The Albuquerque Police Department was called to investigate separate fatal shootings late Friday and Saturday morning, including one in which a young man allegedly killed his mother’s ex-boyfriend in self-defense.
APD spokesperson Franchesca Perdue said the Saturday shooting is being investigated as a justifiable homicide.
Louisiana State Capitol, from wikimedia CC 2.5, 18 Oct, 2006, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten
The Louisiana legislature is in the process of strengthening the current Louisiana preemption law regarding weapons and the right to keep and bear arms. Local governments, seeking to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, have been shown to be clever about finding ways to restrict peoples right to keep and bear arms in ways not foreseen by previous preemption laws. For example, in Iowa, the Dubuque City Council voted to create a zoning ordinance to prohibit otherwise legitimate gun sales. In Montana, the city government of Missoula, dominated by the University of Montana, voted to require government approval of all firearm sales in the city. In response, state legislatures are strengthening preemption bills to prevent such abuses.
Several changes are being proposed in the preemption statute for the State of Louisiana. The differences between the present law and the proposed bill are shown at the Louisiana legislature web site. They are shown below. From the Bill SB 124,
Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.
Proposed law prohibits a governing authority from enforcing any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession,carrying, storage, ownership, taxation, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,edged weapons, or any combination thereof.
The differences are significant. Present law limits a political subdivision's authority to enact ordinances or regulations . The proposed bill prohibits all governmental authorities (except the state legislature) from enforcing a wider range of items, expanded beyond ordinances or regulations involving firearms to any ordinance, order, regulation, policy, procedure, rule or any other form of executive or legislative action.
The list of things which may not be regulated is expanded to include: manufacture, carrying, storage, and taxation, the items protected are expanded to include firearms accessories, knives, edged weapons, or any combination thereof.
When local governments work hard to find ways to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, responsible legislatures are finding ways to specifically prohibit them from doing so. Some states, such as Florida, have imposed financial penalties for government entities and personal liabilities for local politicians who enact ordinances which violate the preemption laws.
Bill 124 in Louisiana still has to pass the house. It seems likely to pass the house and be sent to the Governor for signature.
In spite of clear guidance from the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision, a few repressive states continue to defy the court and illegally restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Commentary:
The United States is bifurcating into a few states (8-9) defying the Supreme Court, and the vast majority which respect the Second Amendment.
This is not a healthy situation for a constitutional republic. Eventually, either the Constitution will be enforced for the entire nation, or the Republic will fall apart.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
The homeowner retrieved his firearm and gave Cosby repeated commands to leave. He told Cosby he would fire his weapon, according to police. Cosby then allegedly broke the kitchen window and began to climb through when the homeowner shot him once in the arm.
Police said Cosby dropped his revolver near the kitchen sink and ran away. Officers say they found him nearby. When they attempted to render aid, Cosby became combative. He was transported to Skyline Medical Center for treatment of his non-critical gunshot wound.
City police were sent to KT Pawn, 424 E. 13th St., after dispatchers received a related call at 9:17 a.m. Friday.
According to Deputy Police Chief Melissa Criswell, the caller reported a man entered the business "armed with a blunt instrument and attacked the two employees, injuring both."
One of the employees then shot the alleged intruder, Criswell said.
Deputies shared that the shooter remained on the scene and told officials that he had passed a white Dodge Charger that slowed down in front of him on DeBary Avenue. After passing, the Charger began following him closely with its high beams on.
The Charger then backed off and continued on his way but reappeared later on Providence Boulevard, going onto Fisher Drive before cutting off the eventual shooter, according to the sheriff's office.
Witnesses also corroborated the same testimony of the shooter, said the sheriff's office.
The deceased driver was identified as 37-year-old Kenyon Ashley of Deltona.
Once at the scene, officers discovered two adult men, one of whom was suffering from a gunshot wound. Initial reports found Papalardo was believed to have attempted to rob the store when the gun shots were fired, according to the DA’s office. He was taken to the hospital.
One of the two burglars choked him, prompting James to shoot at him with his personal gun out of self defense, James explained. No serious injuries were reported.
“I’ve always had tough jobs and I work really hard for what I have. It was never my intention to try to kill, but what they did was not ok,” James said.
The bullet did not hit the robber, but it did hit some plumbing James shares with his neighbors. Residents in the area told DC News Now off camera they are distraught and are afraid that similar incidents may occur again.
Mural in US Capitol shows traveling with arms was common
On April 11, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against Rob Bonta in his capacity at the Attorney General of California. The lawsuit contends California infringes on the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights by prohibiting United States citizens who are not residents of California, from exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment, in California. From the lawsuit:
2. California, however, prevents law-abiding citizens of the United States who do not reside in California from exercising their constitutionally protected right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public. State law generally prohibits individuals from carrying firearms either openly or concealed in public, and non-residents are not eligible for a license to carry a firearm in public. Indeed, California’s unconstitutionally restrictive scheme provides no path for non-residents to carry a firearm lawfully in public at all. As a result, individuals like Plaintiffs Hoffman, Orrin,and Sensiba, who have been issued carry licenses in their respective home states (and are allowed by other states that either do not require a license, or which offer reciprocity based upon the license(s) they hold), are barred from lawfully carrying a firearm in public for self-defense when they visit California.
The lawsuit contends the ban on carry by non-residents is unconstitutional. U.S. citizens do not lose the protection of the Bill of Rights when they cross state lines. They do not lose the right to free speech, the right to practice their religion, or the protection from unreasonable searches or seizures.
This is not the first case which challenges the power of states to block the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment by non-residents. In the early challenge to highly restrictive California law on carry permits, in the Peruta case, Peruta contended he had a right to be issued a California permit because he resided in the state part of the time. Peruta did not prevail, in part, because the case occurred before the current Supreme Court ruling in Bruen clarified how inferior courts were to apply the Heller decision.
Another case, CRPA v LASD, is ongoing. Among other issues, it challenges the power of
California to infringe on the rights of non-residents, which are protected by the Second Amendment. In a Massachusetts case, decided in 2023, a local judge ruled laws which prevent non-residents from carrying are infringements on rights protected by the Second Amendment. The decision in Massachusetts is not a precedential decision. It only applied to the person involved in the case.
When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, there were no prohibitions on carrying arms across state lines. Even the strictest colonial law, from 1686, made an exception for travelers. From the Bruen decision, in the amici curiae:
In 1686, East New Jersey enacted a law providing that no person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol, skeines, stilettoes, daggers or dirks, or other unusual or unlawful weapons,” and that “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol or dagger” except certain officials and “strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions through this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”3
There are many examples in statutes, in the history of the United States, which specifically exempt travelers from state weapons laws. From the Bruen decision, p. 4:
A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added)
Analysis: The state of California will counter these arguments. They will claim the Second Amendment only applies to residents of their home state, as residents are not allowed to vote in another state. They will claim it is particularly dangerous to allow residents of other states to carry in California. They will claim other states do not have the burdensome training and fee requirements which California requires to obtain a carry permit. They will claim the usual Progressive arguments of "that was then, this is now", and "limitations on government power are bad". None of those arguments are valid.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being hostile to the free exercise of the Second Amendment. If the District Court rules for the plaintiffs, expect the state to appeal to a Ninth Circuit three judge panel. If the three judge panel rules for the plaintiffs, expect the ruling to be re-heard by an en banc panel. The only appeal after an en banc panel is to the Supreme Court.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
BEAVER FALLS, Pa. (KDKA) — A Beaver County woman shot and killed a man who broke into her home in the middle of the night, police said.
"The door to her basement opened and there stands this guy who she had no idea who he was, and she ended up shooting him three times and killing him," Beaver County District Attorney Nate Bible said.
The
district attorney described the terrifying moments inside the home on
10th Avenue in Beaver Falls on Wednesday. The homeowner showed KDKA-TV
the basement window the man busted open to get inside the home.
Christian County Sheriff’s Office Spokesman Chris Miller says they were called by a teenager who says he woke up to an odd noise in the home and grabbed a gun to search the house and was shot at by someone leading him to returned fire causing the suspect to flee the area.
At this time there is no description of a possible suspect but Miller says there were several shots fired in the exchange.
The Department of Justice has issued a press release showing, over five years, from January 1 of 2017 to December 31 of 2021, the number of firearms sold by unlicensed dealers in the USA was less than 1 of 10,000 sold in the National Instant background Check System (NICS).
During the five year period, the number of firearms sold through the NICS system was; 14 million in 2017, 13.5 million in 2018, 13.6 million in 2019, 21.1 million in 2020, and 18.5 million in 2021, for a total of 80.7 million over the five years. (according to the National Shooting Sports adjusted calculations)
The number of firearms sold by unlicensed dealers during the five year period was 68,388 firearms. They were uncovered in 3,403 cases. 68,388 may sound like a great deal, but it is less than 1 firearm for every 10,000 legally sold through the NICS system, or .084%. The Justice Department prefers to use the term "trafficked". It may be more correct, because some of the firearms may be traded or gifted rather than sold. Of the 68,388 firearms "trafficked" by unlicensed dealers, there were 368 cases where the firearms were used in shootings. There were 265 cases where they were used in homicides. This is over the entire five year period. The press releases gives us cases, but a case might involve more than one or more firearms. It is not clear if a case would involve more than one homicide, but it is possible.
The vast majority of the cases of unlicensed firearms dealing, 58%, involved a mean of 2.3 firearms, the the number of firearms ranging from one to five.
There is little to indicate the investigation of the unlicensed sales prevented any homicides, or any violent crime. The homicides mentioned may have been the initial event which brought the unlicensed dealer to the attention of the authorities. Tracing firearms is almost never used to prevent violent crimes such as murder, rape, or assault. Those prosecuted are involved in "process" crimes, selling firearms without the approval of the federal government.
According to statistica, there were about 97,000 homicides in the USA from 2017 to 2021. The number of homicides associated with (not caused) by firearms which were sold by unlicensed dealers, according to the ATF, during the five years, were 265. 265 is about .27 of one percent of the homicides committed over the five years. The clearance rate for homicides in many US cities is getting lower and lower. When you have fewer police, who are less willing to investigate crimes, fewer murders get solved. About 35 million dollars a year is wasted on a firearms tracing system which does essentially nothing to prevent violent crimes. It would be much better spend investigating actual murders. The ATF criminal division was funded in 2019 with about 1 billion dollars. Over the five year period of the study, the number would be about 5 billion dollars. Most of that money goes to investigating unlicensed dealers and straw purchasers. The misplaced focus is on firearms when it should be on people who commit violent crime.
The National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Firearms Trafficking Investigations - Volume Three, has eleven parts, plus a Director's Forward and Acknowledgement. In virtually every part, a critical reader can find evidence of a very small return for the national treasure expended. For example, in part X, National Illegal Firearm Recoveries, most of the "firearms" recovered are parts kits which could be used to convert an existing firearm into an illegal firearm. You will also see 75% of the cases over the five years happened in 2019. It is clear something anomalous happened in 2019. It could be as simple as defining an object as illegal, which was previously considered legal. The eleven parts contain a large amount of information. Much of what is revealed is the relative small number of cases. Read the statistics critically, and you will be amazed at the information available.
Analysis:
The number of people who commit most murders in a given city are a tiny percentage of the population. From David Kennedy, the renowned criminal justice professor and co-chair of the National Network for safe communities:
“We now know that homicide and gun violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under half of one percent of a city's population who commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”
The money thrown away in absurd bureaucratic exercises such as keeping, maintaining, and attempting to expand gun traces and gun trace databases, could be used to keep track of hyper violent criminals. Those who are known to be the most at risk for murder, or being murdered, are a tiny percentage of the population, much smaller than the number of firearms in society. The basic misunderstanding by the left is their confusion about cause and effect. Guns do not cause crime. Criminals only need a tiny number of guns to commit enormous numbers of crimes. Those who are prone to commit crime must be removed from the general population. There are know ways to help people, especially young men, to refrain from the temptations of violent crime. They are:
1. A stable family structure, with a strong male providing for the family.
2. A strong moral structure in the community, particularly Christianity, where violence against others is discouraged. It is important for illegitimate violence to be stigmatized.
3. A criminal justice system which is viewed as legitimate and appropriate. In communities where the police are respected, crime is low.
Much of the focus of Marxists/Leftists/Progressives, is to remove responsibility from individuals and focus on inanimate objects. This is a recipe for disaster.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A 49-year-old male was standing near a tree in a park, when an unknown male approached, produced a handgun and announced a robbery. The victim grabbed the weapon, discharging the firearm and was struck. The victim was dropped off at St. Joseph by a friend and transferred to Ill Masonic hospital where he is listed in fair condition with a gsw to the torso. There is no one in custody and the circumstances surrounding the incident are being investigated by Area Three detectives.
Graphic from CPRC report, 2024
A paper at the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), founded by researcher John Lott, shows how faith in the police, arrest rates, and crime reporting are all interrelated. The paper is titled " The Collapse in Law Enforcement: As Arrest Rates Plummet, People Have Been Less Willing to Report Crime", published on April 5, 2024.
As faith in the police collapses, reporting of crime drops, and so do arrest rates and clearance rates for both violent crimes and property crimes. This has the classic look of a positive feedback loop. The consequences are far from positive. It is not a clear case of simple cause and effect. Faith in the police, reporting of crimes, and arrest rates are all interconnected in complex ways. From the paper:
But, there is a big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report most crimes. More importantly, the number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police. While the violent crime rate reported to police fell by 1.7% between 2021 and 2022, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows that total violent crime (reported and non-reported) rose from 16.5 to 23.5 per 100,000. Violent crime in 2022 was above the rate the last year before the pandemic in 2019 and above the average for the five years from 2015 to 2019.
Not only does the arrest rate fall when most crimes are not reported, a falling arrest rate makes faith in the system decline even more, which results in a lower reporting of crimes. This explains a phenomena mentioned in the paper. While the official statistics of crime may be lower, people's perception of the crime they experience tells them the crime rate is worse.
Reality can overcome image as portrayed by the mass media, especially as trust in mass media has been eroded over decades. In the United States, the government-media complex does not have enough control over the narrative to convince people reality is what the media says, rather than what they experience. In George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, the government controls all media, all the time. In the book, the government confidently proclaims the chocolate ration has been increased, when in fact, it has been reduced. From 1984:
For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.
Even in Orwell's dystopian universe, where all information flow is controlled by government censors, not everyone was willing to believe the government over their own senses. In present day America, there are alternate sources of information, which contest the government-media complex narrative.
Analysis:
In high trust societies, crime rates are low because crimes are not tolerated by the culture; because crimes are diligently reported; and because citizen and police co-operation is high. Trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild, but it can be done. First, there has to be a general acceptance of crime as wrong by society. In the United States, a consensus exists. Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Self Defense is legitimate. Even in large cities where cultural Marxism has been relentlessly pushed in education and government, the vast majority of people believe in private property and the right to self defense. They do not want to tolerate rampant theft, assault, and high murder rates. Cultural Marxist theory states when conditions become bad enough, people will turn to Marxist solutions. As with much of Marxist theory, this is based on a false assumption about reality. Most people do not value "equity" more than stability and safety. Human nature is not infinitely malleable. In many places, people are rebelling against Marxist theory rather than rebelling against the Constitution and the rule of law. The downward spiral of lower arrests and lower trust in the police can be reversed, but it takes leadership which is willing to identify the problem and which categorically rejects cultural Marxism.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A man is in the hospital after being shot by a homeowner during a potential home invasion on Saturday evening, according to Raleigh police.
The incident took place shortly before 7 p.m. on the 1000 block of New Bern Ave.
COOS BAY, Ore. — A North Bend man was shot early Friday morning after he broke into a Coos Bay home armed with a golf club, according to Coos Bay Police.
Around 12:55 a.m., April 12, 2024, officials say the North Coos 9-1-1 Center received a call from a resident in the 700 block of Johnson Avenue in Coos Bay.
Officials say the caller reported that a man had been shot after breaking into their home and requested police and medical personnel for assistance.
"This is an ex-boyfriend (Rueda) that she’s had problems with in the past, restraining orders, stalking," Rodriguez said. "As he arrived at the home, he happens to see a male exiting the house."
Rueda confronted the man, identified as 23-year-old Omar Jamal Huggins, and they started arguing.
“During the fight, the ex-boyfriend continues to attack this male. The male advises him several times that he is armed and to stop the attack, and (Rueda) continues to attack this male that’s leaving the house," Rodriguez said. "The male takes out a firearm and the ex-boyfriend grabs the firearm, and now they’re wrestling for this firearm. They’re wrestling back and forth when the gun goes off."
Rueda was shot in the chest, killing him, police said.
It happened around 7 p.m. at the Phillips 66 gas station on the 900 block of College Avenue by Poplar.
In the video, you can see Harrison walk into the store. The 30-year-old private security guard is then seen telling him to leave and pushing him back.
Next, you see Harrison pull a gun from his waistband. There is an exchange of heated words before a barrage of gunfire.
The security guard, who works at the gas station for the private company Pennsylvania S.I.T.E. State Agents and is licensed to carry, was shot in the leg. He was taken to Temple University Hospital in stable condition.
"After shooting the guy, the guy then still shoots at him and he does what he has to do, and you have to take care of the business and neutralize the threat or he will still hurt other people in the store," said Andre Boyer, the owner of Pennsylvania S.I.T.E. State Agents.
On February 15, 2024 a plea agreement was reached in the silencer case in the Western District of Louisiana. In the case, Brennan James Comeaux had been charged with possession of five homemade silencers, two silver colored and three black colored. A warrant had been issued to search Comeax's home to find the silencers, based on probable cause. A motion to dismiss had been filed in the case, contending the portions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and later statues violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution based on the guidance of the Bruen decision published by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2022.
The federal prosecution argued silencers were not "arms" but accessories, thus not covered under the Second Amendment, that requirements for serialization and registration were par to federal power as allowed by the commerce clause, and there is a history of regulationg "dangerous and unusual" weapons while contending silencers are "dangerously unusual". From the government brief in the previous article:
In short, under Heller, even assuming that silencers are “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, they remain unusually dangerous and thus fall permissibly within this nation’s historical tradition of regulation.
Astute readers will see Silencers cannot both not be "arms" and also be "dangerously unusual. It is not unusual to see lawyerly arguments covering all bases this way. Essentially, the prosecution is saying: Our first argument is correct, but if the court does not accept the first argument, then our backup argument is this. It is not quite contradictory. As in the Metcalf Gun Free School Zone case, the plea agreement preserves the right to appeal the judges denial of the motion to dismiss on the grounds the federal law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. From the plea agreement:
3. The United States acknowledges that this is a conditional plea pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ll(a)(2), and that Brennan Comeaux reserved his right to appeal the Court s adverse ruling as to his Motion to Dismiss and, should such appeal be successful, Brennan Comeaux shall be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.
In the plea agreement, Brennan Comeaux pleads guilty to the first count of the indictment. Count one is for possession of unregistered firearm(s). In the definition of the NFA, silencers are defined as "firearms".
COUNT ONE
POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARM(S)
[26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)]
On or about June 2, 2022, in the Western District of Louisiana, the defendant,BRENNAN JAMES COMEAUX, knowingly received and possessed a firearm, to wit: two silver and three black firearm silencers, not registered to him in the National FirearmsRegistration and Transfer Record.All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. [26U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) and 5871].
As part of the plea agreement, Brennan Comeaux agreed to pay $100, forfeit the silencers, and receive a term of supervised release of not more than three years. The maximum penalty would be ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. You can see why nearly all federal defendants accept plea agreements. In this case, the fact of Comeaux's possession of the items was not contested.
No appeal has yet been applied for. There are other silencer cases in the courts which could bear on this case. One is in the Fifth Circuit, the same Circuit as this case. It is the lawsuit by AG Paxton for the State of Texas. The case is Paxton v. Richardson. The appeal of the Paxton case has been filed for the Fifth Circuit. This correspondent has not found and documents filed at the appeals court level.
If the Paxton case is successful, then Brennan Comeaux's appeal would be greatly enhanced.
There is a challenge to the ban on silencers by the state of Illinois which is ongoing. It is not a challenge to the federal law, but a challenge to the state ban. One of the contentions is whether silencers are included as arms under the Second Amendment. It the court find they are arms, it could be helpful to a Comeaux appeal.
Silencers are one of the weakest points in the National Firearms Act and its successor statutes. It remains to be seen if legislative or judicial attempts to remove them from the NFA will be the first to succeed.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Los Angeles Police Department officers responded to a home in the 14000 block of Calvert Street, near Hazeltine Avenue, at approximately 9:45 p.m. regarding reports of a shooting, according to a report from NBC 4.
When they arrived, officers learned the man discovered four men inside his home and fired one shot at the suspects, who then fled the residence.
MACON, Georgia (41NBC/WMGT) – The Bibb County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting that took place in the 200 block of Broadway on Tuesday at 3:01 a.m.
Deputies found an unresponsive male with a gunshot wound at the Riverview Hotel.
According to an incident report, a male was attempting to enter into a parked vehicle and was shot by the occupant who was asleep inside.
At around 12:45 PM, officers from the Albuquerque Police Department were dispatched to a shooting at a construction site for new, single floor apartments on the 120 block of La Plata Rd NW. When APD officers arrived, they reportedly discovered a male who had been shot at least once, he was critically injured, and allegedly died at the scene.
We observed neighbors standing out in their yards watching the incident unfold. A witness on scene told our reporter that the shooting purportedly stemmed from a domestic incident.
Homicide detectives and investigators are being called out to the scene.
UPDATE:
APD is telling us, after a preliminary investigation, homicide detectives are considering this shooting as a possible justifiable homicide. A woman appears to have acted in self-defense during an act of domestic violence by her boyfriend. Detectives will continue to investigate the shooting.
Martin accused Ashley of breaking into the home on Cliffwood Drive and pointing a gun at her.
"In fear for her life, Valencia defensively fired a weapon, striking Mr. Ashley," Martin said. "The absolute privilege under Mississippi's Castle Law doctrine applies in this matter, and the charges filed against Ms. Valencia Jones should be dismissed immediately."
Martin said the home is owned by Alanda L. Jones, Valencia Jones' mother. Both women live at the home. Martin said Alanda L. Jones called 911 "at least three times" to report that Ashley was in her home without permission before her daughter came home.
At around 8:30 a.m. Saturday, police said Montez chased her around on the 7000 block of Morgan Ford Road while holding his hand in his pocket "to make it look like he had a gun" while her son was in a car waiting for her, police said.
"While she was trying to get away from him, and was screaming, 'No! No!' he continued to approach her on her porch. Terrified that he would kill her, as he threatened to do over and over again, (the victim) shot him in his leg," the probable cause statement said.
The shooting was captured on a home security camera.
Police said Hopgood has a history of domestic violence arrests and has threatened the woman in the past, including an incident several months ago where he kidnapped her and her child for several hours until they escaped and ran for help.
Link to Youtube video of Judge Sam A. Lindsay
On March 29, 2024, United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, ordered a preliminary injunction stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the final rule as it applies to pistol braces and NRA members. Once Joe Biden was elected President, the ATF had radically changed course, reversed fifteen years of previous administrative measures, and declared once legal pistol braces as re-defined "short barreled rifles.
The "final rule" claimed to be implementing measures approved by Congress in the 1934 National Firearms Act. The court found the ATF had gone to far. In effect, the ATF created legislation, usurping the function of the Congress. From the opinion by Judge Sam A. Linday United States District Judge of the Northern District of Texas in the Fifth Circuit:
The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA” or “Plaintiff”) brought this action on July 3, 2023, against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General (collectively, “Defendants”), for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, the NRA challenges the ATF’s January 31, 2023 issuance of an administrative rule titled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’ ” 88 Fed. Reg. 6,478 (“Final Rule”), which created a framework for determining whether firearms equipped with a stabilizing brace qualify as a short-barreled rifle (“SBR”), a category of firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”).
The controversial NFA had passed in 1934 after the primary purpose of the law, to require registration and licensing of all handguns, had been stripped from the measure because of lobbying by the NRA. What remained was mainly irrelevant and irrational at the time. Confiscatory taxes and registration of machineguns, of which only a few hundred were privately owned, registration of silencers on guns but not on automobiles, registration of short barreled shotguns, seen as both crime weapons and homeowner's defensive tools, and registration of short barreled rifles, added to the bill at the insistence of an addled, drunk, or Machiavellian Minnestota Congressman, Harold Knutson. At the time, the bill and tax only applied to items which crossed state lines. By 2016, much of the NFA was already under attack. The law was full of contradictions and irrational requirements. The Hearing Protection Act would have removed silencers from the NFA. It would have passed in the First Trump administration except for the machinations of Paul Ryan, a peculiar opponent of a Republican president.
In the conclusion and preliminary injunction, Judge Lindsay stops the ATF from enforcing the final rule, as it applies to pistol braces owned by NRA members, until the court case is adjudicated. This will likely come after the Supreme Court rules on the matter. From the opinion:
III.Conclusion and Preliminary Injunction
For the reasons explained, the court concludes that the NRA has associational standing to sue on behalf of its members and has met its burden of establishing each of the four requirements for a preliminary injunction. The court, therefore, grants the NRA’s Motion (Doc. 8) and request for a preliminary injunction, and it enjoins the ATF; Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General from enforcing the Final Rule against the NRA’s members pending the final resolution of this action on the merits. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), this preliminary injunction order enjoins and applies with equal force to Defendants’ “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B),” and Defendants shall provide notice to all such persons of this preliminary injunction order.
The court ruling strikes at the heart of the ATF and other bureaucracies to create and define law as they so wish and a particular administration desires, even reversing policies of long standing. Such flagrant abuse of power is the exact opposite of the rule of law. The "Progressives" are exactly the opposite of what the claim. They wish to regress to the rule of the ruling class, where an ultimate ruler changes the rules at whim, favoring those in the ruling class. The Progressives oppose any limitation on government power. The Constitution was created, in large part, to limit government power.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
OAKLAND — An East Oakland resident exchanged gunfire with two burglars, killing one of them, during an attempted home invasion that also resulted in the homeowner being shot in the foot, police say.
The March 15 killing of 39-year-old Charles Calloway has now been deemed by police and prosecutors a justifiable homicide, according to court records. But Calloway’s 38-year-old alleged accomplice, David Washington, has been charged with murder under the legal theory that he provoked the homeowner who killed Calloway into using lawful self-defense.
On March 11, 2024, Dr. John Lott debated the eminent law professor Sanford Levinson on the subject: Was the Second Amendment a Mistake? The debate lasted about an hour. It was held at the University of Wisconsin, and started at 6:30 p.m. The debate was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The moderator was Professor Ryan Owens.
Unlike much of what we see in politics, the debate was cordial and civilized. There was no student protest to prevent Dr. Lott from being able to debate Professor Levinson. Dr. Lott is an eminent scholar on gun control issues. Dr. Levison is credited with doing much to give credibility to the scholary examination of the Second Amendment with his article entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", published in the Yale Law Journal in 1989.
The format of the debate was: Introductions, 10 minutes to Dr. Lott, 10 minutes to Professor Levinson, 2 minutes to Dr. Lott for rebuttal; 2 minutes for Dr. Levinson for rebuttal; then a question and answer period with questions from the moderator and the audience. Because of time constraints, the Q & A period was merged with concluding remarks, first by Professor Levinson, with Dr. Lott speaking last.
Both men are obviously gifted and well practiced public speakers. They showed how a civilized debate can be held without shouting and histrionics. As often happens in debates, they answered the question from significantly different points of view.
Dr. Lott's position was that of an empiricist, appropriate for his training and profession as an economist. His position was: the Second Amendment was not a mistake, because more guns means more protection for the vulnerable in society.
Professor Levinson's position was a classic position of Progressives. It consisted of two basic points. First, that was then, this is now. Things have changed. Policies have to change with circumstances. The Second Amendment keeps the government from making changes. Second, restrictions on government are bad. Government is good.
It appeared to this correspondent Dr. Lott's empirical approach was more persuasive. Professor Levison suggested, at one point, that given Dr. Lott's position, the government should subsidize the purchase of guns by lower income people. Dr. Lott responded by saying he would be happy if the government would simply stop making it harder for poor people to purchase and carry guns.
Professor Levison burnished his academic reputation by stating one of the best supports for the U.S. v Heller decision was the Dred Scott decision, decided in 1857. He gave an accurate portrayal of Chief Justice Taney's explanation of why black people could not be considered citizens. Black people would then be able to carry guns with them wherever they would go. This academic exercise seemed to support Dr. Lott's position more than Professor Levinson's.
I recommend watching the debate on Youtube. It shows how a civilized debate should be held. Dr. Lott starts with a technique I have used, praising your opponent. It becomes harder for them to use ad hominem attacks, and sets the tone for a fact based contest.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
ST. LOUIS, Mo. (First Alert 4) - The shooting of a man who allegedly broke through an apartment wall while naked and threatened to kill a man and his family will be investigated as an act of self-defense, police said.
According to St. Louis Police incident reports, officers were dispatched around 2 p.m. Friday to a report of a shooting in the 900 block of Park Avenue. There, officers found a man with a gunshot wound to his left hand. He was taken to a hospital for treatment.
According to witnesses, the victim confronted the suspect on Park Avenue, south of Redlands Boulevard, and during the “physical altercation,” the suspect fired several shots, wounding the victim, police said.
The shooter was taken into custody and questioned before being released. He was in lawful possession of the firearm, which was collected at the scene.
ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) - One man is dead and another is wounded after a shooting in northwest Atlanta, according to Atlanta Police.
Atlanta Police said a man in his 40s was killed at a house at 411 Westchester Blvd. NW.
A second man, police said, sustained a graze wound and was conscious and alert when transported to Grady Memorial Hospital, where he is now in stable condition.
Lt. Chris Hewitt said they responded to a “shots fired” call around 4 p.m. Crime scene tape blocked off the area most of the evening.
According to a report by the Little Rock Police Department, the incident began at 9 p.m when 48-year-old Yusuf Muhammad began harassing 43-year-old Shearee Jones in the checkout aisle.
Witnesses stated that Muhammad was visibly aggressive towards Jones and that she asked him to stop.
The report says that he continued after this and assaulted her, leaving an abrasion.
In response, Jones brandished a firearm and struck Muhammad with multiple rounds.
The report says that Muhammad left the Kroger, but returned, leading Jones to fire more shots at him.
Muhammad was taken to the hospital where he is receiving treatment for his injuries.
On October 16, 2020, a number of plaintiffs, including Madison Lara, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others, filed a lawsuit claiming Pennsylvania law which forbid 18-20-year-olds from obtaining a concealed carry permit or from openly carrying outside of the home during an emergency was an infringement of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. This was nearly two years before the Supreme Court decision of Bruen. On April 16, 2021, the District court ruled against them. On April 21, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the Pennsylvania District Court to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The decision held Pennsylvania law which forbid 18-20-year-olds from obtaining a concealed carry permit or from openly carrying outside of the home during an emergency was not an infringement of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The three judge panel held the appeal pending the Supreme Court decision in Bruen.
The Bruen decision was published on June 22, 2022, clarifying the Heller decision and giving clear guidance on how to interpret Second Amendment cases. In the clarification, the Supreme Court validated the right to carry outside the home and set forth how to perform judicial tests on laws which were challenged as infringing on the rights protected by the Second Amendment. On January 18, 2024, the three judge panel found the Pennsylvania statutes infringed on the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year old people. It was a split decision, with Judge Restrepo dissenting. On February 15, 2024, the defendants argued 18-20-year old people were not considered to be part of the people. Judge Restrepo agreed. The defendants filed for a re-hearing of the case en banc, by the entire Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On March 27, 2024, a panel of the entire Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit voted to deny the request for re-hearing the case en banc. The panel consisted of thirteen judges. Six judges voted to hear the case en banc. Seven judges voted to deny the hearing. The six judges who voted to hear the case en banc were: Shwartz, Krause, Restrepo, Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves and Chung. Those six judges were effectively voting against including the Second Amendment as a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. They lost the vote. The decision finding Pennsylvania laws infringe on the ability of 18-20-year olds to exercise the Second Amendment rights was upheld. The decision is now precedential law in the Third Circuit.
Analysis: The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit serves the areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the United States Virgin Islands. Infringements on the rights of 18-20-year olds, protected by the Second Amendment, are likey in New Jersey, Delaware and the US Virgin Islands. There is no further appeal except to the Supreme Court. The case creates a split in the Circuits. Similar cases are proceeding in other circuits. With this decision, it is likely one of the 18-20-year old challenges will be considered at the Supreme Court. This case is a good candidate, because the Biden administration may choose to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court seldom refuses to hear a case which the executive branch asks it to hear.
In this case, the three judge panel closely adhered to the guidance put forward in the Bruen decision. It would be a favorable case for the Supreme Court to hear in order to reinforce the doctrines put forward in Bruen.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting at the above address and found an unresponsive male with gunshot wounds inside an apartment. Houston Fire Department paramedics responded to the scene and pronounced the male deceased.
A preliminary investigation determined a security officer attempted to break up a disturbance between the male (deceased) and another person in the complex. The male, who appeared to be impaired. became irate, went to his apartment and retrieved his weapon. He then returned and pointed the gun at the security guard. Fearing for his life, the security guard discharged his weapon and struck the male.
The goal, according to Loux, was for Carlos Medina and Garcia to rob another teen of a gun he was carrying.
Shortly after midnight, Largo police say the pair confronted the victim and a shootout ensued.
Police say Carlos Medina fell on the sidewalk after being shot, while the victim ran south and was located several blocks away by officers.
Both teens were carrying 9-millimeter Glock guns, according to Largo police. It is unclear who the guns are registered to and if they have been reported stolen.
"They were all juveniles and being out and about after midnight in possession of a firearm," Loux stated. "No, it’s not legal."
240841756
Preliminary Information: On 3/24/24, around 9:50pm, officers responded to 1267 Martin St SE in reference to a male shot. Upon arrival, officers located a male with a gunshot wound to the leg. He was alert, conscious and breathing and transported to the hospital in stable condition. Preliminary investigation indicates the male was armed while banging on the front door of the home demanding narcotics. The male then kicked in the door then physically struggled with the home’s occupant, resulting in him sustaining a gunshot wound. Units found the male nearby the incident location afterwards. He was transported to Grady where he is recovering in stable condition with arrest charges pending. The investigation continues.
Please keep in mind the above information is preliminary in nature and can change as the investigation progresses and new information comes to light.
Bystanders on the scene tell Action News 5 that the victim appeared to be a security guard. He was rushed to Methodist South in critical condition.
“This should have never happened. This man was at work doing his job,” Quince said.
The other man outside was not injured by the gunfire. Police say he returned shots at the initial shooter, striking him.
Officers say the suspect barricaded himself inside the apartment thereafter. The Memphis Police Department’s Crisis Negotiations Team and SWAT Team were called to the complex to contact the gunman.
BAY CITY, MI — A would-be burglar was shot on April Fool’s Day, taking two bullets as he allegedly attempted to break into a home on Bay City’s East Side.
At 4:48 p.m. on Monday, April 1, police responded to an apartment building in the 200 block of North Jefferson Street after a citizen called 911 to report a bleeding man outside. Officers arrived to find a 33-year-old man had suffered two gunshot wounds to his torso.
Lincolnton Police Department officers went to a BP gas station on East Main Street around 5:30 p.m. Sunday. At the scene, officers found the robbery victim, who was a customer at the gas station.
The victim told police a man got into his car, tried to steal it, and held up a knife. He said took out his gun and fired, hitting the suspect.
On January 14, 2023, David J. Nastri, Esq. filed suit against Katie Dykes as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental protection. Nastri challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut's ban on the carrying of handguns in Connecticut state parks for the purpose of self defense. From the complaint:
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges the constitutionality of Connecticut’s state regulation that bans the carrying of handguns in Connecticut state parks for the purpose of self-defense. Connecticut’s ban on handguns in state parks cannot pass constitutional muster under the historical standard that the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (Jun. 23, 2022), and the Second Amendment requires the Court to put a stop to Connecticut depriving its citizens of the most popular means of self-defense where it is undoubtedly the hardest for first responders to protect them.
On August 22, 2023, the District Court, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, granted the state's motion to dismiss because the plaintiff lacked standing. Nastri appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2024, a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order to the effect that Nastri had standing, the District Court's judgment was vacated, and the District Court for the District of Connecticut is required to proceed with Nastri's lawsuit against the State of Connecticut. From the order:
The parties do not dispute that Nastri has established the first two imminence elements, in that he alleged an “intent[]” to carry his handgun in state parks for self-defense in violation of section 23-4-1(c). Vitagliano, 71 F.4th at 137. Thus, the central issue in this appeal is whether Nastri has demonstrated a credible threat that he would be cited for violating section 23-4-1(c) if he were to engage in that conduct.
The State of Connecticut put forward arguments the chances of Nastri being prosecuted were small, because few people noticed if someone was carrying a concealed weapon, and the statute was rarely enforced. The three judge panel rejected those arguments. They explained it was the burden of the State to show Nastri would not be prosecuted. It was enough for Nastri to show the law was in effect and the State did not disavow any possibility of enforcement. From the order:
Far from disavowing enforcement against Nastri, the director of Connecticut’s Environmental Conservation Police testified at a deposition that his department (1) receives calls 7 about persons with firearms in state parks, (2) responds to those calls by sending officers to investigate, and (3) would take enforcement action if its officers found a person with an unauthorized firearm.
Analysis: This case is part of a trend where the courts are following the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen to treat the Second Amendment on the same level as other fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment. Restricting the ability of a person to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights is an irreparable harm, no matter how short the duration. This case may become another building block in the wall to restore the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. It is important to build this wall case by case. It is better to be able to sue to restore rights than to be forced to contest the constitutionality of the law in a criminal case, such as is occurring the Gun Free School Zone case of Gabriel Metcalf in Billings Montana.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
An intruder was shot as he was trying to enter a home in McPherson early Easter morning.
According to the McPherson Police Depaartment, Sunday at 3:29 AM officers responded to a shooting which occured in the 400 Block of East Avenue A.
According to McPherson Police Chief Mikel Golden, a 41 year old male was at home when he heard someone trying to get into his residence. The homeowner went to the door with his firearm. The male suspect attempted to enter the residence and the homeowner fired his weapon one time, hitting the suspect in the abdomen.
Posts
All Comments
