention the Madison case, showing that they know about the settlement favorable to open carry reached in that case, which occurred even before the protections of open carry in act 35 went into effect.

The officers consider checking the serial numbers on the firearms.  They have no  probable cause to do so, but one of them says its "Worth a try" (20:10).

At 21:10, one officer mentions "Those are Sig Sauers"   "Those are good firearms."

At 34:30,  an officer decides to run the CCW permits again, to see if they are still valid.  Note that this is over half an hour after Charles and Ross were handcuffed without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  It is clear that the officers are fishing for something to arrest them on, but they cannot find anything.    There is no reason to run the permits, because Charles and Ross were not concealing any weapons.

At about 41:00, the permits come back valid.

At about 42:40, one of the officers says that they are all right to go.

There are some apologies, and Charles and Ross are released after 45 minutes in detention, most of the time in handcuffs.

How many of the Bill of Rights were violated in this incident?

First Amendment: already covered, the police had no right to stop the video or impound the video camera.    The intent to prevent publishing of the recording was itself recorded.

Second Amendment:  They had guns pointed at them, were handcuffed and held, and their other rights violated because they were exercising their Second Amendment rights.    A clear desire to chill the exercise of those rights was expressed by the officers and recorded.

Fourth Amendment:  They were detained without reasonable suspicion of a crime, there was no probable cause to hold them, the serial numbers of their guns were entered into national databases without any probable cause to do so.

Other cases where people had police point loaded guns at them without cause have resulted in settlements of $15,000 or more. 

Perhaps the Appleton P.D. will learn from others mistakes, settle quickly, and offer  much needed remedial training for its officers as part of the settlement.

Link to YouTube video, about 5 minutes

Link to full audio recording, 46 minutes

 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Update: I have been informed that the tape is ambiguous about whether the handguns were concealed or not.  It is possible that they were legally concealed.   I am investigating.

SC:Drunk Frightens Armed Woman, Held for Police

CHESNEE, SC (FOX Carolina) -
Spartanburg County deputies said a drunk burglar is behind bars thanks to an armed mom and her son.

(Snip)

Roberts said eventually her son, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, showed up and pointed his gun at the man, telling him to stay where he was. The son's friend also helped detain the man.

More Here

AR:.45 vs Machete, Armed Shop Owner Wins

NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR - Police are searching for a man who was armed with a machete when he tried to rob a pharmacy last week but was stopped when the owner pulled out a gun.

(snip)

Police say when the man raised the machete, the shop owner pulled a .45 Glock pistol and the suspect took off.

More Here