Category: You Can’t Make This Up

IT consultant arrested after posing with gun on LinkedIn

An IT consultant was arrested by police in Britain after he posted a picture online of himself posing with a gun in the US.

Jon Richelieu-Booth said he was shocked by the “Orwellian” decision by West Yorkshire Police (WYP) to prosecute him over the social media post.

The 50-year-old said that on Aug 13 he had posted a picture of himself on LinkedIn holding a shotgun while on a private homestead with friends during a holiday in Florida.

Mr Richelieu-Booth claims the LinkedIn message contained nothing he considered threatening, with the picture attached to a lengthy post about his day and work activities.

However, he said that a police officer later visited his home to warn him that concerns had been raised about the post.

“I was told to be careful what I say online and I need to understand how it makes people feel,” he said.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said he offered to provide officers with proof that the picture of the firearm had been taken while he was in the US but the officers said that was not necessary.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said two officers then returned to his home shortly after 10pm on Aug 24 and arrested him.

Continue reading “”

Tommy Gun Chambered In 30-06 Springfield

tommy gun chambered in 30 06 springfield

The Thompson submachine gun is undoubtedly one of the most iconic SMGs of the 20th century, which proved to be an extremely effective tool whether used as a broom in the trenches of WW2 or a typewriter on the streets of Chicago. No wonder they decided to further explore the potential of its design and developed a version chambered in .30-06 Springfield. This one-of-a-kind experimental Tommy Gun in 30-06 is consigned to the upcoming December 2025 Rock Island Premier Firearms Auction.

Designed in 1943 by Auto Ordnance Corp, this beast is a select-fire rifle with a 23-inch barrel and weighing 17 pounds unloaded. It is based on a Model 1928 Thompson SMG and appears to be built on a standard trigger housing. The upper receiver is four inches longer than a standard SMG receiver to accommodate the much longer cartridge and magazines. The gun uses BAR magazines modified to hold oil pads.

Continue reading “”

CRIME Resident shoots an armed man during Miami Gardens home invasion, police say

A resident shot and wounded an armed man who broke into his Miami Gardens house Monday morning in what police are calling a home invasion. The man shot was one of three men who entered the residence at 3035 NW 204th Terrace around 11:45 a.m., police said.

Armed with a rifle, he opened the bedroom door before the resident grabbed a gun and fired, striking him in the arm, according to police.

The other two men fled. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue paramedics took the wounded man to HCA Florida Aventura Hospital.

Police, who said the alleged intruder’s condition was unknown as of Monday afternoon, have not released his name.

The shooting remains under investigation, and police did not immediately respond to follow up questions asking if the resident will face charges.

Update

Man acted in self-defense when he shot robber inside Miami Gardens house: police

A man who shot an intruder as he entered his home armed with a semi-automatic rifle Monday morning acted in self-defense, Miami Gardens police concluded.

And the man shot is now in jail facing attempted murder and home invasion charges, per his arrest report.

Around 11:40 p.m., Miami Gardens police say 18-year-old Ezekiel Manthon Leatherwood and three other men walked up to a woman sitting in her car in front of a house, at the 3000 block of NW 204th Terrace. They were armed, wearing masks and all-black clothing.

They demanded money from the woman and then forced her to let them inside the house, according to the report. A man in the house, who police did not name in Leatherwood’s arrest report, heard the woman scream and grabbed his gun, the report states.

Leatherwood kicked in the bedroom door armed with what police say was an AR-15-style rifle. When the door opened, the man, who is the woman’s boyfriend, opened fire, hitting Leatherwood in the arm, the report reads.

The other three men ran out of the house. The man held Leatherwood at gunpoint until police arrived. Before cops got there, the other men, who were near the front door, yelled at the man, demanding that he let Leatherwood go.

In response, police said the man fired shots at the men, who got into a car and drove off.

Miami-Dade Fire Rescue paramedics took Leatherwood to HCA Florida Aventura Hospital to be treated for the gunshot wound. Police eventually arrested and booked him into Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center.

Police said in their report that Leatherwood made an admission, but his statements were redacted.

As of Tuesday, a judge had not set bond on the charges.

I wonder why their Supreme Court didn’t simp0ly throw the whole case out of court and dismiss the charge. Of course, we have to remember that lawyers live on ‘billable hours’ and judges are mostly lawyers too.

Self-defense law applies to bedrooms, Arizona Supreme Court says

Arizona law allows anyone to protect themselves from an uninvited person entering their home, and according to the Arizona Supreme Court, that also includes bedrooms.

A Pima County jury found John Brown guilty of attacking a neighbor with a microphone stand after the neighbor and his girlfriend entered his room. Though Brown lived with his girlfriend, the two had separate rooms. His girlfriend had invited the neighbor, someone Brown had previously gotten into a fight with. Brown left the two of them alone and locked himself in his bedroom. His girlfriend broke open the lock, and the neighbor tried to enter the room when Brown attacked him.

At trial, Brown asked that the jury be educated on state law that allows a person to claim self-defense if they attack someone entering their residential structure uninvited. The judge denied the request, ruling that his bedroom was not a “residential structure” and that the neighbor had been invited over to the home by another person living in the home.

After being found guilty, the judge sentenced Brown to five years in prison. Brown appealed the ruling, and after losing the appeal, he asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case.

Five out of six justices disagreed with the Pima County court’s decision not to let the jury consider the residential self-defense argument.

In an opinion written by Justice James Beene, the court decided that the way the state law is written, Brown’s bedroom should have been considered a residential structure.

Three things make any space a legally recognized residential structure, according to the justices:

The space must be a structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, and adapted for human residence. It should be enclosed and have sides and a floor.
The structure also must be a place for lodging, meaning that it is a place where someone can rest or sleep.
The structure also needs to be separately securable, meaning that the entry point can be locked or secured.

Beene explained that Brown’s room fit all these points, and because he locked the room, it could be said that any person breaking into the room was uninvited.

The Arizona Supreme Court vacated Brown’s verdict and sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court for a new trial.

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
…
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.

*cough* Declaration of Independence *cough*

Image

This moron is the type of domestic enemy we swear oaths to defend the nation against. And he’s a Senator.
Since he doesn’t agree with the quotation, even though he may reside in the U.S. and even have been born here, he is not an American since these are some of the fundamental first principles the nation was founded on.

D.C. Activist Criticizes Trump for Putting Blame on Individual Criminals

Even the BBC has admitted that violent crime has fallen in Washington, D.C. since Donald Trump’s declaration of an emergency in our nation’s capital, but some local activists insist that the surge in law enforcement, including federal officers and members of the National Guard, is political theater at best, and perhaps even counterproductive.

When President Donald Trump announced his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., he conjured images of a dystopia where “caravans of mass youth rampage through city streets” to justify his heavy-handed response.

But those who study and work on preventing youth crime in the district say the president is acting on a caricature of the city, and his decision to flood the streets with soldiers will do little to solve the issue.

Nick Wilson, senior director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress, called Trump’s crackdown “political theater that is disconnected from what we’re seeing here in D.C.”

Wilson would prefer things like a national ban on so-called assault weapons, universal background checks, and a host of other gun control laws that are already in place in Washington, D.C. In fact, as we reported yesterday, federal agents have been actively enforcing some of D.C.’s draconian laws, including multiple arrests for possessing a firearm without a license. You’d think Wilson would be thrilled to see those arrests, and maybe he is, but even the staunchest gun control activists can’t publicly praise Trump without risking condemnation from their fellow liberals.

The dumbest comment in the Time article comes from a local community activist, who is incensed that Donald Trump is trying to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

Tia Bell, who founded a gun violence prevention nonprofit aimed at young people in the city, says Trump’s villainization of D.C.’s youth misses the point.

“It’s a misalignment, because the blame is on the individual and not the systems and structural violence,” she says. “Our youth are angry—they feel like the media perpetuated a lot of narratives about them that led to this blame and criminalization.”

The media made me do it is one hell of an excuse for committing a violent crime, isn’t it?

You know a really good way to not get blamed for violent crime? Don’t commit one.

Even if you believe that there are root causes like poverty and broken families that can exacerbate crime, it’s still individuals who are committing violent carjackings, home invasions, and street robberies. These individuals may feel empowered and emboldened to commit these crimes because of D.C.’s lackadaisical approach to juvenile crime and truancy, and if Bell wants to fix those broken systems I’m with her 100%, but the fact remains that most juveniles in D.C., even those living in the most adverse environments possible, aren’t out there robbing, raping, and carjacking D.C. residents and visitors.

It’s a disservice to those kids to decide that individuals shouldn’t be held accountable for their own actions. In fact, I’d argue that, no matter how good Bell’s intentions might be, by casting crime as the product of “systems and structural violence” or media narratives, she’s essentially telling juveniles who aren’t breaking the law that there’s something wrong with them, not the juvenile offenders.

I’ve expressed my own concern about Trump’s crime crackdown leading to arrests for simply possessing a gun without a license, which contradicts his stance in support of permitless carry, but Bell’s concern is that Trump hasn’t taken a public health approach to gun violence, “addressing it like a ‘disease.’”

Bell believes the problem in D.C. cannot be solved with more guns.

“Federal violence cannot end violence in the communities—only we can,” she says.

I have no problem, at least in theory, with community violence intervention efforts that seek to reduce crime without putting more people behind bars for possessory gun offenses. The issue, though, is that while Bell might believe in a “public health approach” to “gun violence”, that approach all too often involves treating gun ownership itself as a disease that needs to be eradicated. Bell might not like the surge in law enforcement on the streets, but I doubt she’d be in favor of repealing D.C.’s draconian laws surrounding gun ownership either.

If these activists want to question Trump’s heavy-handed approach to fighting crime, they should at least be willing to do the same when Democrats turn our right to keep and bear arms into a criminal offense. Somehow, though, their “public health” approach always leaves plenty of room for putting more gun control laws on the books.