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.
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.)
…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…
… 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…
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.)
"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…
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
No comments:
Post a Comment