Category: Law & Order

Brady Hopping Mad That Feds Won’t Violate Federal Law to Further Their Name-And-Shame Campaign.

The Brady gun control group is hopping mad that their “name-and-shame” charade no longer enjoys government support. They’re so mad, in fact, the group is suing to force the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to violate federal law, risk law enforcement safety and release data so they can twist a media narrative to falsely accuse firearm retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Brady filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the DOJ and ATF to answer their Freedom of Information Act request for information surrounding the Demand Letter 2 Program. That program, begun during the antigun Clinton administration, requires firearm retailers to provide additional information to the ATF when 25 or more firearms are traced back to them subsequent to the recovery at a crime scene and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less (what ATF calls “time-to-crime”) in a calendar year.

This information is protected from public release, and for good reason. The Tiahrt rider, which has been reauthorized by Congress since it was passed in 2003, restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, ATF and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk.

Brady would rather have their media “name-and-shame” narrative instead of protecting the lives of law enforcement investigating illegal firearm trafficking cases.

Protecting Against Abuse, Law Enforcement Lives

Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan wrote of the importance of safeguarding firearm trace data and not using this information as a political football.

Continue reading “”

Justice Department investigating Philadelphia for possible Second Amendment violations in gun permitting process

The City of Philadelphia and its police department are under a federal investigation for possible violations of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

The investigation is focused on the Philadelphia Police Department’s policies and practices for issuing and revoking gun permits, and the standards used to cancel permits to carry firearms, DOJ said in a news release. The investigation is being handled by the Second Amendment Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

DOJ said Philadelphia police may be using a “good cause” standard — which the department called “vague, personal discretion” — when deciding whether or not to issue or revoke someone’s gun permit.

Where the investigation stands

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Mayor Cherelle Parker and other city officials, including Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel on Tuesday announcing the investigation.

The Second Amendment Section will seek to interview city and PPD officials, and people who have interacted with PPD in the past.

If the investigation finds the city committed Second Amendment violations, the city could then make a deal with the DOJ and establish a plan to remedy the violations, Dhillon wrote. If there’s no resolution, the city could face litigation in federal court.

CBS News Philadelphia has reached out to Parker’s office for comment, and we will update this story when we hear back.

What is the “good cause” standard?

The terms “good cause” or “proper cause” refer to gun laws across the nation that require applicants for gun permits to prove or demonstrate a need to protect themselves.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” standard when it ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — a case commonly abbreviated as “Bruen.”

More Virginia Counties Announce They Won’t Enforce Spanberger’s ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban

While Virginia’s bans on “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds was signed into law on May 14, and is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, it remains to be seen if the bans actually go into effect, and if they do, whether and where they will actually be enforced in the Old Dominion.

As we reported the day Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the clearly unconstitutional ban on some of the most popular firearms and magazines in America, NRA, working with other organizations and two individuals, immediately filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint argues that Virginia’s bans are unconstitutional because they prohibit many of the most commonly possessed arms in the nation. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, a ban on arms “in common use” violates the Second Amendment.

NRA, working again with others, filed a separate suit that same day that challenges the new law in state court. That complaint argues that the bans violate the arms guarantee in Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. It further contends that, because the Virginia Supreme Court has interpreted that provision as coextensive with the Second Amendment, it bars prohibitions on commonly-owned arms.

There have been other legal challenges to these bans, and there may soon be one coming from the Trump administration’s Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has been leading the charge to file federal challenges to a number of anti-gun laws that violate the protections enshrined in the Second Amendment.

After it was announced that the Virginia bans had been signed, Dhillon quickly posted to X, “See you in court!”

 


How quickly the courts will act on these challenges is anybody’s guess, and regardless of what decisions are handed down, it’s unlikely any of them will be resolved until every step of the appeals process in either the federal or state courts is exhausted. If the courts rule in favor of the Second Amendment or the Virginia arms guarantee, anti-gun Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones will surely appeal. And if any ruling goes the other way, NRA and others will appeal.

Continue reading “”

More Virginia prosecutors oppose gun ban enforcement

(The Center Square) – A growing number of Virginia prosecutors and sheriffs are publicly signaling they do not plan to enforce or prosecute certain violations under the commonwealth’s new assault firearms restrictions before the law takes effect July 1.

The expanding list of statements follows earlier opposition from several commonwealth’s attorneys after Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 217 in May.

The law prohibits the future import, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of assault firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Existing owners are grandfathered under the law.

Violations are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor carrying up to 12 months in jail and fines up to $2,500. A conviction also carries a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing or transporting firearms.

Since The Center Square’s earlier reporting on the issue, additional prosecutors and sheriffs across Virginia have issued public statements, formal memorandums and joint letters raising constitutional concerns and signaling they may decline prosecution under portions of the law.

In Clarke County, Sheriff Travis M. Sumption and Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew E. Bass issued a joint statement saying charges and prosecutions under the new statutes “will not be enforced in Clarke County against nonviolent offenders, where no other criminal conduct is alleged.”

The statement cited constitutional concerns, pending litigation and limited local resources.

In Warren County, Commonwealth’s Attorney John S. Bell issued a formal memorandum stating his office would not prosecute law-abiding citizens for the possession, purchase, sale, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or magazines that were lawful before the legislation took effect, pending constitutional challenges.

Bell also wrote his office would not devote resources to prosecuting charges brought solely under the assault firearms ban or related public carry restrictions.

Goochland County Commonwealth’s Attorney John Lumpkins Jr. similarly wrote that his office would “decline to initiate or pursue prosecutions” based on alleged violations of Senate Bill 749.

In Appomattox County, Commonwealth’s Attorney Leslie Fleet wrote in a public statement that he and the county sheriff were “in total agreement” they would not enforce the assault weapons and public carry bans because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt also publicly raised constitutional concerns and cited prosecutorial discretion under Virginia law in a May 29 statement to residents.

Other prosecutors previously identified by The Center Square included officials in Powhatan, Spotsylvania, Pulaski, Smyth and Scott counties.

Democrats and statewide officials have criticized the pushback.

Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones previously said commonwealth’s attorneys are expected to enforce Virginia law when the restrictions take effect July 1.

“Gun violence is a key driver of violent crime, and the leading cause of death for young people in our Commonwealth,” Rae Pickett, a spokeswoman for Jones’ office, previously told The Center Square. “The General Assembly passed critical legislation to reduce violent crime and protect our communities and the Governor signed it into law. Commonwealth’s attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”

Multiple lawsuits seeking to block the firearms restrictions before July 1 remain pending in both state and federal court.

Gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation have filed separate legal challenges arguing the law violates constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.

More Virginia Prosecutors, Sheriffs Say They Won’t Enforce ‘Assault Firearm’ Ban

Multiple lawsuits have been filed in both state and federal court since Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill outlawing the sale, manufacture, and transfers of so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, as well as another measure prohibiting the carrying of “assault firearms” in most public spaces. Spanberger is also facing an enforcement challenge in addition to the legal challenges, with a growing number of county sheriffs and Commonwealth Attorneys declaring their intent not to enforce the new laws if they take effect on July 1.

Earlier this week I reported on two prosecutors who’ve publicly stated they have no plans on enforcing the laws against peaceable citizens. That number has grown to at least five Commonwealth Attorneys who serve Spotsylvania County, Smyth County, Powhatan County, Pulaski County, and Scott County.

I reached out to Buckingham County Commonwealth Attorney Kemper Beasley III for comment, and late Thursday night I head back from the prosecutor, who told Bearing Arms:

My responsibility and duty as Commonwealth’s Attorney for Buckingham County is to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.

Both documents protect individual’s rights to bear arms, and recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have helped clarify that right and I anticipate will eventually overturn recent legislation passed in our state.

That definitely sounds like Beasley doesn’t plan on enforcing the law, but I have sent a followup asking him directly if that is, in fact, the case.

Continue reading “”

Good Guy with Gun Helped Stop Cambridge Shooter

A former Marine “who was legally carrying a gun” helped Massachusetts State Police stop and apprehend a man shooting at cars in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Monday, according to Police1.

Breitbart News reported that the alleged attacker, 46-year-old Tyler Brown, opened fire on cars on Cambridge’s Memorial Drive around 1:30 p.m. CBS News noted that Brown was allegedly shooting at “passing cars” before being shot numerous times by a Massachusetts State Trooper.

On Tuesday, WHAS 11 pointed out that the officer did not act alone. They noted, “A State Trooper and a Marine veteran were nearby, jumping into action and shooting the suspect.”

NBC 10 observed that a witness said the former Marine came to her car at some point during the ordeal and shielded her so she could escape.

The witness said, “A man came, went around his car and pulled open my car door and made like a barricade. He had a gun and he told me to run, and I ran and then I just ran as fast as I could.”

Two individuals suffered life-threatening wounds from Monday’s attack.

Virginia Governor Gets Bad News on Background Check Bill

Since the Virginia General Assembly approved a revised version of the bill last week, there’s been a whole lot of confusion about Virginia’s HB 1525, which raises the age to purchase handguns from 18 to 21 and requires the Virginia State Police to resume conducting background checks on private sales. Governor Abigail Spanberger’s amended version contained language that declared the act an emergency, which would allow it to take effect immediately, but the legislature did not approve the changes with a 4/5ths vote, which is supposedly what’s required in order for that “emergency” provision to be adopted.

The Virginia legislative website lists the effective date for HB 1525 as July 1, but the Virginia State Police put out a notice on Tuesday that declared the law is already in effect. That was the good news for Spanberger.

The bad news? The VSP won’t be resuming background checks on private sales of firearms anytime soon… at least not without a court order.

Gun Owners of America and VCDL had threatened to seek contempt charges against the head of the VSP if they abided by Spanberger’s edict, and it looks like the VSP didn’t see that as an idle threat.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to HB 1525; a ban on those under 18 from possessing handguns and “assault firearms” except under limited circumstances, the ban on handgun and “assault firearm” sales to adults under the age of 21, and the edict to the VSP to start enforcing the enjoined universal background check law. The only portion of the law that the state police say will not be enforced is the section of law regarding background checks on private sales of firearms, and as far as the agency is concerned it’s now against the law for a 20-year-old to purchase an AR-15 in Virginia, even through a private sale.

Of course, as of July 1 it will be illegal for any adult over the age of 21 to purchase an AR-15 too. The sale ban wasn’t the primary motivation for HB 1525. It was the restoration of the state’s universal background check law, and the VSP just said that isn’t happening until a judge tells the agency it can resume enforcement.

So what will that take? The case cited by VSP has concluded, with then-Attorney General Jason Miyares declining to appeal the decision. Current AG Jay Jones attempted to intervene before he took office, but the Virginia Court of Appeals shut down that effort fairly quickly.

According to Virginia law:

Any court wherein an injunction has been awarded may at any time when such injunction is in force dissolve the same after reasonable notice to the adverse party, or to his attorney of record, in which notice shall be set forth the grounds upon which such dissolution will be asked, unless such grounds be set forth in an answer previously filed in the case by the party giving such notice.

Note the word “may” there. It sounds to me like Jones can ask the Lynchburg circuit judge to lift the injunction, but Judge F. Patrick Yeatts is under no obligation to abide by that request. It’s unclear whether the plaintiffs would be allowed to reply to that request or whether Yeatts could ask for additional briefings or even hold another round of oral arguments, but in any case the decision is left to the court that granted (or upheld) an injunction. This particular statute doesn’t even say that Yeatts’ decision could be appealed, though that might be covered in another part of Virginia’s statutes.

As I predicted last week, the issue of Virginia’s universal background check law is almost certainly headed back to the courts. I have no idea what the ultimate outcome will be, but at least in the short term Spanberger’s attempt to get around this court order has officially failed.

Wyoming’s Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes Despite Law Enforcement Opposition

While the current threat to our gun rights from the federal government is minimal, it was just a couple of years ago when we had to worry about all sorts of things. President Autopen was a big fan of gun control, and if he’d gotten his way, we’d just be left with nothing but double-barreled shotguns to shoot at bad guys through the door.

As a result, some pro-gun states started looking at ways to protect the gun rights of the people who live there. Missouri led the charge, and while that law ran into some judicial issues, the sentiment remains.

Wyoming, however, just passed a law that is essentially the same thing, but with a couple of tweaks, and law enforcement isn’t thrilled with this.

After a lively debate on the Wyoming House floor Thursday, a bill aimed at keeping federal agents from seizing Wyoming residents’ guns passed its final vote.

Having previously passed the Senate, Senate File 101, the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), passed the House on third reading by a vote 40 to 21.

It must pass concurrence with both chambers before heading to Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk. Gordon vetoed a similar bill during the 2025 legislative session.

If it becomes law, SAPA will forbid Wyoming law enforcement officers from assisting federal agents in seizing residents’ firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories.

It would also allow residents whose guns have been unjustly seized to seek civil damages.

‘Sword Of Damocles’

Law enforcement officials say SAPA would undermine their joint operations with federal agents on drug busts, tracking illegal immigrants and similar cases.

During debate leading up to the vote on Thursday, dissenting lawmakers reiterated law enforcement’s concerns.

Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, a retired peace officer, said the bill rests on a false premise.

“A false premise that the only way we can keep our Wyoming peace officers from violating your constitutional rights and your next-door neighbor’s constitutional rights is to hang the sword of Damocles over their heads with a $50,000 civil judgment on it,” he said.

Now, I get some of why law enforcement organizations dislike this bill. One argument against it is that an officer could well be sued for an action that was, at the time he carried it out, presumed to be constitutional, only for it to be ruled later as unconstitutional. That’s a fair concern, in my book, though I also think that maybe people need to understand that any gun control law should be presumed as unconstitutional until proven otherwise, but that’s just me.

However, Rep. Washut has a lot more faith in some of his former colleagues than I do.

I’m not anti-cop. I was raised by a police officer and around police officers. I know that most are good people who are trying to do a difficult job in a very difficult time.

But I also know that a lot of them are also likely to just keep their heads down and do what they’re told in way too many instances. That’s just human nature, and to think that every police officer in the state will do otherwise is naive, at best.

Others argued that this is a bill trying to solve an issue that simply doesn’t exist.

My response is that it may not exist at the moment, but it will exist sooner or later unless we’re very careful.

Of course, those who say this isn’t solving a real issue are the very same people who support making this a very real issue, so take that as you will.

Change in Ohio law makes murder convictions tougher when self-defense claims used

DAYTON — A 2021 change to Ohio law is making it more difficult for prosecutors to secure murder convictions when a defendant claims self-defense.

As reported on News Center 7 at 6:00, the law shifted the burden of proof to the state, requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant did not act in self-defense rather than requiring the defense to prove they did.

The impact of the legal update was recently seen in two Montgomery County murder trials that ended in acquittals for William Pointer and Anthony Perkins.

These cases come as police and prosecutors continue to navigate a system where defendants are now presumed to have acted in self-defense once the claim is raised.

Under the current Ohio statute, a defendant can claim self-defense as long as they were not the initial aggressor.

While the core definition of self-defense remains, the 2021 update changed the legal requirements during a trial.

Previously, defense attorneys carried the burden of proving that their client acted in self-defense, but the law now presumes the defendant acted in self-defense unless the state can prove otherwise.

Continue reading “”

Indianapolis Police Get It Right on First, Second Amendments

I’ve never been one to make a big deal out of Valentine’s Day, but I can think of about a million things more romantic than going out and protesting ICE with my sweetheart. I can’t imagine that an anti-ICE protest in downtown Indianapolis on Valentine’s Day is going to draw a huge crowd, but its organizers are hoping for a big turnout, include armed demonstrators.

If anyone is hoping that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will be cracking skulls and arresting those who dare exercise their First and Second Amendment rights at the same time, they’re going to be sorely disappointed.

A group called Strong Neighbor is hosting the protest at the Abraham Lincoln statue in University Park, at least partly in response to the comments by President Donald Trump and other administration officials suggesting there’s no such thing as peaceably carrying a gun at a protest after the killing of anti-ICE activist Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last month.

Strong Neighbor calls those statements “an attack and dismissal of our constitutional rights,” though the group’s broader disagreement seems to be with the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The following Monday, for instance, the group will be taking part in a “Gen Z Against ICE” protest. For those not interested in protesting, though, next weekend they’ll be hosting a “Potting Party” where attendees can “plant seeds you can take home, learn about hydroponics, and build community”. No word on whether lawfully possessed firearms will be welcome at either of those events.

In response to the planned protest, the IMPD put out a statement making it clear that there’s no conflict between the First and Second Amendment, at least from the agency’s perspective and that of state and federal law.

The presence of guns at a protest is both not a crime nor a reason for law to intervene, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department statement said.

Our team recognizes that the visible presence of firearms can make some community members uncomfortable or concerned,” the statement reads. “The IMPD recognizes and respects the constitutional rights of all members of the community to peacefully assemble and exercise free speech.”

That’s all that needs to be said, really. And so long as the “strong neighbors” who show up for the protest aren’t violent, I wish them well.

If, on the other hand, there are protesters who cross the line, as we’ve seen at another anti-ICE protest in Indiana, I suspect the IMPD is going to quickly move to take that individual into custody. Just pointing a gun at someone who’s not threatening you is a serious offense, as Ryan D. Hughes has learned. The anti-ICE demonstrator’s been charged with a felony and a misdemeanor for allegedly pointing a loaded shotgun at the driver of a van passing by the protest, as well as purportedly pepper-spraying several of his fellow protesters.

I sincerely hope that nothing like that happens in Indianapolis tomorrow, but as we’ve seen with other protests and counter-protests about ICE, they don’t just bring out the passionate. They have a tendency to bring out the nutballs as well.

Personal Defense Tip: The Castle Doctrine Isn’t Absolute.

As part of January’s general grab-bag of weirdness, a Texas man is being charged with murder after he shot an armed home intruder. I know what you’re thinking: What about the castle doctrine? Not to mention it’s Texas. So what’s going on?

The comment section on the rather vague news reports are filled with opinionated social media experts claiming this guy will be out in no time and that he should totally sue local law enforcement for wrongful imprisonment. So, what’s the truth?

The truth is the castle doctrine isn’t absolute. That means you can’t do whatever the heck you feel like in your own home. Rules, people…there are rules.

Disclaimer: As always, please remember that I’m not an attorney and this isn’t legal advice. It’s simply information (and a dose of supposition) based on experience.

Continue reading “”

Don’t do what Mr. Griffin did.

Criminal defense attorney explains manslaughter charges after suspected burglar killed

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WMC) – A man has been charged with voluntary manslaughter after admitting to police that he shot a burglary suspect.

This happened on Robin Hood Lane in Memphis this Thursday. Marques Griffin, 30, told police he heard a noise in his apartment and found a man in his living room.

According to MPD, Griffin followed the intruder outside and fired three shots as the man ran away.

The suspected burglar died at the hospital.

Phil Harvey, the owner of Harvey Criminal Defense Lawyers, said that based on Griffin’s charges, MPD and the DA’s office decided he did not have a legitimate self-defense claim.

“If it’s true that Mr. Griffin shot someone outside of the home, then there’s a question of whether or not that self-defense statute applies,” said Harvey.

Harvey said Tennessee does not have a “Stand Your Ground” law.

He said the self-defense statute is written to apply when the victim is in their home and responding to a threat who is also inside or actively coming in.

“The standard ‘no duty to retreat’ part of that statute simply says you have to have a reasonable fear of what they call ‘imminent danger,’” said Harvey.

Harvey said that means that for deadly force to be considered self-defense, the victim has to be under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Harvey said there is established case law on this type of incident.

“Tennessee v. Garner… It’s a 1985 case. A U.S. Supreme Court case that came out of Tennessee that actually dealt with whether or not police can shoot a fleeing felon. And in that case, it dealt with a burglary suspect who was running away and was shot by the police. And the federal courts decided that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Harvey.

Griffin remains behind bars on a $50,000 bond and is slated to reappear in court on Monday.

Police Search for TWO Persons of Interest in Brown University Shooting

As the search for the Brown University shooter who killed two students and injured multiple others drags on, police are now searching for a second person of interest in connection with the shooting.

Fox News reported Wednesday that the “mystery deepens” as police continue to insist they have no identity for a potential suspect. Now, Providence Police are asking for help with an individual “in proximity of the person of interest,” as seen below.

Continue reading “”

FBI stops planned New Year’s Eve Los Angeles bombing by ‘anti-capitalist,’ anti-ICE terror cell

WASHINGTON — The FBI arrested five members of an “anti-capitalist, anti-government” extremist group on Friday and charged them with an alleged plot to carry out coordinated bombings in and around Los Angeles on New Year’s Eve, according to officials and a criminal complaint.

The “credible, imminent terrorist threat” to five unidentified companies’ logistics centers in Southern California came from radical members of an offshoot of the left-wing Turtle Island Liberation Front (TILF), FBI Director Kash Patel and other law enforcement officials revealed Monday.

The splinter group called themselves the Order of the Black Lotus and passed along an “eight-page, handwritten document titled ‘OPERATION MIDNIGHT SUN’” that laid out the bombing plot to a confidential FBI source, according to a criminal complaint filed Saturday in Los Angeles federal court.

Four of the suspects were collared in Lucerne Valley in the Mojave Desert, where they were captured on video attempting to test improvised explosive devices (IEDs), Los Angeles first assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli told reporters at a news conference.
The quartet — Audrey Ilene Carroll, 30; Zachary Aaron Page, 32; Dante Gaffield, 24; and Tina Lai, 41 — have been charged with conspiracy and possession of an unregistered destructive device. A fifth unidentified suspect was arrested in New Orleans while planning a separate attack.

Carroll and Page led the group and convened a private Signal chat where they used codenames, with Carroll identified as “Asiginaak,” Page identified as “Ash Kerrigan” or “cthulu’s daughter,” Gaffield as “Nomad” and Lai as “Kickwhere.”

The group had begun assembling the “complex pipe bombs” with “homemade gunpowder” in the desert when FBI agents arrested them on Dec. 12.

Continue reading “”