Brookhaven burglary call leads to pursuit, shootout with police

A home invasion in Brookhaven on Thursday night led to a pursuit that ended in a crash and an allegedly armed suspect being shot by police, according to the GBI.

The situation started around 11 p.m. when Brookhaven police were called about an active burglary at a home in the 2700 block of Caldwell Road. A woman saw four armed suspects inside her house on her surveillance camera, the GBI said.

After calling police, the homeowner called a friend, who went to the house and confronted the suspects, the GBI confirmed. A shootout took place between the suspects and the homeowner’s friend just before police arrived.

Officers saw the suspects speed away in a silver Lexus, authorities said. Police unsuccessfully tried to pull it over and a pursuit ensued.

The suspects eventually crashed into a utility pole nearly three miles away near a CarMax dealership on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard in Chamblee, officials said. All four suspects got out of the car and started to run away, according to the GBI. The driver, identified as Albert Eugene Burns, 19, of Snellville, exited the vehicle with a gun in his hand, the GBI said.

That prompted an officer to open fire, striking Burns, authorities confirmed. Burns then dropped the gun, the GBI said, and continued running. As he ran, he dropped a second gun and tried to pick it up, which is when the officer shot him again, the GBI said.

Burns was taken to a hospital and described as critical but stable, Brookhaven police said. No officers were injured.

Andrew Fisher, who lives near the burglarized home, said he heard “a bunch of gunshots” and saw a car fleeing.

“Of course, you think it’s fireworks at first, but I mean, it was sporadic, and you could tell it’s a little bit different,” he said. “We were on alert, but … we called the police, and they knew that something was happening.”

Another neighbor, Tony Mora, said he didn’t hear the commotion Thursday night but woke up to the police activity Friday morning, something that he said is unusual for the area.

“That’s why I moved here because it’s quiet,” he said. “I never thought that would happen here. I mean, it’s too much.”

It’s made Mora realize he needs “to be more cautious and just kind of always be on guard,” he added. “That’s what we’ve become. I mean, you’ve got to be always watching.”

A fourth suspect remains at large.

The GBI will conduct an independent investigation. Once complete, the case file will be given to the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office for review.

The incident is the 53rd officer-involved shooting the GBI has been asked to investigate this year. As of the same time last year, there had been 64 such cases.

NRA, SAF File Brief In Case Concerning Carry Across State Lines

Massachusetts restrictive gun laws continue to come under well-deserved fire because of their failure to respect the Second Amendment.

We reported over the past week how gun owners have started an initiative petition to put a repeal of the new sweeping gun law on the statewide ballot and about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) donating $100,000 to the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to help fund that group’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. Now two gun-rights groups have filed an amicus brief in another Massachusetts case challenging the state’s permit law that restricts lawful gun owners from carrying a firearm in the state.

The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In the case named Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Donnell, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed their 38-page brief explaining their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.

“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”

In the brief, NRA and SAF argue that the law doesn’t meet the second Bruen standard of proving a historic precedent exists for such a restriction.

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the brief states. “Because the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of justifying its regulation with historical tradition. It has not and cannot do so.”

The brief further argues that no historical tradition exists that justifies the Commonwealth’s nonresident licensing scheme.

“Historically, nonresidents traveling in a state were treated no worse than residents with regard to firearm carry,” the brief states. “If they were treated differently under the law, it was generally to exempt travelers from carry restrictions—not to subject them to more onerous burdens than residents. Moreover, a government license was not historically required to exercise the right to carry arms; carry licenses that applied to free citizens were not enacted until the late-19th-century and applied only to concealed carry, leaving open carry unrestricted.”

Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and one of the attorneys in the case, said the act of just getting  permit puts a huge burden on non-resident gun owners.

“New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable,” Kraut said.

The NRA and SAF conclude in the brief that since the law violates the Second Amendment, the district court’s order of dismissal should be confirmed.

BLUF:
While it is true that the Court has shown a willingness to take an increased number of gun-related cases in short succession of late, it is also noticeably taking fewer cases overall each term. As more criminal justice system controversies arise, the justices may have little room on their plates for additional Second Amendment work.

It’s not obvious which factors will weigh heavier on the minds of the Justices. It almost never is when it comes to reading the tea leaves on potential Supreme Court cert grants. What is for certain is that gun-rights advocates currently have their best vehicle to date for getting the Court to weigh in on an assault weapon ban. That is by no means guaranteed to be enough, though.

Analysis: Will This Be the Year SCOTUS Takes an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Case?

In a recent ruling upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons, a federal appeals court gave gun-rights advocates their best opportunity yet to entice the Supreme Court to strike down those bans nationwide. Whether the Justices are prepared to oblige them is another matter entirely.

In a divided opinion last week, the en banc Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its long-awaited judgment of Maryland’s ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons. By a ten-to-five margin, the court’s majority upheld the ban.

“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote in Bianchi v. Brown.

Rather than greet the preservation of one of the movement’s longest-standing targets with dejection, some gun-rights advocates celebrated the outcome. Pro-gun attorney and legal commentator Mark Smith called the ruling “100% expected” and “excellent news for [the Second Amendment]” in a social media post.

“It should be a clear glide path to SCOTUS for them to hear an ‘assault weapon’ ban case next term (2024-25),” he reasoned.

Indeed, such optimism is not entirely unwarranted. Continue reading “”