Saturday, July 3, 2010

07-03-10

by permission from: Stephen P. Wenger
http://www.spw-duf.info
comments in () by the same


Whom to Support: I have received a few e-mails from list members
lately soliciting either information or opinions about resigning from
the NRA. The NRA provides many services besides its lobbying
activities. Because my instructor certification comes from their Law
Enforcement Activities Division, I must not only remain a member. I've
been an Endowment Member since January 1, 2000, and a Life Member for
several years earlier,which means I can't remember the last time I
paid annual dues, but I must also must pay a fee every three years to
keep my business entity affiliated. If you are an Annual Member, you
ought to assess whether there are any other services for which you
depend on the NRA. If you are a Life Member or higher, I see no value
in resigning. Realizing that not all list members share the same anger
with the NRA for withdrawing its opposition to the DISCLOSE Act, those
who do may wish to adopt the philosophy of "keep your friends close
and your enemies closer." I will simply reply to solicitations of
contributions from NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF with an explanation of why
those entities will receive no more funds from me. If you currently
have funds to contribute to the fight on the national level, you may
wish to think about the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF was the
primary organization behind the McDonald suit and is currently suing
to overturn North Carolina's infringement of the RKBA during declared
emergencies. (In the spirit of fairness, I have also received one
e-mail stating disagreement with my outrage at NRA's sell-out on the
DISCLOSE Act.)

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation
---

Then There's GOA: On Thursday, Gun Owners of America had the important
opportunity to testify concerning the Second Amendment views of
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. William J. Olson, counsel of record
on amicus briefs for GOA in both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court
cases, testified at the hearing that Kagan has demonstrated "visceral
hostility" to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Moreover, Olson demonstrated that Elena Kagan's view of rights is tied
in directly to her view of Judicial Supremacy, that is, that our
rights "are whatever a majority of the Supreme Court rules at a
particular time in a particular case." But under that philosophy,
Olson said, "what the Court grants, the Court may take away." So
what's the bottom line?  "If Ms. Kagan does not know whether our
inalienable rights to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrants
comes from God - as the Declaration of Independence states - or from
government, she cannot be trusted to protect our God-given right to
self-preservation," Olson concluded... GOA will have much more to say
about the nomination of Elena Kagan in the coming days and weeks. In
the meantime, have a happy, and safe, Fourth of July weekend... (Video
of Olson's testimony is available.

http://gunowners.org/a070210.htm
---

...And Local Groups: The gun rights movement may have more momentum
now than ever, but the groups behind it aren't all united.Many are
grass-roots organizations formed in the last few years because the
powerful National Rifle Association was too busy, or too big, to help
fight city and statewide gun laws. The constellation of smaller
splinter groups are more aggressive and will play a leading role in
hashing out the scope of the Supreme Court's latest ruling supporting
gun rights, in part by filing lawsuits at the local level. The
nation's highest court ruled this week that Americans have the right
to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, a ruling that
certainly means the end of Chicago's 28-year-old gun ban, and the
justices left a lot of room for lower courts to determine the exact
limits on gun laws... While the NRA entered the latest case only after
the Supreme Court allowed them to join, the nearly 138-year-old group
has been reluctant to wade into other legal battles because they have
for years been on the losing end, said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law
school professor who has written extensively on Second Amendment
issues. In that vacuum, smaller groups have exposed a tactical
advantage by drafting talented and passionate attorneys who are often
willing to file pro bono legal challenges... The NRA is by no means
struggling. The group said its membership has surged 20 percent since
2007 to about 4.1 million members, and many politicians from both
parties still clamor for its endorsement...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjQRxA_L2v2U-su2qitTlf29N7xQD9GN2JE83
---

NRA Taking Fire over Reid: The National Rifle Association  is in
unfamiliar terrain on the conservative firing range this election
year: It's the target. The conservative Netroots are abuzz over the
possibility that the NRA may endorse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.). This would be the second major slight by the NRA for
political conservatives - the gun group also just negotiated a big
exemption on a campaign finance bill loathed by the right.
Conservatives say there's a clear political calculation at work: If
Reid loses, he's almost certain to be succeeded as majority leader by
a fierce gun-control advocate, either Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin or New
York Sen. Chuck Schumer. The NRA isn't even denying this line of
reasoning but says it hasn't made a decision about whether to endorse
Reid... It all portends a nasty and prolonged fight between
Republicans and a highly influential lobby that has long been a GOP
partner in Washington policy battles - and it could hardly come at a
worse time for Republicans, who see the Nevada race as one of the
GOP's best opportunities to cut into Democrats' 59-seat majority.
Officially, the NRA is holding its fire for now in the race between
Reid and tea-party-backed Republican nominee Angle, but conservatives
are building a case that it's a matter of when, not if, Reid will get
the gun group's nod..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39340.html
---

A Former NYPD Detective Comments on McDonald: ...We all owe Mr.
McDonald our gratitude because his courage in taking on Chicago's gun
ban has resulted in a ruling that reinforces what the champions of
liberty meant when they wrote about not infringing on the people's
right to bear arms. We're also indebted to five of the nine justices,
who decided that the Second Amendment is the law of the land,
superseding local gun control laws. Writing for the majority, Justice
Samuel Alito made it clear that "self-defense is a basic right ...
individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second
Amendment." Can I have an "amen"? (Weir's comments would have carried
more weight with me had he also addressed the arbitrary and capricious
handgun-licensing scheme of his former employer.)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/thanks_to_otis_mcdonald_and_th.html

Speaking Of...: Congressional Candidate and attorney Michael Giuliano
(R. 28th Dist.), released this statement today in response to this
week's Supreme Court decision applying the Second Amendment to the
States: "I commend the Supreme Court for correctly concluding that the
Constitutional and fundamental right to bear arms, a right of
self-defense, is binding on the states. If we need the permission of
the police and judges to bear arms, it's not a right but a privilege.
The Court also demonstrated that it understands that so-called "gun
control" in America had its origins in government discrimination and a
desire to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves against
lynch mobs.Yet, we in the North should not be too smug. Under present
law, New York makes it very difficult for lower-income people, the
people who often need them most, to obtain pistol permits. If people
have a right to bear arms for self-defense, it is unconscionable for
state officials to make them jump through hoops for a year or longer
to get a permit. In many high-crime neighborhoods, people can't wait
that long to protect themselves..."

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/02/congressional-candidate-blasts-unconstitutional-and-biased-sullivan-law/
---

O'Reilly Jumps on the Bandwagon: Even a simple guy like me can figure
out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's contained in
the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week
vote to infringe on the right to bear arms? he court ruled 5 to 4 that
76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in
Chicago, can own a handgun. McDonald, a retired working-class guy,
sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald
was blunt: He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his
well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he has to
protect himself from harm. But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg basically told
McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage
to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that
is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say
that if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does
it say that? ... (Since you bring it up, Bill, where does it say that
private ownership of firearms can be banned if they look similar to
the ones used by our troops? Have you not previously endorsed such
bans?)

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/07/03/shooting_down_the_constitution/page/full
---

According To Rasmussen...: A new Rasmussen poll showing a majority of
Americans believe cities cannot ban handguns "goes along with what we
have been saying, and what the Supreme Court affirmed," the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today. "The high
court ruled in its 2008 Heller decision that the handgun ban in
Washington, D.C. violated the Second Amendment," noted CCRKBA Chairman
Alan Gottlieb, "and this week's McDonald ruling incorporates the
Second Amendment to the states. That effectively nullifies municipal
gun bans nationwide. The court has spoken twice, and a majority of
Americans concur. "The recent Rasmussen survey also revealed," he
continued, "that only 35 percent of adults support stricter gun
control, proving that gun prohibitionists are in the minority, and
their influence is shrinking." Rasmussen conducted its survey earlier
this week among 1,000 adults. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage
points. The survey also found that only 14 percent of the respondents
who live with someone who owns a gun believe cities can ban handguns,
while a whopping 80 percent say cities do not have that authority.
Fifty-five percent of those without guns in the home also agree,
Rasmussen said."Without a doubt," Gottlieb said, "the gun ban movement
is on the ropes. I can think of a no more fitting moment for this to
happen, on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend. Our American
ancestors started the Revolutionary War when the British tried to
confiscate their guns in Lexington and Concord. Privately-owned guns
were essential to secure our liberty..." (CCRKBA, for those who don't
recognize the name, is a sister organization to SAF. The latter is
limited in its political expression by its 501(c)(3) tax status, hence
the sister group.)

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-americans-agree-with-scotus-say-cities-cant-ban-handguns----ccrkba-97688344.html
---

McDonald Ruling May Help Defeat Montana Campus-Carry Bans: The head of
a prominent gun-rights group is mulling whether to challenge a
firearms ban on Montana's public college campuses now that the U.S.
Supreme Court has given gun owners a green light to take on local and
state governments over Second Amendment protections. Gary Marbut,
president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said Thursday
that he will review state regulations and laws to see whether it's
worth challenging any gun restrictions. Although he said the state is
pretty good about respecting rights of firearm owners, he said the ban
on guns at public colleges stands out as an infringement that should
be removed. "The Montana Constitution does give the Board of Regents
broad power to manage the university system, but it doesn't give them
any power at all to suspend people's constitutional rights. But
they're doing it," he said. Marbut and gun-rights advocates across the
country are feeling more empowered after recent Supreme Court rulings
- one in 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and
re-affirmed the right to keep and bear arms; and a 5-4 decision Monday
in a Chicago case that allows gun owners to challenge local
regulations as a violation of their Second Amendment rights.Experts
predict that the high court's decision could encourage lawsuits over
many regulations, such as gun-licensing requirements and limits on
firearms carried outside the home...

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100702/NEWS01/7020317/State-university-ban-on-guns-may-take-fire
---

Nice Editorial from Ohio: Gun advocates can thank two African-American
men for the significant roles they played in this week's U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that affirmed U.S. citizens' right to own a gun for
self-defense wherever they live. Justice Clarence Thomas' vote in
favor of the ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago was steeped in the 14th
Amendment and the historical treatment of blacks. The case involved a
black man's desire to own a firearm to protect himself from an enemy
unlike the enemies who once openly mistreated blacks. The case
originated in Chicago, where a resident tried to follow the rules to
have a gun at home. Otis McDonald, 76, is a retired maintenance
engineer at the University of Chicago and an Army veteran. He has been
on the front lines as a civil rights activist and union leader, and
lately has been out front in the gun-rights debate, where blacks are
not normally in the lead...In the nearly two decades that Clarence
Thomas has been on the high court, I never thought he would garner my
support. But he has in this case, voting with the court's conservative
majority. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that during
the 19th century, whites' fear of slave revolts compelled them to
ensure that blacks had no weapons...

http://toledoblade.com/article/20100703/COLUMNIST24/7030308/-1/OPINION
---

The Problem with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act: ...Here's the
difficulty in a nutshell: If you're traveling from Virginia to
Vermont, and are going through New York, you might know that your
possession is lawful in Virginia and Vermont. If you're prosecuted for
violating New York gun law and move to dismiss under § 926A, the judge
should be able to figure out that your possession is lawful in
Virginia and Vermont. But how is a police officer deciding whether to
arrest you, or seize your weapon, or detain you in a way that makes
you miss your flight to know? Police officers are supposed to know the
laws they are enforcing (though that can be pretty difficult). But
knowing the gun laws of all 50 States is quite a bit harder.In any
event, one can imagine a legal regime that requires the officers — or
at least those who routinely encounter such situations, such as
airport police in airports where FAA-required declarations that you're
checking a gun in your luggage lead to automatic calls to the police —
to have reference works that they can consult on this. But it looks
like courts are reluctant to require such a regime; the Torraco panel
holds that any interference with § 926A doesn't lead to liability for
the police, because of the difficulty the police would face figuring
out the law...

http://volokh.com/2010/07/02/the-limits-of-the-federal-law-letting-you-travel-with-a-locked-unloaded-gun/
---

From Wisconsin: List member Gene German sent the following statement
from Jackson County DA Gerald Fox:

Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans,
the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment's
protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in
America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this
fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that
the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that
self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the
amendment.

This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local
governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin's current laws
unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no
longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the
following statutes:

Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,
including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in
establishments where alcohol
may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a
button, or by
gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the
fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for
self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes
and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance
Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW). Prior to
this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state's
interests first, and would only create an exception to these laws when
the individual's need for protection outweighed the state's interest.
In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have approved concealed
carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant's personally
owned place of business. Well, as the United States Supreme Court held
yesterday, that view was exactly backward.

As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech,
of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons, and
effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful only
in the rare case that the state can show a compelling governmental
need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored
restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket
prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm in your personal
vehicle does not pass that test. Put it another way: Does preventing
the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home
from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore. That's not an
American value; it puts concern for the criminal's welfare ahead of
the barkeeper's right to self-defense. The fact is, criminals don't
pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of
criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals
resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called
"public safety" laws
only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when
it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this
decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.

I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these
areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will
follow the Supreme Court's ruling, I want to emphasize that with
fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue to
vigorously enforce the  laws against unlawfully using firearms, such
as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed while
intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and endangering safety
by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a few. Only by the
strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we
show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and
that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves
and their neighbors safely.

A copy of the Supreme Court's decision can be found at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney
General of Wisconsin, can be viewed at:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf

Let Freedom Ring.

Gerald R. Fox

Gene is now urging residents of other Wisconsin counties to ask their
respective district attorneys to emulate Mr. Fox,  follow their oaths
and uphold the Constitution as well.Officials for the various counties
can be found via the following link.

http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/core/wisconsin_counties.html

Related Article:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Supreme-Court-Guns/2010/07/02/id/363734
---

Virginia Gunners Celebrate Discreet Restaurant Carry: When Anthony
Dahm visited Champps Americana restaurant and bar Thursday, his menu
of options had doubled: Thanks to a change in Virginia's gun laws, he
could carry a semiautomatic handgun hidden behind the pouch holding
his children's allergy medicine -- as well as the one worn openly on
his hip -- without fear of committing a crime.hat was cause enough for
Dahm to celebrate at the Reston restaurant with about 80 other members
of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization
that had long pushed for the new law, which allows people with
concealed-weapon permits to go armed in places that serve alcohol as
long as they don't imbibe.Dahm, 44, a stay-at-home father from Vienna,
said he seldom drinks and would rather run from a confrontation than
shoot, yet the law gives him peace of mind that he can pack a friend
in restaurants such as Champps... But, for the most part, the Supreme
Court and Virginia's new gun-friendly governor have put gun-rights
folks in a mood to party -- even if, at Champps, the average diner
might not have known anything special was going on. Except for the
unusual number of people openly toting guns and wearing blaze-orange
"Guns Save Lives" stickers, members of the Virginia Citizens Defense
League celebrated quietly, carving steaks, sipping iced tea and
talking guns. Altogether more than 450 VCDL members celebrated in
Reston and at similar parties in Norfolk, Richmond, Woodbridge,
Vinton, Yorktown and Charlottesville... (Not surprisingly, the Post
ignores the fact that it has always been legal to carry openly in
restaurants and bars in Virginia and that the ban on consuming alcohol
only applies to those who now do so discreetly.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070202929.html
---

Pennsylvania Stand-Your-Ground Bill Stalled in Committee: Supporters
are trying to salvage a bill stalled in a House committee that would
allow a person to shoot an assailant in self-defense outside of the
home, without taking steps in retreat. The so-called "stand your
ground" legislation, hailed by gun advocates, is an extension of the
"Castle Doctrine" law that allows a person to use lethal force without
retreat on an intruder in one's home, or "castle." Outside the home,
the law requires a person who is threatened to literally step backward
before shooting an attacker in self-defense. House Bill 40 eliminates
the duty to retreat when outside the home - in a driveway, yard, the
street, or any place that person is legally permitted to be, according
to a House Judiciary Committee analysis... Perry and other supporters
hope to advance the legislation this fall, through amendments or a
parliamentary maneuver. Short of that, the House bill appears to be
dead for the 2009-10 session. This could be the sixth year in a row
that supporters failed to get such legislation passed...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_688820.html
---

Oops, Wrong House: Adrenaline coursing through his body, Benjamin
Jackson dropped to his knees and clasped his hands behind his head,
forced to watch -- helplessly -- as the masked, armed intruder
rummaged through his home. This, apparently, was Jackson's reward for
trying to help his neighbor. Just minutes earlier, the 29-year-old
maintenance man had spotted what looked like two men forcing a
screaming woman into an apartment across the hall from his. Uncertain
of what he had just seen, he knocked on the door. A man with a gun
answered and forced him to walk backward into his own residence."Is
the young lady next door okay?" Jackson thought as he knelt on his own
floor. "What is he attempting to do? Is he going to kill me?"Then
Jackson grabbed his own gun. "I just couldn't allow it to go down the
way it was trying to go down," Jackson said in an interview on
Thursday, his first public statements since Monday's fatal shooting,
which Prince George's County [MD] police say seems to be a case of
self-defense. "I know pretty much he was capable of doing what he had
to do. First chance, I had to go for it." Jackson shot and killed
Keith L. Fletcher, 20, a father of two young boys who lived in
Southeast Washington and in Oxon Hill with his mother. Law enforcement
sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity because police are
still looking for other suspects, said he was shot multiple times in
the upper body - but only after he squeezed off a shot at Jackson...
Shootings that are both fatal and justifiable are a rarity nationwide,
which makes Jackson's case all the more astonishing. In 2008, FBI
statistics show, there were 204 justifiable homicides by civilians
using firearms. That compares with 9,484 criminal homicides involving
firearms... (Nice dig from the Post but, due to the currently advanced
state of medical care in the US, the fatality rate from gunshot wounds
usually runs between 20 and 25%. On top of that, the FBI reporting
system is not exactly set up to monitor self-defense shootings by
private citizens. This does not even begin to address the issue that
most defensive uses of firearms succeed with the mere display of the
gun)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205316.html
---

South African Gun-Banner Convicted of Corruption: Jackie Selebi, the
former police commissioner of South Africa and once a signal figure in
international law enforcement, was found guilty of corruption here on
Friday.The verdict ended a grueling trial that began last October. Mr.
Selebi was accused of providing favors to a drug trafficker in
exchange for gifts of about $160,000 and an array of designer clothing
- Canali ties, Hugo Boss knitwear, Louis Vuitton shoes and an Etienne
Aigner jacket. The two men shopped together at high-fashion boutiques,
though only one paid the bills...  (Prior to the ANC takeover, while
South Africa strictly licensed the ownership of firearms, licenses
were available, regardless of race. Now everything is being done to
disarm everyday citizens while violent crime is rampant.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/africa/03safrica.html?_r=1&ref=world
---

NRA-ILA Alerts: List members are encouraged to check the alerts for
the week, posted on the NRA-ILA website.

http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx
---

Tangentially Related: A federal court has ruled unconstitutional an
attempt by New Mexico politicians to regulate the political free
speech of activists working to hold their elected officials
accountable to the people. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
District in Denver, Colo., ruled that New Mexico Youth Organized could
not be classified as a political organization subject to government
regulation simply because it advocates political issues and educates
the public on how lawmakers vote on those issues. The Tenth Circuit's
holding is significant," explains a statement from The James Madison
Center for Free Speech, which filed an amicus brief in the case,
"because it limits government's ability to regulate organizations as
full-fledged political committees, thereby imposing on them all the
burdens – including registration, extensive recordkeeping requirements
and extensive reporting requirements – that go along with being a
political committee."As the Supreme Court has explained, these burdens
are so onerous that many organizations, rather than complying with
them, will just forego their political speech," the Center explains.
"This is at odds with the Supreme Court's repeated holdings that
political speech is at the very core of what the First Amendment
protects." ...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=174137

Thursday, July 1, 2010

07-01-10

by permission from Stephen P. Wenger
http:/www.spw-duf.info
comments in () by the same


Justice Thomas on the RKBA: …Referring to the disarming of blacks
during the post-Reconstruction era, Thomas wrote: "It was the 'duty'
of white citizen 'patrols to search negro houses and other suspected
places for firearms.' If they found any firearms, the patrols were to
take the offending slave or free black 'to the nearest justice of the
peace' whereupon he would be 'severely punished.' " Never again,
Thomas says. In a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of
black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto, he goes on to
say, "Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White
Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76
Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for
self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect
themselves from mob violence." This was no muttering from an Uncle
Tom, as many black people have accused him of being. His advocacy for
black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X. He even
cites the slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner - implying
that white America has long wanted to take guns away from black people
out of fear that they would seek revenge for centuries of racial
oppression. Of course, Thomas's references to historic threats posed
by white militias might have been dismissed if not for a resurgence of
such groups in the year after Barack Obama's election as the nation's
first black president… (Consider the source – a Progressive columnist
for The Washington Post.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905329.html

…Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed, "It is clear that
the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the
right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary
to our system of ordered liberty." Alito also wrote, "The Fourteenth
Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully
applicable to the States." Justice Thomas, in a separate opinion,
argued a different constitutional rationale, saying, "[The] Due
Process Clause, which speaks only to 'process,' cannot impose the type
of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts.
Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the
States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by
§1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: 'No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States.'" … (Recall that Gura,
McDonald's counsel, attempted to argue Privileges and Immunities but
the Court, seemingly already having decided which way the majority
would rule, chose to give the previously uninvolved NRA half the time
for oral argument, so that its counsel could argue for the Due Process
rationale.)

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2010/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-second-amendment-rights/

The Dissent: … In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul
Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia
Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines
democracy. If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the
people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their
elected representatives. What if the people want to ban books that
offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to
conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also
foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by
way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure
democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes
the majority does not decide… Second Amendment rights are different,
Breyer says, because "determining the constitutionality of a
particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex
empirically based questions." So does weighing the claims in favor of
banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing
the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence, or allowing
warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs, or infrared surveillance…

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/30/gun-shy

Thomas Sowell Weighs In: Now that the Supreme Court of the United
States has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means
that individual Americans have a right to bear arms, what can we
expect? Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect
a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now
that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who
think we shouldn't be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or
decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not
likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions
about how to defend ourselves… As for the merits or demerits of gun
control laws themselves, a vast amount of evidence, both from the
United States and from other countries, shows that keeping guns out of
the hands of law-abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands
of criminals. It is not uncommon for a tightening of gun control laws
to be followed by an increase - not a decrease - in gun crimes,
including murder. Conversely, there have been places and times where
an increase in gun ownership has been followed by a reduction in
crimes in general and murder in particular… We hear a lot about
countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States that
have lower murder rates. But we very seldom hear about countries with
stronger gun control laws than the United States that have higher
murder rates, such as Russia and Brazil. The media, like Justice
Breyer, might do well to reflect on what is their job and what is the
voting public's job. The media's job should be to give us the
information to make up our own minds, not slant and filter the news to
fit the media's vision.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/06/29/gun_control_laws

Wishful Thinking?: When the Supreme Court extended the individual
right to own a gun Monday, it  handed Second Amendment advocates -
many of whom are at home in the GOP - one of their most significant
legal victories ever. But who won the day in politics? The Democrats.
For them, the court's groundbreaking decision couldn't have been more
beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across
the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign
trail. And they won't have to defend Republican attacks over gun
rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners. "It removes guns as
a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second
Amendment is an individual right, and everybody agrees that it's
subject to regulation," said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the
culture program at centrist think tank Third Way…

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html

A Clearer View: … So the gun control issue is plainly not
"neutralized" for Democrats since that party has a platform that calls
for reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban, nominates federal
judges who do not recognize the Second Amendment as an individual
right, and offers candidates that typically favor more stringent gun
control laws than their Republican counterparts at all levels of
government.

http://www.thegunzone.com/TGZBlog/2010/06/29/how-will-mcdonald-help-democrats-in-the-november-election/
---

Kagan's RKBA Charade: When it came time for her to question Supreme
Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) took on
two of the most emotional issues that come before the Court.
Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, first brought up gun
rights. She noted that cities in her state are plagued with gun
violence, much of it involving innocent bystanders, and she recalled
the 1978 killing of San Francisco politician Harvey Milk, whom she
found shot to death in Milk's office. "I come at the subject of guns a
bit differently than most of my colleagues. I think I've seen too
much," Feinstein said. Why, she asked Kagan, should the Supreme
Court's two recent rulings on gun rights be considered settled law if
they were both decided 5-4? "Once the Court decides a case, it becomes
binding precedent," Kagan replied. She added that the Court should
overturn precedent only in specific circumstances, and "unless one can
point to one of those reasons for reversing a precedent, the operating
principle of our legal system is that one respects precedent."  …
(Sounds to me like a "softball question," intended only for
misdirection. I'd love to get Feinstein under oath and ask her about
her exceptional CWP from the City and County of San Franciscio and
allegations that she sought to be deputized as a Special Deputy US
Marshal, when she first hit DC, so that she would be able to carry
nationwide [http://www.justice.gov/olc/depmar.htm].)

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/06/kagan-treads-carefully-on-guns-abortion.html

…In one exchange, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Kagan her
personal views on two recent major rulings that recognized individual
gun rights: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v.
Chicago, decided Monday. "Do you believe in them as settled law
personally?" Grassley asked. "I do think that those decisions are
settled law and are entitled to any weight that the Supreme Court
has," Kagan replied. "Will you follow stare decisis with respect to
Heller and McDonald?" Grassley pressed. "I would follow stare decisis
with respect to Heller and McDonald as I would with any case," Kagan
said, leaving room for the interpretation that she might be willing to
overturn them… (Stare decisis, for those unfamiliar with the term, is
the rule of thumb in jurisprudence to avoid overturning prior
decisions, in order to maintain some semblance of stability in the
legal system. The overturning of a prior Supreme Court decision is
considered to be exceptional.)

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202463138355&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20100630NLJ&kw=Kagan%20faces%20tough%20questions%20from%20Republicans

…In her second and final day of questioning, Kagan, like nominees
before her, was unabashed in refusing to say how she would rule in
cases. At several points, she relished the idea that her votes might
be unpredictable, praising the independence of the late Justice Robert
Jackson and noting that Justice Antonin Scalia often supports the
rights of criminal defendants even though he's a conservative… And
under questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), she resisted the
suggestion that her own views about abortion affected her work on the
issue in the Clinton White House. "I was, at all times, trying to
ensure that President Clinton's views and objectives in this area were
carried forward," Kagan said. "I just quite frankly am surprised to
hear you say that," Graham replied. "If I had the chance to serve at
that level, I'd do everything I could to push the law in my
direction." Kagan repeatedly refused as well to define the terms -
including "activist judge" and "reactionary" - that senators used to
debate the role of judges…

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202463173331&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20100701NLJ&kw=Kagan%20refuses%20to%20say

… There are two big problems with Kagan's remarks: she inaccurately
describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare
decisis are meaningless. The "Miller" decision said that the Second
Amendment protected civilian use of firearms that are used in the
military and that a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon. But
the court went no farther in explaining the right. There was no
discussion of the modern liberal view of a "collective right." The
very short opinion didn't say if there was an individual right to own
military weapons. The issues were never addressed. However, Kagan's
argument is precisely what Justice Stevens wrote about when he and the
other liberal Supreme Court justices opposed "Heller." They claimed
that "Miller" was the real precedent and that there was no individual
right to own a gun. Stevens asserted that "Heller" and "McDonald" were
the real aberrations from court precedent. Kagan's statement surely
shows that she also believes the "Heller" decision broke with past
precedent. Saying that "Heller" and "McDonald" are "entitled to all
the precedent that any decision is entitled to" also means that her
strained interpretation of Miller is entitled to the same precedent.
Obama's first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, looked no better.
For instance, in one of her decisions as an appeals court judge, she
argued that the Second Amendment would not block any gun-control laws
as long as the politicians passing the laws thought the weapon was
"designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim
or, in some instances, kill." In other words, as long as politicians
think that they are doing the right thing, even if totally misguided,
these good intentions trump any individual right to bear arms…

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/30/john-lott-elena-kagan-sonia-sotomayor-gun-ownernship-self-defense-second/

The National Rifle Association is opposing Elena Kagan's nomination to
the Supreme Court and warning senators that it will take their votes
into account when considering endorsing their re-election. In a letter
sent to leading senators Thursday, top NRA officials say Kagan has
"repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility" to gun rights in her
career in government and academia. The NRA also opposed Justice Sonia
Sotomayor's confirmation last year. Sotomayor was among the four
dissenters in the high court's decision last week that limits state
and local gun restrictions. (The NRA could have taken the same
principled stand against the DISCLOSE Act but, when it was offered an
exemption, withdrew its opposition.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070102830.html

Speaking of Sotomayor…: Perhaps the most startling aspect of the
Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters'
assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice
Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state
and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for
overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment
into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined
the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and
the American people last summer. Regarding the key issue in McDonald -
whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable
against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely
refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against
incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not
inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller,
her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer. The
Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be
overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second
Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: "I understand the individual
right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I
understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many
Americans." …

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/sotomayor-targets-guns-now/
---

Speaking of the NRA…: Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle
Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun
champion Sharron Angle. Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout
the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT
deal. Then this week, RedState broke the story of the "gag order" the
NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination. Now, I'm
getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing
Harry Reid,even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote
on Kagan - something that was not a sure thing [emphasis added to put
RedState reporting into perspective]. Why would they do this? Why
would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has
demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes
and his leadership? Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the
DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out,
Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County,
Nevada…

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/01/nra-now-leans-toward-endorsing-harry-reid/
---

Meanwhile, in Chicago…: Chicagoans should be limited to one handgun
for every eligible person living in a home - and gun dealers should be
banned within the city limits - in the wake of the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision to shoot down the city's handgun ban, the city's top
lawyer said today. One day after Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation
handgun ban was rendered unenforceable, Corporation Counsel Mara
Georges argued that it's "critical to public safety" to at least draw
the line on the number of handguns in Chicago. "One handgun is
sufficient for self-defense. We believe that a limitation on the
number of handguns to one-per-person-per-residence would be consistent
with Supreme Court" rulings overturning handgun bans in Chicago and
Washington D.C., Georges told the City Council's Police Committee.
Limiting the number of handguns to one-per-person would reduce the
number of handguns in circulation, reduce the ability of people to act
as straw purchasers of handguns for others who are not entitled to
possess handgun and reduce the number of handguns that would be
available to children in the home." … (Unfortunately, these people are
so nonsensical that it would not surprise me to learn that they also
support similar restrictions on the ownership of automobiles.)

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2445270,new-city-gun-regulations-062910.article

After the Supreme Court ruled that cities and states must respect the
right of individuals to own handguns for self-defense, Chicago Mayor
Richard M. Daley declared the justices to be divorced from reality.
"They don't seem to appreciate the full scope of gun violence in
America," he charged. Daley is right. They couldn't possibly
comprehend it as well as he does. Nor could the 80-year-old West Sider
who awoke one recent morning to find an armed man breaking into his
home - and killed him, with a firearm prohibited by the Chicago
handgun ban. Not long after, another intruder was shot by a homeowner
wielding a revolver. But really: Whose judgment about the value of
guns to law-abiding citizens do you trust? Ordinary people defending
their homes against criminals? Or a public official who is shepherded
to work each day by police officers? …

http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2010/07/01/chicago_gun_control_the_sequel
---

Are Nunchaku Covered by the RKBA?: Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent
Maloney v. Rice - the challenge to New York's nunchaku ban - back to
the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit had initially rejected the
challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment was inapplicable to
states. Now it will probably have to decide whether nunchaku count as
"arms" for Second Amendment purposes. For my analysis of what "arms"
should mean, and for citations of opinions on whether weapons other
than firearms should qualify under state constitutional
right-to-bear-arms provisions, see PDF pp. 19–23 of my Nonlethal
Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To
Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199 (2009)… (Note
that Maloney v. Rice was one of the cases in which Justice Sotomayor
had ruled against the RKBA, prior to her confirmation to the Supreme
Court. Nunchaku are one of the few prohibited weapon in Arizona, along
with unregistered NFA firearms.)

http://volokh.com/2010/06/30/are-nunchaku-arms-for-second-amendment-purposes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29
---

"Emergency" Infringements Challenged in North Carolina: Grass Roots
North Carolina has joined Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, Forrest
Minges, Jr., and the Second Amendment Foundation in a lawsuit against
the state's emergency powers gun ban… Filed in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, the official title is Bateman
et al v. Perdue et al, Case No. 5:10-cv-265. It contends that state
statutes forbidding carrying of firearms and ammunition during
declared states of emergency, as well as laws enabling government
officials to prohibit purchase, sale and possession of firearms and
ammunition are unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of
Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday's Supreme Court ruling
in McDonald v. Chicago. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan
Gura, who won the recent McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case and
the landmark D.C. v. Heller case preceding it. Local counsel includes
Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard, LLC…

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d29-Gun-rights-legal-battle-shifts-to-North-Carolina
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=329
---

Discreet Restaurant Carry Now Legal in Virginia: Gun advocates across
the state plan a series of celebrations Thursday toasting a new law
that will allow people with concealed handgun permits to bring hidden
firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol. The Richmond-area
celebration is scheduled to take place at O'Charley's restaurant on
Mayland Drive off Gaskins Road in western Henrico County at 7 p.m.,
according to the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which expects more
than 80 permit holders to attend. Collectively, several hundred gun
owners are expected to assemble at seven celebrations, including
eateries in Charlottesville, Norfolk, Woodbridge, Reston, Vinton, and
Yorktown… People who legally carry firearms openly already may enter
restaurants that serve alcohol and may drink. But until today, a
holder of a concealed handgun permit could not bring a concealed
firearm into any restaurant that served alcohol… The new law prohibits
concealed handgun carriers from consuming alcohol in a bar or
restaurant. A restaurant owner may refuse service to gun carriers and
prohibit them from entering with their weapons, concealed or not. A
concealed gun carrier who violates the law by consuming alcohol can be
charged with a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in
jail and a $1,000 fine. Gun owners can also be charged with
trespassing for brining their weapons into establishments that post
signs prohibiting them…

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/state_regional/article/as_of_thursday_concealed_guns_allowed_in_bars/22465/
---

Oops, Wrong Apartment: A maintenance man at a Forestville apartment
complex shot and killed a home invader Monday morning after the
intruder forced the man into his apartment and fired a gun at him,
police and law enforcement sources said. The maintenance man was able
to retrieve his own gun inside his apartment and return fire, fatally
wounding the intruder, law enforcement sources said. Police said that
the maintenance man had not been charged criminally and that the
shooting in the 4400 block of Rena Road appeared to be self-defense.
"The victim . . . had a weapon inside the home that he used to shoot
the suspect," said Cpl. Mike Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Prince
George's County [MD] Police Department. "We believe that the victim
had every right to defend himself." The shooting occurred on the same
day that the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in an Illinois case, confirmed
the fundamental right of all Americans to bear arms…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805013.html
---

Oops, Wrong Car: A thief, dressed for the winter and rummaging through
a car outside a Glasgow [DE] residence late Tuesday, had the tables
turned on him when he was held at gunpoint by the resident he was
stealing from until police arrived, officials said today… The incident
unfold about 11:50 p.m. in front of a home in the 100 block of Michael
Lane in the Caravel Woods community, where officers were called to
investigate a theft in progress, said police spokesman Senior Cpl.
Trinidad Navarro. An investigation revealed that the victim's wife saw
a man dressed in a black knit cap, winter gloves, a scarf and goggles
breaking into their car out front and told her husband. The husband,
meanwhile, armed himself with a gun and confronted the thief, who was
still inside his car. The husband ordered the thief to lie face down
in the driveway at gunpoint until officers arrived to arrest him,
Navarro said. The thief, identified by police as Lake, had a black bag
with him containing a crow bar, retractable knife, needle nose pliers
and a black ski mask in addition to eight oxycodone pills and drug
paraphernalia. At the time of his arrest, Lake had several items
belonging to the victim in his possession, Navarro said… (In many
jurisdictions the threat of deadly force to prevent the commission of
a mere property crime would not have been justified and could have
exposed the victim to prosecution.)

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100630/NEWS/100630035/Cops-Glasgow-resident-captures-thief
---

Oops, Wrong House, South Carolina Version: A man who deputies say
burglarized a home got more than he bargained for when the gun-toting,
tough-talking homeowner caught and held him until deputies showed up.
Ken Easler, 73, said he went into his home on Jones Road before
heading to the farmer's market on Saturday morning when he heard
someone inside the house. "I was taking produce to the market," he
said. "I was going in the house to get something to drink." Easler
said when he went into the house, he heard someone upstairs. He
grabbed his gun and waited for the person to come downstairs. "I put
the clip in and jacked one in the chamber, and when I did, he had
already started down the steps. He sat down. He sat down and held onto
the rail… "(He) started saying stuff like, 'I had to use the bathroom
so bad. I had to use your bathroom. I was walking down the road and I
had this big urge to use that bathroom.'" But Easler wasn't having it.
"I told him, you know, 'You'd better shut up and don't make any sudden
moves.'" Easler ushered him through the house at gunpoint. "I put him
in the bathroom and I told him, I said, 'If you close the door,' I
said, 'I'm going to fill it full of bullet holes, so don't close the
door.' … Deputies said when they arrived, they found Easler pointing
his gun at a man, later identified as Douglas Nickerson, who was lying
on the bathroom floor… (All's well that ends well but I wouldn't have
taken the chance of marching the burglar to the bathroom – he would
have been offered a shower and a change of clothes in jail. It's risky
enough holding someone stationary at gunpoint, much less as he's
walking through a home.)

http://www.wyff4.com/news/24068226/detail.html
---

Oops, Wrong House, Texas Version: Two would-be burglars are in police
custody thanks to the quick actions of a 15-year-old. One suspect is
in jail, and the other is at Memorial Hermann Hospital. Kinzy Evans,
17, is still hospitalized. Charges against him are pending. The second
suspect, a 16-year-old male juvenile, has been charged with burglary.
Investigators say they aren't sure whether Evans is going to make it.
He was shot in both his legs and face by a 15-year-old who detectives
say feared for his safety and the safety of his sister. It happened at
a home on Royal Place Court in northwest Harris County at around
2:30pm Tuesday… Deputies say the suspects broke into the home through
a back window. From upstairs, the 15-year-old -- who was home with his
12-year-old sister - heard the breaking glass and grabbed his father's
automatic rifle. The burglary was soon over. Family members rushed to
the home, but the children's father, Vince Guerra, had beaten them all
there. He's a Harris County Pct. 1 deputy constable and was on duty
when it happened. No wonder his son knew what to do. "We don't try to
hide things from our children, and we try to give them a perspective
about the way things are," Harris County Sheriff's Office Lt. Jeff
Stauber said… (While Texas constables are primarily officers of the
courts, in many areas the constables contract with communities,
typically in unincorporated areas, to provide additional police
protection.)

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7528124
---

Oops, Wrong Parking Lot: Three people were shot Monday evening in the
parking lot of a Rally's restaurant in the 2800 block of South
Jefferson Avenue, near the intersection with Gravois. A brief gunfight
erupted about 6:20 p.m. between two men armed with handguns and a
26-year-old man they were attempting to rob, St. Louis [MO] police Lt.
John Green said. The two would-be robbers were shot by the intended
victim. One of the men, 33, was shot in the head. His apparent
accomplice, 32, was shot in the abdomen, police said. The man shot in
the head was in critical condition Tuesday at a local hospital. The
man shot in the abdomen was listed as serious. The intended holdup
victim was shot in both legs. He was treated at a local hospital and
released. The victim fired first at the robbers, who returned fire,
police said. It all began when the would-be robbers approached a
couple sitting in their car in the parking lot and jumped into the
back seat of the car. The male victim got out and fired at the
robbers. A 22-year-old woman in the passenger seat was not hurt,
police said… Green said the incident indicates suspects are getting
bolder, considering the robbery attempt happened near a busy street
before sundown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/article_20e22686-8314-11df-9958-00127992bc8b.html
---

Oops, Wrong Store, North Carolina Version: Moore County deputies say a
convenience store holdup turned into a shootout between the alleged
robbers and a store clerk's husband. It happened at the Exxon Stop at
the intersection of U.S. 1 and Camp Easter Road in the Lakeview
Community - just south of Vass, N.C - a little before 10:30 Monday
night. Deputies say clerk Grace Kelly - who is in her 70s - was
closing the store for the night when several men walked in and tried
to rob it. Kelly's husband - 78-year-old Angus Kelly - was in the
parking lot waiting for his wife and came to her aid with a shotgun.
Moore County Sheriff Lane Carter told ABC11 Angus Kelly fired on the
robbers hitting one in the face. In the resulting gunfight, both Kelly
and his wife were wounded… Angus Kelly was listed in stable condition
at UNC Hospitals. Grace Kelly was treated and released from Moore
Regional Hospital for a gunshot wound to the arm. Despite the wound,
she was able to drive to Chapel Hill to be with her husband who
underwent surgery Tuesday morning. Sheriff Carter said his deputies
used surveillance video from the store to help identify suspects in
the attempted robbery. After a two hour search of the area,
17-year-old Randy Joel Williams of 350 Shaw Ave., Southern Pines N.C.
was found in a wooded area about a half mile from the shooting. He had
a gunshot wound to the face. He was taken to Moore Regional Hospital
where was listed in critical condition after surgery…

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7526795
---

Oops, Wrong Store, Ohio Version: Surveillance cameras were rolling as
the owner of a carry-out in Elyria faced a life and death struggle,
when a would-be robber tried to force his way into the store Monday
morning. The man eventually succeeded in getting through the door in
the drive-thru, but the owner had a surprise for him, a gun she
carries in her hip pocket. She tells Fox 8 "I reacted as fast as I
could, trying to put a barrier between him and I saw him breaking
through that door and I shot him." Once the tables have [sic]  been
turned on the bandit, he ran away. The owner does not want to to be
identified but says her store had been held up earlier this month, and
she was acting on instinct when she fired at the suspect. She says "it
was 'you're not getting me, this ain't happening to me again, I'm not
going to allow you to take this from me' and basically it was
survival, I was trying not to get killed." Customers who ask about the
shattered glass in the door, are learning how the owner defended her
business. The regulars are now calling her Annie "get your gun"
Oakley… She tells Fox 8 "you don't know who you're robbing, you better
beware because you don't know, we don't all come into business totally
blind, we know what we're getting ourselves into and you caught the
wrong person, I was prepared." Investigators believe the man was
wounded and may be seeking medical attention. (Surveillance video
footage is posted.)

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-elyria-robbery-txt,0,6139707.story
---

Homicide Charge Dismissed: A Richmond [VA] judge dismissed a homicide
case yesterday at the request of prosecutors, who have concluded that
last month's shooting of Jameal Smith was an act of self-defense.
Authorities have reclassified the case as a justified killing, which
lowers from 20 to 19 the total number of homicides that Richmond
police are reporting for this year. Yesterday, Judge David Eugene
Cheek Sr. of Richmond General District Court dismissed a murder charge
against Andre Russell Harvin, 51, in the death of his girlfriend's
son, Jameal Smith, 18. Smith was shot and killed May 27 in the home
his mother shared with Harvin in the 5500 block of Euclid Avenue in
the city's Fulton area. Police learned during their investigation that
Smith had been demanding money from Harvin over the past couple of
months so that Smith could buy drugs, said Richmond Deputy
Commonwealth's Attorney Learned Barry. On the day of the killing,
Harvin and Smith's mother refused to give Smith any more money, which
angered Smith and prompted him to force his way into the house about
10:30 p.m., Barry said. "He kicks the door in. He's got a knife. He
rushes Mr. Harvin," Barry said. Harvin shot Smith with a handgun that
Smith's mother had given Harvin that evening, Barry said. Smith died
at the scene… (The particular significance of this report is that some
prohibitionist groups, such as VPC, use news reports of arrests as
"statistics," rather than waiting for the outcome of each case.)

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jul/01/DISM01-ar-261185/
---

Rule Three Reminder: A man trying to join his wife who was in labor at
UNM Hospital (UNMH) may have missed the birth after accidentally
shooting 6 people in the lobby. UNM Hospital is in the center of UNM's
main campus in northeast Albuquerque. The man was waiting in line
inside the emergency room, and police say he was fiddling with Inside
Taylor's pocket was a snub-nosed .357. "It's a pretty powerful
pistol," Lt. Robert Haarhues with UNM Police said… There are clear
signs saying no guns. Lovett says the man made a strange move, "He
went to reach and pull it out of his pocket like he thought 'Oh my God
I forgot'". Lovett then laid the timeline for what happened next, "All
of the sudden it just went off… People were going 'What was that? What
the heck was that?... The guy looked at my girlfriend looked at myself
and he turned around and walked out the door. He said excuse me and he
turned around and walked out the door". Lovett says security guards
were confused, but once they realized a bullet had been fired they
starting looking for the shooter. Lovett said he pointed towards the
exit and police followed the man. Six people in line were hit by
bullet fragments. Lovett's girlfriend's sister was in the leg… (Rule
Three: Keep your finger out of the trigger guard, up on the frame,
until your sights are on the target and you're prepared to fire.)

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/man-accidentally-shoots-6-at-unmh

Followers

Blog Archive