JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ala. (WBMA) — A 33-year-old man was shot and killed at a home in McCalla early Friday morning.
The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office said the shooting happened in the 6600 block of Newbridge Drive around 4:30 a.m. during a reported home invasion.
The sheriff's office said deputies were told the man broke into the home and engaged in a physical altercation with the occupants.
On February 28, 2024, US District Judge for the Northern District of California granted summary judgement to three individuals whose Second Amendment rights were unconstitutionally violated by the State of California. The case began over five years ago.
On December 20, 2018, the case of Linton v Bonta (originally Linton v Becerra, the California AG at the time) was filed. Individual plaintiffs and several organizations, including Calguns, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and SAF sued the state of California for flagrantly denying the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the legal judgments of other states, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment. From the lawsuit:
The question presented by this case is whether the State of California, through its chief law enforcement officers, can prevent current California residents who are not federally or otherwise prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms if their previously-disqualifying offenses, which occurred in other states,have been vacated, and especially when their fundamental, individual rights have been fully restored to them by courts of competent jurisdiction in those respective states. Asked differently: In their zeal to prohibit as many citizens from owning firearms as possible, may this State, its chief law enforcement officer, and those responsible for the enforcement of California’s firearms laws and policies, ignore the judgments and pronouncements of the courts of other states because they do not prefer the policy outcome? The only honest,constitutionally-grounded answer to these questions must be a resounding ‘no’.
On March 5, 2021, the case was stayed and administratively closed, because of pending ajudication of the Duncan v Becerra case. When the Supreme Court issued the decision in Bruen, on June 22, 2022, the elaborate structure erected by the Ninth Circuit to gut the Second Amendment was abolished. A motion to lift the stay was filed on June 28, 2022. From the motion:
Good cause exists to lift the stay in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, --- S. Ct. ---, No. 20-843, 2022 WL 2251305 (June 23, 2022) (“Bruen”), in which the Court has restated the standard to be used in Second Amendment cases. Going forward, means-end scrutiny analyses are no longer permissible in Second Amendment claims, and instead, the courts are to consider the Second Amendment’s text, “as informed by history,” and tradition.
The stay on the case was lifted on June 30, 2022. On February 28, 2024, Judge Donato issued an order of summary judgement against the defendants (State of California). From the Order:
California Penal Code Section 29800 prohibits individuals who have been convicted of felonies from owning or possessing firearms. Plaintiffs Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones were convicted of felonies in other states several decades ago. None of the convictions involved a weapon, drugs, or violence, in the ordinary meaning of the word. Each of the plaintiffs had their conviction vacated, set aside,or dismissed, and their right to possess firearms restored, by the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. Linton legally acquired firearms in California on prior occasions, and Jones was a career law enforcement officer in California with special training and certification as a firearms instructor. Even so, California has acted to permanently deny Linton, Stewart, and Jones the right to possess or own firearms, solely on the basis of their original convictions.
Plaintiffs ask for summary judgment on the grounds that California has violated (1) the Second Amendment, (2) the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and (3) the right to travel protected by Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Dkt. No.62-1. These are as-applied challenges, and plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves individually. Id. at 1.
After multiple hearings and several rounds of briefing, and in light of the guidance provided by New York State Rifle& Pistol Association, Inc.v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1(2022), the Court concludes that California has violated the Second Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs. Consequently, summary judgment is granted in favor of Linton, Stewart, and Jones on their as-applied Second Amendment claim. The Court need not reach plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims.
It is not known if the State of California will appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Analysis: This case is on "as applied" claims, therefore it only applies to the three individual plaintiffs, Linton, Stewart, and Jones. The decision is significant because Judge Donato has ruled California must recognize the right of people who live outside of California to exercise their Second Amendment rights inside of California. Donato ruled non-violent felonies are not sufficient to deny someone their Second Amendment rights, especially if they occurred decades ago, and the person has been a "law abiding citizen" since then. California must take the legal actions of other states into account when determining if a persons Second Amendment rights can be taken away.
Judge Donato did not consider the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the right to travel. Those issues are percolating just below the surface of Second Amendment federal cases. It is difficult to see how one state can nullify the Second Amendment for people who travel to that state from other states. One state court, in Massachusetts, ruled a Massachusetts law cannot invalidate the Second Amendment rights of individuals from another state. The case was not appealed, and so is not available as precedent in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment is not a second class right. The right of people from outside a state to exercise Second Amendment rights inside a state will eventually be before federal courts.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Harris attacked two people when confronted by the building's occupants, prompting one of them to shoot him in the leg, police said.
According to police, Harris fled the scene and was soon found by Reading Police. He is charged with criminal trespass and assault-related offenses, police said.
"We're very happy that none of the homeowners were injured during this altercation. It's definitely very scary to have someone that you don't know coming into your home," Pentheny continued to say.The New Orleans Police Department reported three men and a woman were walking in the 1200 block of Bourbon Street around 2:12 a.m. when another man approached them, pulled out a gun and asked for their property.
NOPD officials said the victims fought the man for the gun, got control of it and told him to leave.
According to police, the suspect then ran from the scene.
Image from Diamondback advertising
At the 2024 SHOT Show industry day at the range, this correspondent stopped at the Diamondback Firearms booth. Unfortunately, they did not have any examples of their new .22 revolver, the Sidekick, available. This lead to a discussion of how the Sidekick, which strongly resembles the old Hi-Standard Double Nine revolver, was brought into production.
Jimmy Stroda was director of product development at Diamondback firearms. He related the story to this correspondent. Diamondback had been looking at product sales in the United States. It is clear .22 caliber single action revolvers have a very large market share, as seen by the numbers of Heritage arms revolvers which are sold every year. Diamondback management believed they could capture part of this market. They started to make plans to produce a .22 single action revolver. Then Ruger entered the inexpensive end of the market with the Wrangler series of revolvers. Diamondback was re-considering its options.
Jimmy had a legacy Hi-Standard Double Nine revolver he had inherited from his grandfather. He thought highly of the handgun. The Double Nine is a nine shot, double action revolver styled to look and handle much like a Colt single action revolver. It fires both double and single action. It has a side swing out cylinder, and ejects all nine cartridges at once. It has the advantages single action style with double action mechanics and ease of loading and unloading. It can be supplied with a magnum cylinder to give more versatility to the handgun.
The owner of Diamondback, was considering the idea of manufacturing a double action .22 revolver. Jimmy put forward the idea of re-creating a modern version of the Hi-Standard Double Nine. Another member of the management team piped up. He had one of the legacy Double Nine revolvers and thought it was a great gun. Diamondback decided to move forward with a new version of the Hi-Standard. During the development, they contacted previous Hi-Standard management. Any patents were long out of date. The previous management was very helpful, suggesting areas where Hi-Standard had problems, and how they had been solved. Jimmy has since moved to Diamondback Knifeworks.
The Sidekick uses a zinc alloy casting for the frame. The Hi-Standard Double Nine used an aluminum casting for the frame. Diamondback has strong experience with both zinc and aluminum casting. Zinc frames result in a revolver with a weight closer to the original Colt single action. The Heritage revolvers use a similar material in their frames. The Ruger Wrangler uses an aluminum casting, the Super Wrangler has a steel frame.
The Double Nine was offered in a variety of colors and finishes. The Sidekick is offered in a variety of ceracote colors. There are advantages to .22 rimfire revolvers, which make them competitive with .22 semi-automatic handguns. This correspondent has owned several of the Hi-Standard Sentinel .22 revolvers. The Double Nine is a variant of the Sentinel design. The Diamondback team is always working on improvements. This correspondent expects the Sidekick to maintain and build on the legacy of the Hi-Standard Double Nine.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
INDIANAPOLIS — An attempted home break-in led to a man being shot and wounded on Indy’s near east side.
Just after 5 a.m. Tuesday on Forest Avenue, police were called following a confrontation between a homeowner and a would-be thief that turned violent.
The homeowner admitted he shot the suspect, who was trying to steal his generator.
“As I confront him about my generator, he goes into his pocket like he’s about to pull a weapon, and I shot him in the leg to make him stop,” said Alfred Burdine.
Police say the officer, who was home and off-duty at the time, grabbed a gun and fired toward the man.
The suspect was not hit, but police say he suffered non-life threatening injuries after he fell three floors to the ground.
The names of the suspect and the officer have not been released.
SAN ANTONIO - The suspected car thief who was shot by a vehicle owner on Tuesday has been identified.
The victim has been identified as 37-year-old Juan Castaneda, who was shot by a homeowner early Tuesday while allegedly breaking into their car.
Police responded to a call around 3:50 a.m. Tuesday to a home on Micron Drive, near Culebra on the city’s West Side, where a homeowner reported having shot Castaneda.
Vivian and Gabriel's modest home in Billings, Montana
In the ongoing Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZ) case in Billings, Montana, the trial date is currently set for March 25, 2024. The process is a long and difficult one for Gabriel Metcalf and his Mother, Vivian. Because this is a criminal, not a civil, case. Gabriel's freedom is at risk. The current judge, Federal District Judge, Susan P. Watters has ruled the GFSZ to be constitutional, and the Montana Establishment of Individual Licensure law is not sufficient to be an exception to the GFSZ.
Going through the process in a challenge to the constitutionality of a criminal charge is much more difficult and punishing than challenging the law through a civil lawsuit. Typically, in a civil lawsuit, the risk of those bringing the case is to their finances. If they lose, they will lose the money they have put into the case. Federal civil rights cases are expensive. However, if you win, you are likely to have your legal fees paid by the government. When you are charged with a crime, and challenge it on constitutional grounds, your freedom and assets are both at risk. If you lose, you can be imprisoned and fined.
In the Gabriel Metcalf GFSZ case, Judge Susan P. Watters cut off appeals until the case is decided, by ruling the law to be constitutional. An appeal will only be possible if Gabriel is found guilty. He will have to undergo a trial, and be found to be guilty, before an appeal of the law to a higher court is possible. In a civil case, the case can be stayed pending an appeal. It is this correspondent's understanding this is not allowed in a criminal case, once the trial judge has ruled the law is valid.
There is a possibility the serving of the sentence could be stayed until the appeal process is completed. This is sometimes granted if the sentence is likely to be finished before the appeal is adjudicated.
In this case, the prosecution has asked for a ban on constitutional arguments before the jury, because the judge has already ruled the law to be constitutionally valid. This request was granted by the judge. This is common in such cases. The prosecution also asked that a defense based on a belief the action was not criminal because of local law (entrapment by estopel) be banned. Judge Watters did not grant the request at this time, reserving her power to do so at a later time.
On the defense side, Gabriel Metcalf's federal defender, Russel Hart, filed a motion to preclude the prosecution from alluding to Metcalf's mental health. The Government had previously smeared Metcalf with assertions by officers and in the media that Metcalf was acting irrationally. Hart claimed such opinions were predjudicial, unsupported, and irrelevant to the case.
Judge Watters granted the request.
Outside of court, the ATF has denied Gabriel's mother, Vivian's petition to stop the forfeiture action of the Rossi single shot shotgun which was seized when a search warrant was served on the home of Vivian and Gabriel. Neither Vivian or Gabriel has been convicted of a crime.
This is a criminal forfeiture case under 18 U.S.C. 924 (d). This is not a civil forfeiture action. According to 18 U.S. Code § 924 (d), if the owner of the firearm is acquitted, the firearm will be returned to the owner. From the code:
Provided, That upon acquittal of the owner or possessor, or dismissal of the charges against him other than upon motion of the Government prior to trial, or lapse of or court termination of the restraining order to which he is subject, the seized or relinquished firearms or ammunition shall be returned forthwith to the owner or possessor or to a person delegated by the owner or possessor unless the return of the firearms or ammunition would place the owner or possessor or his delegate in violation of law. Any action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of such seizure.
Gabriel's mother, Vivian, has set up a GiveSendGo account to aid in the defense of Vivian and Gabriel's modest home, and to meet expenses during the ongoing legal battles. As part of the legal struggles, they have been successful in having Gabriel released from the county jail and in having a GPS ankle bracelet removed.
There is enormous stress in such a situation, where Gabriel believes, quite reasonably, he did nothing wrong, but now faces up to ten years in prison. The punishment by process continues.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
He was able to speak and stated that the other teen was attempting to rob him of his gun and money.
He said that the other injured teen approached him and began to pat him down on his pockets and waistband area stating “run me your pockets” (a colloquial phrase for give me your belongings).
The teen robber was armed with a gun while attempting to rob the teen victim.
Both teens fired shots at one another causing severe injury
Investigators revealed that Connor “unlawfully” entered the victim’s home whose seven-year-old son was also present at the time.
The victim reportedly gave Connor multiple requests to leave. Connor persisted and physically assaulted the victim who then discharged a firearm that struck Connor.
Some guns auctioned off by KSP in 2022
A bill before the Kentucky legislature aims to roll back a reform of firearms law enacted to preserve resources for the benefit of the public.
In the year 2000, on July 14, a Kentucky gun law reform bill became effective. The bill prevented departments from destroying valuable property. It required police departments to send the property to the Kentucky State Police (KSP) to be auctioned to firearm dealers instead of being destroyed.
The funds obtained by the auction are used to help make police departments more effective. Since the year 2000, about 20 million dollars of revenue has been generated by the program. As more people own more guns, more guns are confiscated. In 2022, $1.1 million dollars were generated by the program, according to Fox56news. The average revenue generated in the last five years is 1.09 million dollars per year, based on KSP records obtained by AmmoLand, and a report by wdky of Lexington of 6555 guns seized in 2023.
All of the auctioned firearms are placed in the ordinary channels of commercial sales. They are subject to all the restrictions and limitations places on the sale of new firearms. From a previous AmmoLand article:
Basic economics apply: At any given time, the demand for a product can be satisfied by a new product, product obtained on the used market, or a combination of both new and used products. It is also possible for consumers to be manufacturers and make their own products.
The more used firearms are sold, the more demand for new firearms is reduced. The practical effect of selling confiscated and surrendered firearms is to reduce the profit of firearms manufacturers while satisfying the demand created by those seeking legal firearms.
The proposed bill, SB 178, would require KSP to destroy firearms used in a violent crime. From legislature.ky.gov:
Subject to the duty to return confiscated firearms to innocent owners pursuant to KRS 500.090, all firearms confiscated by the Department of Kentucky 5State Police and not retained for official use pursuant to KRS 500.090 may [shall] be destroyed or sold at public auction to federally licensed firearms dealers holding a license appropriate for the type of firearm sold, but if the firearm was used in the commission of an offense that would classify a person as a violent offender under KRS 439.3401, then the firearm shall be destroyed.
The effect of the law would be much broader. The law is specifically changed to allow the destruction of firearms, with may be destroyed substituted for shall be sold. The incentives created by this bill are perverse. How is anyone to know what firearms are "used" with what crimes? There is no requirement for a tracking system to track firearms with particular crimes. If such a system is created, the cost of maintaining it defeats much of the benefit of selling the firearms. If a local police department claims all of its guns are "associated" with such crimes, who is going to investigate them? The Louisville Police department is already attempting to defeat the purpose of the required firearms auctions.
What are the benefits of the bill? Here are the emotional claims. From whas11.com:
But for grieving families like Trabue's, the only thing that matters, is preventing more loss and heartbreak.
"I want this to be where these guns are not back out in the streets killing someone else and then destroying someone else's family," Trabue said.
Those claims are objectively false. The firearms are put into normal commercial channels of commerce. They are subject to the same controls as new guns. If they are not available, plenty of new guns are available. If a person cannot obtain a used gun, they need only buy a new gun instead. The idea of destroying used guns, instead of selling them, to prevent crime, is absurd. The absurdity is shown in the second sentence. Guns do not kill people. Guns do not have volition. A particular gun is no more likely to be used to kill someone than another gun of similar function and caliber.
The objective result of the bill would be to enrich gun manufacturers at the expense of the citizens of Kentucky.
Analysis:
The purpose of the bill is to reinforce a bizarre view of reality: Guns are bad. Destroying guns is good. The view, in a society where the legal selling of guns is protected by the foundational legal document (the Constitution) is delusional. Destroy one gun, and another is easily made and sold. Destroying guns only makes sense if there is a limited supply of guns. In reality, the supply of guns is unlimited. The reason to destroy a gun in this scenario is to propagate the ideology "guns are bad". Such irrational ideology should be rejected and opposed at all levels of society.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
On March 4, 2024, at approximately 0049hrs, Zone 4 Units responded to a persons shot call at 379 Atwood St SW. Upon arriving on the scene, officers located two adult males, who sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The adult males were transported to the hospital by ambulance. Preliminary investigation indicates the shooting occurred during an altercation where gunfire was exchanged between the victim and the suspect. Investigators responded to the scene to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident. The suspect was charged with: Home Invasion (O.C.G.A 16-7-5), (3) counts of Aggravated Assault (O.C.G.A.16-5-20), Possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (O.C.G.A 16-11-106), Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (O.C.G.A.16-11-131) and Theft by receiving stolen property (O.C.G.A 16-8-7). The investigation continues.
EPD reports that the previous intruder punched Travis Parker, knocking him to the ground, with Parker subsequently shooting the man.
According
to EPD, a bystander intervened and was able to get the gun from Parker.
The two involved men did not know each other.
Eugene Police and Eugene Springfield Fire (ESF) responded. ESF transported the 62-year-old victim to a local hospital, for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.
ST. LOUIS, Mo. (First Alert 4) - A deadly shooting at QuikTrip (QT) left a man dead and a security officer injured early Monday morning.
The shooting happened around midnight inside the QuikTrip in the 4100 block of Gravois Avenue.
Officials said Malcom Weaver, Jr., 30, whom they identified as the suspect, died after being shot in the head. The store’s security guard was shot in the leg and was taken to the hospital.
Early 20th Century police batons in Edingburg Police Centre Museum by Kim Traynor CC BY-SA 3.0, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
In September of 2019, four and a half years ago, Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino filed a lawsuit challenging California's complete ban on the "manufacture, import into the state, keep for sale, or sale, loan, and possession of billies". "Billies" are not explicitly defined, but are, essentially, any short club, and are considered to be synonymous with batons.
On September 22, 2021, two years later, Judge Roger Benitez found the ban to meet the requirements of the law as determined by the Ninth Circuit precedent. This was nine months before the Bruen decision clarified the standards to be used in determining the bounds of the Second Amendment. Bruen showed the Ninth Circuit precedent, as applied to the Second Amendment, was in error.
The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, the Ninth Circuit vacated the September 22, 2021 judgement and remanded the case back to Judge Roger Benitez at the district court. After re-hearing the case, with the previous precedent nullified, Judge Benitez issued summary judgement for the Plaintiffs, holding billies were clearly arms protected by the Second Amendment. The judgement was issued on February 23, 2024. This judgement nullified the California ban on billies. A similar ban on billies was nullified in Hawaii on May 23, 2023. AmmoLand's Editor in Chief, F Rhiehl ,has published an article about the the ruling.
In the quotes from the decision shown below, numbers which seen to be inserted randomly, refer to footnotes which are not included here.
In the decision Judge Roger Benitez, in careful, lawyerly language, reprimands the State of California and Professor Spitzer, the state expert, for misstating the findings of historical research. From the decision, page 17:
Only seven states in the 1800s had billy restrictions. So, why does the State and its expert witness say fourteen states had “anti-billy club laws” in the 1800s? 46 The sentence is inaccurate. The assertion is misleading. And it is important. By giving the impression that fourteen states had adopted anti-billy laws in the 1800s, the State implies that state laws were numerous enough to represent a historical tradition. A different story is told by the State’s own list of laws. A different story is told by the expert’s own data. The problem with the “fourteen states” claim is that there were actually half that. Where does one find these other so -called state laws? It is a bit of rhetorical legerdemain. Beyond the seven already discussed, there were no other state-wide anti-billy laws in the 1800s. However, there were municipal ordinances in mostly very small cities. Consequently, when the State’s expert says, “[f]ourteen states enacted such [billy] laws in the 1800s,”47 it is more accurate to say that there were seven state laws and seven city ordinances.
"The sentence is inaccurate. The assertion is misleading. And it is important."
Issued from a judge to California's attorneys and Professor Spitzer, the statement is a severe slap-down. Judges do not like to be lied to. Expert witnesses have witness immunity from civil lawsuit. Perjury charges are are seldom issued in an area where the expert may claim a difference of interpretation. It is unusual for a judge to notice and comment on such error. However, this is Judge Benitez. He has become expert on the history of Second Amendment related statutes from the time because of the numerous cases he has presided over. He does his homework.
Another slap-down happens on page 19. Professor Spitzer makes another claim which Judge Benitez corrects. From page 19:
Here is another example of the State’s departure from precision in its briefing. The State writes: Defendant identified several state laws, in addition to the municipal regulations that banned possession of billy clubs.See Dkt. 60-1 at [74] (1866 New York law), [136] (1881 llinois law), [160] (1885 New York law); see also Dkt. 60-2 at [230] (1911 New York law), [233] (1913 New York law), [234] (1915 North Dakota law), [236, 237] (1917 California laws).53The parties may read this discussion as overly-pedantic. But for this case, it is important to know if there are historical state laws that banned possession of a billy club like California Penal Code § 22210 bans possession of a billy club. Unfortunately, the examples cited are not simple possession bans. The State cites the 1866 New York law54[74], but that statute did not prohibit simple possession. The New York law prohibited concealing or furtively possessing a billy while using, attempting to use, or intending to use a billy against another person. Next, the State cites an 1881 Illinois law55 [136], but that statute did not mention a billy. Three more iterations of New York’s law (1885 [160], 1911 [230], 1913 [233]) are listed next,56 but like the predecessor statute, these versions still regulated using and concealing as opposed to simple possession of a billy. Finishing up the list of examples given by the State, is a 1915 North Dakota law57 [234]. However, the North Dakota law applied to concealing, rather than simple possession, and expressly permitted possession “ to effect a lawful and legitimate purpose.”58 To sum up, based on the State’s own excerpts of historical statutes (provided by State expert Professor Spitzer and attached to his declaration), of the seven state laws the State claims “banned the possession of billy clubs,” only one did—California’s own 1917 statute.59
"To sum up, based on the State’s own excerpts of historical statutes (provided by State expert Professor Spitzer and attached to his declaration), of the seven state laws the State claims “banned the possession of billy clubs,” only one did—California’s own 1917 statute."
The rebuke has to sting. It is not surprising Judge Benitez arrives at a clear conclusion, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. From page 24:
III. CONCLUSION
The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to defend one’s self with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self-defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to “‘repel force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.’”66 The Founders of our country anticipated that as our nation matured circumstances might make the previous recognition of rights undesirable or inadequate. For that event, the Founders provided a built-in vehicle by which the Constitution could be amended, but a single state, no matter how well intended, may not do so, and neither can this court.
Here is the order from the Clerk of Court. It is a summary judgement. It is final unless overturned by an appeals court. From the Clerk of Court:
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code § 22210 as it applies to a billy. Case is closed.
The Defendant(s) (generally the State of California) is appealing the case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Shortly before 1 a.m., deputies with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office were called to a reported home invasion in Mebane. Once they arrived, deputies found two people inside the home, as well as a victim suffering from a gunshot wound.
Deputies and emergency medical personnel rendered aid and transported the victim — identified as Jerry Lee Driggers, 58 — to Duke University Hospital where he died while in surgery. The other residents at the home told deputies they were held at gunpoint, but were not physically harmed.
According to the sheriff’s office, the preliminary investigation revealed Driggers fired a shotgun at three alleged intruders, who were reportedly armed as well. One of those individuals was struck, deputies determined. They also allege that someone in the group returned fire, hitting Driggers.
Springdale police responded to a gunshots call about 10:21 p.m. Saturday at 770 S. 40th St. The initial investigation revealed a disturbance had occurred involving several people, according to a Springdale Police Department news release. Gunshots were exchanged during the incident.
Responding officers found shell casings, a sword and an apartment that had been shot up.
Witnesses told police a firearm was discharged at the apartment. One of the subjects had bullet holes in his hat and sweatshirt but was uninjured, according to the news release.
Another subject at the apartment discharged a shotgun in self defense, according to police. The shotgun round struck a male subject in the parking lot who suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was treated at a local hospital.
Brandon Maddox at Silencer Central, 2024
Brandon Maddox and Silencer Central is an American success story. Brandon went from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) in his home to the largest silencer dealer in the USA. Today, Brandon's companies dominate the silencer/suppressor market, regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
This correspondent met Brandon Maddox at the 2024 SHOT Show. Brandon had read several AmmoLand articles, recognized this writer, and started a conversation. Brandon graciously agreed to be interviewed. This is the first in a series of articles resulting from several interviews.
Brandon was born in Alabama. His father spent a tour in the Army after a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) commission. Brandon was born in a Fort Rucker, Alabama hospital in 1972. Both sides of his family were born and raised in Alabama. His first shooting experience was on his uncle's farm with his uncle's .410. Brandon was eleven years old. They were looking for squirrels, and Brandon saw a snake going across his uncle's pond, and his uncle said "shoot it", so he did. He was hooked on guns and hunting.
He spent eleven years in Atlanta, Georgia when the family moved. Then they moved to a rural county in North Carolina.
Every summer he would stay with his grandfather in Alabama and spend quite a bit of time shooting Marlin .22 rifles, plinking and hunting local varmints.
He graduated at the top of his high school class of about 120 graduating seniors. This set a pattern for Brandon: Top of his class, top salesman, top sales manager, president of volunteer organizations. He met his wife at a pharmacy convention in DC. She is also a pharmacist. She is from South Dakota. His father-in-law, mother-in-law and father are also pharmacists.
In 2005, Brandon and his family moved to South Dakota to be closer to her family, as they were starting their own family. Today they have two daughters in high school. Brandon maintains pharmacy licenses in North Carolina, Florida, and South Dakota.
In South Dakota, Brandon found his wife's family were passionate about firearms and hunting. Much of the hunting in South Dakota was for pheasants and varmints, such as prairie dogs and coyotes. Brandon became a passionate South Dakota varmint hunter. He quickly learned prairie dogs don't keep showing themselves after a few gunshots take out their neighbors. Always working for improvement, he saw a suppressor displayed at a gun show. He thought it might help. He went through all the complicated paperwork to purchase a suppressor. It worked so well, he ran out of ammunition the first time he used it. The process to obtain the suppressor was laborious and Byzantine. To streamline things, he obtained an FFL and a Special Occupational Tax (SOT) to deal, make, and sell silencers, so he wouldn't have to wait so long. The forerunners of FFL123 and Silencer Central were established as Limited Liability Companies in late 2005, as he was applying to obtain the FFL and the SOT. The cost of the FFL with an SOT was over a thousand dollars a year. He decided he had to sell some silencers to justify the cost of the license. His expertise in sales and marketing came into play. Brandon's extremely successful sales career was foundational to the success of Silencer Central.
Brandon began selling silencers on the South Dakota gun show circuit. It was a part time affair, while he continued a stellar career in management of pharmaceutical sales. On the gun show circuit, he concentrated on learning about his customers, what they wanted and needed. Most silencer customers in South Dakota were hunters. The silencer market at the time was oriented toward a "tactical" image. 95% of the people encountered at gun shows thought silencers were illegal.
FFL123 was becoming a success at teaching people how to obtain an FFL from home. South Dakota Silencer (then Dakota Silencers) was gaining customers in South Dakota. Brandon was looking to expand his NFA business to North Dakota. Brandon believes a disgruntled employee in the pharmaceutical sales side contacted the corporate HQ in New Jersey. They were told: Do you know Brandon is selling silencers on the side?
Brandon was fired in 2009, as a "reputational risk". His wife was not happy. He had just lost "the best job in South Dakota!" They had two young children. He was the number one sales manager in the company when he was fired. As a talented and proven manager and salesman, Brandon was quickly offered jobs in pharmaceutical sales and management. He turned down a job which was better than his previous job. His wife lost it. She demanded he provide for the family. Brandon told his wife:
The feedback from my attorney is: You have to pick one or the other. Either you do firearms or you do pharmaceuticals. All the pharmaceutical companies are pretty much based out of the North East, which are anti-firearms. You are not going to be able to do both. It will come back and bite you. You have to pick one and move forward.
Brandon picked the gun culture and NFA sales. From Brandon:
In my mind, I said Obama is in office. If I can't make a firearms business work with Obama in office, I have bigger problems.
To transition, Brandon took a job managing a mail order pharmacy distribution company in Sioux Falls with the proviso: only 40 hours a week. Later, it was renegotiated to 20 hours, then none.
As Brandon was in the process of adding North Dakota to his silencer territory, he realized much of what he read about NFA regulation was confusing and contradictory. He hired a retired Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) manager, Wally Nelson, who worked for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), to come to Sioux Falls and look at his operation. He wanted Wally to show him how to avoid problems and help his customers. From Brandon:
"He (Nelson) did a magnificent job of scaring the hell out of me, basically saying:
Nelson: You are going to be in an orange jumpsuit if you don't figure out this bushiness. You can't rely on ATF to tell you how to run it and you can't rely on what you read which was written in the '30s. You just got to immerse yourself in this because you are not going to be able to grow your business and take it to the next level and continue to stay compliant where you are at without some more insight.
Brandon: So it created a sort of life learning. I want to know everything I can about NFA compliance. So if there is an ATF Meeting where ATF is at, and they are talking about NFA, I am officially on the front row. I take notes and my goal is to learn to think like them, because sometimes, I think it is open to their interpretation. Whether we like it or not, they kind of have a monopoly on interpreting the rules."
Brandon took it to the next level... and the next until Silencer Central now has FFL licenses in all 42 states where silencers are legal. Silencer Central will take care of you and make sure you are compliant as they do all the work, then mail the silencer to your door. Silencer Central and Brandon's corollary businesses such as FFL123 and Banish Silencers dominate the silencer market. Brandon says they are selling more than one third of the silencers made in the USA, over 150,000 silencers in 2023.
Brandon believes the NFA will be gone in 10 years, at least for silencers/suppressors. More in the next installment.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
The Sheriff said just after 6 in the morning, a 74-year-old woman who lives alone reported someone on the property who she didn't know.
The Sheriff said she called her son-in-law who lives next door for help, who showed up to the house armed with a gun.
Deputies said the son-in-law confronted the man, there was an altercation and the son-in-law ended up shooting the man twice.
Sheriff Elliott said the victim was taken to a hospital to be treated for his injuries.
Posts
All Comments
#/media/File:Edinburgh_police_truncheons_(19thC).JPG){kind=link}