Security Guard claims deadly New Year’s Eve shooting was self defense

PHILADELPHIA, PA — A man was fatally shot Tuesday night in the Germantown neighborhood after allegedly charging at a security guard with a knife, police said.

Officers from the 14th District responded to a report of a “Person with a Gun” at the 5500 block of Germantown Avenue at approximately 8:15 p.m. Upon arrival, they found an unresponsive Black male with a gunshot wound to the chest and multiple self-inflicted stab wounds.

The victim was transported to Jefferson Einstein Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 8:25 p.m.

According to police, the armed security guard for a banquet hall in the area told officers he acted in self-defense after the decedent approached him with a knife. The security guard remained at the scene and cooperated with authorities.

No arrests have been made, and the investigation is ongoing under the Homicide Unit.

The Most Dangerous ‘Gun Control’ Argument You Will Ever Read

We don’t make this statement lightly, but the folks over at Giffords and Brady have filed an amicus brief in a matter, challenging all of Maryland’s new sensitive places, that actually argues that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment cannot coexist, and because of that, the 2A will always take a back seat to the 1A. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses one of the craziest and most dangerous pro-gun control argument you could ever imagine in the matter of Kipke v. Moore (aka Novotny v. Moore). So learn more today and arm yourself with education.

<(You can find the Amicus Brief here.)

Another City Learns The Hard Way About Preemption.

It seems like every time I look at the news, I see another city, whether in Pennsylvania, Tennessee or somewhere else, having to take a big loss in the courtroom to accept the fact that state firearms preemption laws mean what they say. The latest was Fargo, North Dakota, where city leaders apparently decided they could make their own gun laws, despite the state preemption law saying the opposite.

According to a report from NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), on December 19, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit brought by the city of Fargo against the state legislature to block a bill passed back in 2023 that strengthened the state’s preemption law.

According to NRA-ILA, Fargo has banned gun sales in residential-zoned areas, even by licensed FFLs, for many years. The city filed suit against HB 1340 shortly after the bill passed in 2023, arguing that the law violated their ability for local control.

Of course, the new law did violate their ability for local control. That’s exactly what the legislature had intended for it to do. In the recent ruling, the state Supreme Court found that infringing upon the Second Amendment does not fall under the purview of local control, much to the chagrin of Fargo leaders.

In its ruling, the court determined that the preemption law is constitutional, leaving Fargo out in the cold with its gun sales ban.

“We conclude H.B. 1340 does not violate article VII of the North Dakota Constitution,” the ruling stated. “We hold the legislature’s enactment of H.B. 1340 constitutes a valid exercise of its constitutional authority to create political subdivisions and, specifically, to define the powers of a home rule city. We conclude H.B. 1340, as enacted, is constitutional as applied to Fargo’s home rule charter and Fargo Municipal Code §§ 20-0403(C)(5)(e) and 20-402(T)(3). Due to this holding, we need not address Fargo’s argument H.B. 1340 and N.D.C.C. §§ 40-05.1-06 and 62.1-01-03, as amended, are facially unconstitutional.”

In the end, the court ruling stated: “The district court did not err in concluding H.B. 1340 preempts and renders void Fargo Municipal Code §§ 20-0403(C)(5)(e) and 20-402(T)(3). We affirm the judgment.”

Hundreds March for ‘Intifada’ in NYC Hours After Attacks in New Orleans, Las Vegas

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - DECEMBER 21: Pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to march throu
You can not make this up……

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters marched in New York City on New Year’s Day for “intifada,” blocking Sixth Avenue in Manhattan just hours after a terror attack in New Orleans, Louisiana, and an explosion in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Times of Israel reported:

Attendees chanted “Resistance is glorious — we will be victorious,” “We will honor all our martyrs,” and “Gaza, you make us proud.” They carried signs that said “Zionism is cancer,” “No war on Iran,” and “End all US aid to Israel.”

“There is only one solution — Intifada revolution,” they chanted, using a common refrain at anti-Israel rallies in the US. “Intifada,” Arabic for “uprising,” is associated with the Second Intifada, a period of terror attacks in Israel in the early 2000s marked by suicide bombings.…

A handful of pro-Israel counter-protesters showed up to wave Israeli and American flags on the sidelines of the demonstration, while heckling the anti-Israel activists. A Jewish retiree led chants of “Get a job” directed at the protesters.

The New Orleans attack took place in the early hours of the morning, when Shamsud Din Jabbar, who had reportedly pledged loyalty to ISIS, rammed his car into a crown on Bourbon Street, killing more than a dozen people.

In Las Vegas, a Tesla cybertruck that was packed with explosives exploded outside the entrance to the Trump Hotel, killing at least one person and injuring several more. The suspect in the latter attack died in the explosion, police said.

Suspect identified after driver kills ten, injures dozens in Bourbon Street truck attack
Police sources identified the attacker as Shamsud Din Jabbar, 42

At least 10 people are dead and dozens injured after a driver plowed a pickup truck into a crowd of New Year’s revelers in New Orleans on Wednesday.

Police sources identified the driver as 42-year-old Shamsud Din Jabbar of Texas. He reportedly jumped out of the vehicle and opened fire on police after hitting the crowd early Wednesday morning. The brief shootout ended with the suspect dead at the scene, authorities confirmed. Police say 35 people have been transported to five hospitals across the city after suffering injuries from the attack.

Sources say there was an ISIS flag inside Jabbar’s vehicle during the attack. Authorities are still seeking up to five other individuals in relation to the attack.

Continue reading “”

The Final Two 9th Circuit Gun Decisions of 2024

Yesterday, Monday, December 30, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published its final two decisions in cases involving guns.

The first decision involved the Federal law that permanently disbars persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms, and the second involved a dispute over what constitutes an arrest when police see a handgun on the floor of an automobile in a state where that is legal.

The first decision is well written and meticulous and leaves no question as to why the three-judge panel reached its decision, a decision they would rather have gone the other way were it not for binding prior precedents.

The second decision does not explain why it reached its conclusion, and more importantly, the decision does not explain how future three-judge panels and district court judges are to comply with what is now a binding circuit precedent. Moreso, given that the facts laid out in the decision do not justify the panel’s conclusion under already binding prior 9th circuit precedents.

First, the well-written decision by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Morgan B. Christen. She is certainly no friend of the Second Amendment, but if there were a candidate for the most intelligent Court of Appeals judge, she would be the one to bet on. The case is US v. Michal Blake DeFrance No. 23-2409.

The first three paragraphs of the opinion summary succinctly describe the case’s what and why, but I will take a stab at an even simpler explanation. In short, if one is convicted of a state law crime of domestic violence, and that state law crime is broader than the Federal definition, even if the state has never prosecuted someone under the broader definition, then the conviction does not qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. Not even if the crime one committed, such as beating one’s wife or girlfriend, does qualify as a crime of domestic violence under Federal law. You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion (and concurrence) at this link.

The second case is US v. Larry Send In. The opinion is by Judge Gould and was joined by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bumatay and District Court Judge Michael Seabright, the latter of whom is no friend to the Second Amendment.

A fun fact about the Fourth Amendment is that from 1833 to 1961, it did not apply to the states. That did not mean police could stop, search, and/or arrest anyone they wanted. Under American common law, which we inherited from English common law, one could use force, including deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest. That was the rule in California until 1957 when the California legislature repealed that centuries-old common law right. The California Supreme Court upheld the repeal in 1970.

Incorporating the Fourth Amendment right against the states in 1961 means the courts have had far more opportunities in 64 years to poke holes in the right. The decision in this case is yet another hole punched in the right.

Another fun fact is that California once had a bright-line rule. If you were stopped by the police and not free to go, you were under arrest.

The Federal Courts invented the notion that one can be stopped and handcuffed without it being an arrest. It is a “detention,” in which cases often turn on whether or not the detention was lawful and, in this particular case, at what point an arrest occurs. The California Supreme Court has abandoned its bright-line rule for the murky waters of the Federal Courts.

Of course, police forces as we know them today did not exist in the United States until the early 20th century. Before World War II, most arrests were made by private citizens, and private citizens likewise made most criminal prosecutions.

It was not until the 1970s that the US Supreme Court gave prosecutors and judges “absolute immunity” from civil prosecution in the Federal Courts, but I digress.

Under modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, judges look to the totality of the facts in making their decisions. In this case, the district court judge suppressed the gun found in Mr. In’s car, but the panel reversed. Why? I don’t know. Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law doesn’t seem to know either. He wrote about the case on his blog.

When you read the decision, keep in mind that lying to a police officer is not in and of itself a crime, and Mr. In’s lying to police about having a gun in his car was not probable cause for an arrest, according to the panel. Indeed, none of the facts of the case viewed in isolation or the totality of the circumstances constituted probable cause for an arrest, and if Mr. In had, in fact, been arrested instead of detained for officer safety, then the gun would have been suppressed.

Neither police officer safety nor public safety is a magic talisman. But despite this decision conflicting with prior circuit precedents, it is doubtful that an en banc petition will be granted in this case. There are just too many judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who don’t care a fig about the Fourth Amendment, especially when the case involves guns.

You can view the oral argument below.

You can read the opinion at this link.