SC: Armed Victim Shoots, Kills Armed Robbery Suspect who was Wearing an Ankle Monitor

Josey, who was out on bond on house arrest and wearing an ankle monitor, asked the motorcycle seller to meet him at Byerly Park so he could buy it.

At the park, Josey pulled out a gun on the motorcycle seller and two others, according to police.

One of the victims, however, was legally armed with a gun and pulled it out, firing several times and hitting Josey, police said.

Officers responded to the shooting around 8:30 p.m., and EMS took Josey to the hospital, where he later died.

Police said Scott was also at the scene and ran away after shots were fired. Investigators arrested him and charged him with armed robbery, attempted murder, weapons violations and criminal conspiracy in connection with the incident at the park.

More Here

MI: Domestic Defense? Pontiac Man Assaulted by former Girlfriend and her New Boyfriend, Shoots Them

The shooting happened shortly before 11:30 p.m. at a convenience store in the 600 block of Cesar Chavez in Pontiac.

The sheriff’s office said witnesses reported the 21-year-old man was at the store counter to purchase items when he was assaulted from behind by Bragg and his girlfriend. The three then fell to the ground, with Bragg and his girlfriend on top of the 21-year-old, striking him.

The 21-year-old drew a handgun and fired a single shot. He then attempted to pay for his merchandise and waited for deputies, the sheriff’s office said.

The case will be presented to the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office for review.

 

More Here

Montana Governor's Election and Senate Race for 2024

Montana's office of governor, lieutenant governor, and the  U.S. senate seat currently occupied by Senator Jon Tester are up for election in 2024. Montana is considered a safe Republican stronghold.  The Republican primary for governor totaled 78,667 votes. The Democrat primary for governor totaled 54,402 votes.  Democratic Party Senator Tester has become an anomaly among statewide elected positions in Montana.

Republican Governor Greg Gianforte is popular. He is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment in his words and actions and is almost certainly going to win.

Ryan Busse, the Democratic candidate for governor, was an executive at Kimber. He wrote a book titled "Gunfight" which blames firearms manufacturers for crimes committed with guns. In an interview on "The Trace" it seems his wife had tremendous influence in blaming firearms manufacturers for crimes. After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass murder in Florida, she blamed the NRA. From the trace:

 Six years later, after another school shooting, this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, Sara’s anger boiled over. She posted on Facebook that she hoped people would back their prayers for Florida with action: “The ONLY way this will EVER change is if the NRA goes up in FLAMES!”

Busse resigned from Kimber and became a proponent of restrictive legislation aimed at gun owners. For example

 In the summer of 2020, Busse accepted a position as an adviser to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, and this past  summer, he was hired as a senior adviser to the gun violence prevention group Giffords. He wrote the book, he said, because Americans deserve to know how the country got so polarized, and to encourage the ocean of silent moderates that he believes are out there to find their voices.

Busse testified, as a technical expert, for the state of California in their effort to ban standard capacity magazines. He puts forward the idea that manufacturers convince customers to purchase products, instead of customer demand driving manufacturers to produce the products customers desire.

The most important race in Montana is the race for the senate seat currently occupied by Democrat Jon Tester. Senator Tester is not a Second Amendment supporter. He was rated C- by the NRA in the 2018 election. In the 2018 election, he retained his senate seat with 50.3% of the vote. The Republican candidate received 46.8% of the vote. The Libertarian candidate received 2.9% of the vote. Tester runs in Montana as a "moderate", but supports Democratic party positions in Washington.

In the Democratic primary in 2024, there were 58,064 votes cast in the senate race. In the Republican primary, there were 77,074 votes cast in the senate race.  Tim Sheehy is the Republican candidate facing Jon Tester in November of 2024. The Senate is closely divided. The Montana senate race may decide whether the Republicans or the Democrats control the Senate in 2025.

The Montana Senate race will have enormous resources thrown at it. It will be hotly contested. Senator Jon Tester is one of the most vulnerable senators up for election in 2024, because Montana is strongly Republican.  2024 is presidential election year. Both Donald Trump and Governor Gianforte may have enough coattails to elect a Republican senator from Montana, in spite of the enormous advantage incumbency bestows on a candidate.

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

Gun Watch

PA:Uniontown Knife and Gunfight, Knifeman Shot, Killed

Witnesses told Fayette County District Attorney Michael Aubele that Stevens threatened to stab the suspect before the shooting. Aubele told KDKA-TV's Jennifer Borasso that there was some disagreement before the shooting. Police said they are looking for the shooter, who they said fled the scene.  

"This wasn't a random act of violence," Aubele said. "This was two people who knew each other."

"What we understand is that the victim, he attacked the defendant with a knife and apparently the defendant shot him," he added.

More Here

IL: Oak Forest Gunfight, Victim Wounded, Suspects Escape

"He got a security system put in," neighbor Jake Lambert said. "It alerted him around two in the morning that somebody was in his driveway trying to break in his car. He ran down the block after him."

The resident ran after the burglars toward a nearby park when the offenders opened fire. Police say there was an exchange of gunfire between the victim and the offenders.

"They unloaded multiple rounds, probably close to 30, judging by what the police had marked out there this morning, and he was struck multiple times and taken to the hospital," Lambert said.

More Here

FL: Okaloosa County Deputy who Shot, Killed Senior Airman Roger Fortson has been Fired

On May 3, 2024, Deputy Eddie Duran shot and killed Senior Airman Roger Fortson when Fortson answered the deputy's demand for entry, on a domestic violence call. The initial review of the body cam video was discussed on AmmoLand.

The Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) has completed their administrative internal affairs investigation into the shooting. The findings of the investigation were released on May 30, 2024. On May 31, the Sheriff's office announced Deputy Eddie Duran had violated the Sheriff's Office policy and had been terminated (fired) from his position. From the OkaloosaSheriff facebook page:

 SHALIMAR, Fla. (May 31, 2024) – The Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO) has terminated Deputy Eddie Duran following the completion of an administrative internal affairs investigation into the death of Roger Fortson on May 3. The administrative investigation determined the deputy’s use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable and therefore violated agency policy.

The Final Investigative Report (FIR) by the Office of Professional Standards (internal investigation by OCSO) is detailed and professionally done. It is separate from the investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The scope of the internal investigation is limited to whether the deputy violated agency policy. Other agencies will determine if criminal actions occurred.

Several things become apparent in the detailed Final Investigative Report. The woman (neighbor) who reported the domestic disturbance created most of the drama. She based her concerns on hearing one voice (apparently Roger Fortson's) which was transmitted through an air duct. She gave the apartment number to the apartment leasing agent, but was unwilling to contact the police herself. When the fatal shots were fired, she contacted the OCSO directly.

The apartment leasing agent relayed the information to deputy Eddie Duran, and added some additional speculation about a previous incident which the administrator was not clear involved Fortson's apartment.  There were assumptions in the reports which were incorrect. Fortson was alone in the apartment with his dog. He was on the phone with his girlfriend. There was no violence ongoing.

The  FIR breaks down what happened from when the OCSO was called until the door at apartment 1401 started to be opened. The description is clear. At the time the door is starting to be opened, the FIR goes through the body camera footage in greater detail. From the time Deputy Duran draws his firearm until the shooting has stopped and Fortson is ordered to "Drop the gun" and responds with "I don't have it", every event is examined, sometimes frame by frame. The body camera recorded events at 30 frames per second. Deputy Duran fires five shots in a little under a second.

The woman who made the initial complaint never heard anyone other than Fortson speak in the apartment on May 3rd. She equated Fortson speaking loudly to an argument. She believed there was a child in Fortson's apartment, perhaps because Fortson had a dog, and she may have misinterpreted noises the dog made for noises from a child.  When she contacted OSCO, she asked if the child was OK.

Deputy Duran did not go to the "wrong apartment". He went to the apartment he was directed to go to.

Deputy Duran did not hear evidence of an ongoing disturbance when he listened outside apartment 1401. He thought he heard a muffled reference to "f*cking police". The audio is unclear, but a muffled "police" can be distinguished if the listener is primed to hear it.

Deputy Duran was primed to believe he was in an extremely dangerous situation by the poor information he had been given before he approached the door.  Deputy Duran reported when he looked at Fortson's eyes, he saw aggression.  When he saw the gun in Fortson's hand, he immediately thought he was in extreme danger, and reacted by shooting Fortson.

Analysis:

This tragic and rare situation came about from a series of unfortunate events and errors. The first witness misunderstood and mischaracterized what was happening in apartment 1401, based on her assumptions. The leasing agent reinforced those assumptions with her information about a previous event, where she was unsure of the location.  Deputy Duran was told the information was at least second hand, but acted as if it were clearly correct. Deputy Duran projected those assumptions onto what muffled words he could hear through the apartment walls.  This primed him to react violently to a situation, which up to then, had no violent component.

Roger Fortson lost his life. Deputy Duran has lost his job, and probably any future career in law enforcement. He may be convicted of a crime, such as negligent homicide or manslaughter.

The Final Investigative Report is available in full at the sheriff-okloosa.org website. The administrative investigation is not the criminal investigation, which is being conducted by the  Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Media coverage makes tragic events such as this appear to be common, when in fact, they are very rare and unusual.

 

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

Gun Watch

 

 

 

IL: Rockford Man Wounded in Gunfight

ROCKFORD, Ill. (WTVO) — Rockford Police have charged Drakaar Malone, 35, after he was allegedly wounded in a shootout on Thursday night and sought medical attention in Madison, Wisconsin.

According to police, officers were called to the 2600 block of Lawndale Avenue around 7:30 p.m. for a reported shooting victim.

The investigation revealed that the shooting was the result of an argument between Malone and another man, and each exchanged gunfire.

More Here

FL: Domestic Defense Gunfight, Bradenton Woman Shot

Detectives say Armstrong had slapped the victim in the face earlier in the evening.

When the trio pulled up, investigators say she argued with Kevin Armstrong. 

During the argument, deputies say Armstrong grabbed a shotgun and fired at the woman as she and her two companions tried to get away. 

Investigators say Armstrong was shooting toward the woman when one of the men she was with grabbed a handgun from their parked golf cart and shot multiple rounds in Armstrong’s direction. 

During this exchange of gunfire, deputies say the female was shot in the chest.

More Here

MA: Carry Permit Case Derived from Bruen Resolved in Favor of Plantiff

 

The Second Amendment case of Morin v Lyver, granted certiorai, vacated, and remanded back to the First Circuit, has been decided in favor of the plaintiff, Alfred Morin.

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court published clarification of how the Second Amendment should be treated by the Courts, in the Bruen decision. Bruen gave clear guidance on how Heller should be applied. This was necessary because the Circuit courts had created a complicated two step process which was used to side step the Heller decision. In Bruen, the court said the two step process was one too many. The Court laid out a simple process to judge Second Amendment cases. As a result of Bruen four pending cases were granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded back to their circuits for rehearing using the Bruen process. Morin v Lyver was one of the four cases. It was remanded back to the First Circuit on October 3, 2022.

Morin was severely victimized as an honest man attempting to follow the law. He suffered significant legal damage for the attempt. Morin had been issued a Massachusetts license to carry in 1985. He had grown accustomed to legally go about armed. He visited the District of Columbia, and was about to enter the Museum of Natural History when he noticed he was not allowed to carry firearms in the Museum. From casetext.com:

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

When Morin applied to have his carry permit renewed in 2008, he was denied because of the D.C. conviction. Morin appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Morin's case became part of the legacy of the Bruen decision. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sent the case back to the Massachusetts District Court.

Rather than re-hear the case, the Plaintiff (Alfred Morin) and the defendants (Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Police Chief William Lyber) agreed to a joint motion for judgement and proposed judgement. Plaintiff Morin would be issued a permit to purchase. The judgment was filed on March 3, 2023. From the Joint Motion for Judgement:

The parties agree that the Court should enter the following order of judgment in favor of Plaintiff:

Under the specific facts of this case and applicable law, including but not limited to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the limitations contained in G.L. c.140, § 131A to the extent it incorporates G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)(ii)(D), cannot properly be applied to Plaintiff, and Defendants should accordingly issue Plaintiff a permit to purchase pursuant to G.L. c.140, §131A.

Morin is the second  of the four cases which were granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded back to their circuits to reach a final judgement after Bruen.  Young v Hawaii  reached a settlement on December 15, 2022.  Duncan v Bonta is still in play in the Ninth Circuit. Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc v Grewal is ongoing in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

 

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

Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

GA: Lithonia Gunfight, Victim and Attacker both Wounded

The Atlanta’s Best Wings shop is located inside a gas station plaza at 6647 Covington Highway in Lithonia. The store owner showed Atlanta News First’s Don Shipman surveillance video from inside the store when the shooting happened around 2 a.m. Wednesday.

In the video, you can see two customers inside the store when one of them opens fire on the other. The shooter then runs out of the building, while the victim slowly drags himself across the store floor to a corner of the room.

A few minutes later, the shooter returns, grabbing what appears to be a backpack from inside the store - and when he’s leaving the building, the shooting victim returns fire, injuring the shooter.

More Here

IL: Crestwood Gunfight, Tow Truck Driver Killed

A tow truck driver was killed in a road rage shooting Tuesday afternoon in south suburban Crestwood, police say.

The driver of a tow truck and the driver of a Buick were near Cal-Sag Road and Cicero Avenue when they collided about 3 p.m., the Crestwood Police Department said.

Both drivers continued driving south on Cicero Avenue but stopped near 132nd Street, where the tow truck driver pulled out a gun and shot at the person in the Buick, according to policd. The driver of the Buick, who had a valid concealed carry license, pulled out a gun and returned fire, striking the tow truck driver, police said.

More Here

Conversations with Brandon Maddox #2: the Hearing Protection Act

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 second in a series of articles resulting from several interviews. Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity. Link to Brandon Maddox #1.

Silencers are currently regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Such items require a $200 tax, with a Byzantine, intrusive application process, including a photograph, fingerprints and a wait time of several months to over a year to accomplish.  

The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) would move silencers/suppressors out of the jurisdiction of the NFA and regulate them with the same standards as rifles or shotguns.  Brandon Maddox has strong opinions about the HPA.

Weingarten: Did you have a position on the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)? 

Brandon Maddox: We would love for that to pass. It would open it up where we would be able to  sell more suppressors.  We are both a dealer and we also are manufacturers. We have a line of products that are some of the best selling in the nation. People may not realize this, because people do not have access to them because we sell direct. We could sell a whole lot more if they became non-NFA items. 

I think where we differ from some people is we feel there could be some sort of crawl, walk, run. Some people are really focused on  HPA, HPA, HPA.  To me, it is obvious Biden is not going to sign that. I get trying to create some momentum for that. What we have been looking for is: are there some key wins we can get for the silencers that would help us gradually get closer to the Hearing Protection Act getting approved instead of focusing solely on that?

For example, We submitted a bill to Congress (House) (and are) looking to submit a version to the Senate as well. Currently the $200 NFA tax, created in 1934, goes directly to the Treasury, goes directly into the General Fund. 

So what we are looking at, is there a way to allocate that money similar to the Pittman-Robertson that goes to conservation?  Then also you drill that down where you put more for gun ranges and benefit youth training. Then also put a component in there where the ATF has 90 days to approve a silencer, or it is automatically approved. By forcing their hand to do that, we would allocate some of the funds that come from the tax stamp to the ATF so they could increase their infrastructure, whether it be electronic or hiring whatever they need to do to get the systems in place so they can approve these in 90 days. 

Our concern is that from a non-NFA item if the FBI does a background check, and they come up with a "further review" option, after three days, the dealer can actually transfer it. So we are trying to create something analogous to that with NFA. If you have been running a background check and after 90 days, you can't determine whether it's able to be approved, we would like for it to automatically be approved.

Weingarten: That would be a major change.

Brandon Maddox: Oh Yeah! Because that's the problem now. So the FBI would say,  we are statutorily required to focus 100% of our efforts on the local dealer and firearms transfers so that we can meet that three day minimum and give a response to the dealer before they just automatically transfer it. 

I get their problem is a lot of these records are, a person might have been charged with X and there is nothing in writing, or records have been destroyed, so they do not know how it ended, like if the person was charged with something different. That creates the open item. We would like for there to be some finality on that open check with NFA. Now, not only is it statutorily a non-priority, the priority is for regular FFL dealers for non-NFA.  There is no deadline. 

My position is the ATF has 60 days to determine whether I am a licensee. So on my applications they have 60 days to respond. If I change my address as an FFL, statutorily they have 30 days to respond.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable to say you have 90 days to respond to a customer submitting to be approved on an NFA item.

Weingarten: Whether it is doable is hard to know. 

Brandon Maddox: What is interesting, the conservation groups, luckily, are typically Democrat and Republican. There are a lot of moderates that support conservation. The theory is, if we can move some of that money from the tax stamp into conservation, you start getting more Democrats, you start getting people like Manchin because he's West Virginia's senator, and the NFA branch is based there.

The thought was we could get them on that side. Then say, pretty much everyone wants to speed up the process. Even Democrats are into "funding additional ATF activity". If you could get some more funding for NFA, then you could say: Not only are we going to hold you to 90 days, we are going to give you 5,10,15 million dollars to implement it. Then it seems more reasonable.

Weingarten: It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. 

Brandon Maddox: That is what I would call baby steps toward the Hearing Protection Act. 

Weingarten: Here is a corollary question: You have built an empire by making it easier for people to go through the convoluted, Byzantine process of getting permission to own a silencer. If that process becomes essentially non-existent, and you can buy a silencer the same as you can buy a rifle, are you worried about the effect it could have on your business?

Maddox: Let me ask you a question. We look at our business as two separate businesses.  We have the Banish Suppressors as one side of our business and we have the Silencer Central process as another side of our business. When you look at the potential upside for the Banish suppressors, the upside is so great it completely negates any concerns with the impact on the process side.

Weingarten: Its a good argument.

Maddox: 100 percent! There are so many obstacles. People don't like to pay for something they don't get instantly. People don't like to wait. People feel like they are getting scrutinized with fingerprints, photos, create a trust, sheriffs notified. All these things are barriers to keep people from buying. I always say, I have eighteen manufacturers making Banish suppressors for me. If the HPA went through, I would be in a position where I could increase my volume 10, 20 fold kind of overnight. It is a great scenario!

Analysis:  It depends on the 2024 elections. If Donald Trump wins the Presidency and the Republicans take the Senate and hold the House, the HPA might pass quickly. It almost did in 2016, but failed because of RINOs, especially Paul Ryan, who was Speaker of the House.  If Biden or another Democrat wins the Presidency, the HPA is dead.  If Trump wins the Presidency, but Democrats control the House or Senate, the baby steps approach put forward by Brandon Maddox could speed up and simplify the NFA process. The more legal silencers there are, the closer we come to removing them from the NFA.

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

Gun Watch

FL: Domestic Defense, Pensacola Man Shot by Woman

The report states they started arguing again when Smith began to push and pull her off the couch. The woman went to her bedroom to get away from him, but Smith followed her.

According to the report, the woman said Smith picked up a glass candle holder and held it as if he was going to hit her with it. He then hit her once.

The woman told deputies she was in fear Smith was going to hit her with it again, according to the report. She then grabbed her gun from a bag by the bed and shot him once.

 

More Here

MO: Edwards Domestic Defense, Son Shoots Mother's Husband

According to the Sheriff’s Office, a woman called 911 at about 10:40 p.m. from a home in rural Edwards saying that her 15-year-old son had shot her husband while she was being beaten. When deputies arrived at the scene, the 41-year-old man was pronounced dead from a gunshot wound.

The woman and 15-year-old boy were transported to a local hospital and treated for injuries consistent with domestic violence. The woman was interviewed by investigators and their preliminary investigation suggests that the use of lethal force was used in self-defense or defense of another.

More Here

TX: Domestic Defense, Corpus Christi Girfreind Shoots Boyfreind

During the investigation, the man, identified as Jose Villarreal, was found to have assaulted his 32-year-old girlfriend. The girlfriend got a handgun and shot Villarreal in an effort to protect herself from further harm.

The female was also taken to the hospital by medics with serious injuries.

More Here

TX: Domestic Defense, Man Cuts Wife, is Shot

HPD Major Assaults & Family Violence Division Detective L. Garcia reported that HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting/stabbing incident at an apartment complex at the above address. A preliminary investigation determined the suspect, later identified as Tillman, was holding his 11-year-old daughter at knife point in the kitchen of the apartment, so the child’s mother (victim) retrieved a firearm. Tillman charged at the woman, cut her with the knife and tried to take the firearm from her. During the struggle, the firearm discharged and Tillman was struck in the face area and lower body.

More Here

OK: Ponca City Domestic Defense, Jacob S. Grudowski killed

According to a press release from Ponca City Police, officers responded to a report of a home invasion with gunshots around 7:00 p.m., near West Central Avenue and South Flormable Street in Ponca City on Sunday.

Police say that when officers arrived on the scene, witnesses shared that a person had been shot after attempting to force his way into a residence, and fire shots at the residents who lived there.

Officers found 29-year-old Jacob S. Grudowski near the residence, with multiple gunshot wounds, police said.

Police shared that authorities attempted life-saving measures, but Grudowski was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police confirmed that Grudowski had been involved in a domestic situation with one of the residents at this home. When Grudowski arrived at the home, he fired multiple gunshots after attempting to enter the home forcibly, police said.

More Here

FL: Constitutionality of Ban on Guns in Post Office Appealed to Eleventh Circuit

On January 12, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball  ruled the federal ban on possession of firearms in post offices is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. From the decision:

The United States indicted Emmanuel Ayala, a postal worker, for possessing a firearm in a Federal facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a). Ayala argues that statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because the historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Relying on dicta from earlier cases, the United States responds that the Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building. But the Supreme Court has been clear: the government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearms possession in post offices. See id. at 17, 24. The United States fails to meet that burden. Thus, I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The case was discussed in a previous AmmoLand article.

On February 12, 2024, the Assistant United States Attorney submitted notice to the court the matter would be  appealed the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. From the document:

The United States of America appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss in part, Doc. 57, and the dismissal of count one, Doc. 58, both entered in this action on January 12, 2024.

On February 13, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball issued an administrative stay on the case pending the appeal.

There does not appear to be any significant movement on this case, except the withdrawal of Ross Roberts as the prosecutor in the case.

On May 2, 2024, Ross Roberts Assistant United States Attorney, has withdrawn from the case. Assistant United States Attorney Abigail King will now represent the government in this matter.

USA v Ayala is opposite what happened in Colorado in Bonidy v USPS. Bonidy initially won his case in the District court, in 2012. The USPS appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and held, because the Heller decision mentioned "government buildings" the USPS could ban guns on any USPS property, in 2015.

Bonidy asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. However, Justice Scalia had died, and the court had only eight members. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Bonidy case in 2016.

The Bruen decision in 2022 slapped down the Tenth Circuit  appeals court approach to the Second Amendment. The guidance under the Bruen decision is clear. Judge Kimball, in the Ayala case, followed the guidance from the Bruen decision, and ruled the ban on guns in the post office is unconstitutional. When the case goes to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, we will find if the three judge panel on the Eleventh Circuit will follow the clear guidance given by Bruen.

There is no applicable historical precedent for banning guns in post offices. No ban on guns in the post office existed when the Second Amendment was ratified, or at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ban is very recent in Constitutional terms. It was created in 1972.

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

Gun Watch

 

 

 

CA: Armed Samaritan Shoots Suspect who was Assaulting a Woman

STANTON, Ca. (June 3, 2024): On Sunday, June 2, 2024, at 7:49 p.m., a man reported to Sheriff’s Dispatch he shot a male who was assaulting a woman in the 7100 block of Custer Way in the city of Stanton. When deputies arrived, they located a 20-year-old Hispanic male suffering from a gunshot wound.  Deputies immediately began performing life saving measures. Moments later, they were relieved by the Orange County Fire Authority who transported the man to a local trauma center.

The man who reported the shooting remained at the incident’s location, was interviewed by Sheriff’s investigators, and later released at the scene.  It is believed the man is a rideshare driver who was in the area dropping off a passenger at the time of the incident.

The woman who was assaulted, was treated at the scene by the Orange County Fire Authority for injuries sustained during the assault.

The 20-year-old male suspect is currently being treated at a local hospital where he is listed in critical but stable condition. He may face charges pending further investigation.

The Sheriff’s Department is asking anyone with information regarding this incident to contact Sheriff’s Dispatch at 714-647-7000. Anonymous information may be provided through Orange County Crime Stoppers at 1-855-TIP-OCCS or online at www.ocsheriff.gov/occrimestoppers.

 

Link to ocsheriff.gov

NRA Wins Supreme Court Decision in NRA v Vullo

On May 11, 2018, over six years ago, the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging the Government of New York violated the organization's First Amendment rights by coercing third parties, particularly insurance companies and banks, to cease to do business with the NRA. The government officials explicitly stated their dislike of the advocacy of the NRA to promote gun ownership and the Second Amendment. The opinion was issued on May 30, 2024.  The ruling was expected, as explained in a previous AmmoLand article.

The case was relatively clear. Government officials Andrew Cuomo (Governor) and Maria Vullo (Superintendent of the New York State (NYS) Department of Financial Services) had made on the record statements to regulated entities to the effect if they continued to do business with the NRA, the regulatory power of NYS would be used to punish them. The case was so egregious the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), long an opponent of the NRA and the Second Amendment, filed an amicus brief in favor of the NRA.  The New York district court found Vullo has misused her power. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with the New York State Government. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 18, 2024. The Supreme Court issued its ruling on May 30, 2024. It was a unanimous opinion, 9-0 in favor of the NRA and the First Amendment.

Justice  Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson both wrote concurring opinions. From the Majority opinion by Justice Sotomayor:

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression”of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Ban-tam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today,the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services,Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.

The concurring opinions by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson appear at odds to this correspondent. Justice Gorsuch' concurring opinion indicates the First Amendment should be strongly protected. The concurring opinion by Justice Jackson seems to urge courts to be much more limited in their protections of First Amendment rights.

With this unanimous ruling issued by the Supreme Court, the case is remanded back to the District Court in New York for further proceedings.  It is unclear what the results of the case will be.

Analysis: This is a strong ruling for the First Amendment and the NRA. How the District court rules on the issue will be very important. The Court could hold New York officials personally responsible for their conduct. If such a ruling was issued, it would be a strong indication future courts will not allow such egregious violations of First Amendment rights.

 

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

Gun Watch