EVANSVILLE, Ind. — An Evansville teen was killed in a late Monday night shooting that happened during an attempted robbery, police said.
The Vanderburgh County Coroner’s office confirmed that DeAndre Ellington, 18, died at an Evansville hospital at 10:59 p.m. after he was taken to the emergency department by ambulance. An autopsy is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Coroner Steve Lockyear said.
According to records from Evansville-Vanderburgh Central Dispatch, a call of shots fired came at 10:07 p.m. in the 2200 block of North Fulton Avenue. When police arrived they found Ellington shot on the sidewalk.
In a recording of the 911 call obtained by Courier & Press, a man called dispatchers saying he heard gunshots and went outside. He said someone was shot and wounded but didn’t know who, and he was worried someone would come shoot up his house.
The caller was evading some questions from the dispatcher, who told emergency responders over police radio that the man was being “difficult.”
At one point in a recording of the radio traffic, an officer said there were multiple guns on the scene and that a black man was unconscious.
About two minutes later, police said they had one person in custody and were holding two others at gunpoint.
In a news release, police said Ellington had been shot and was unable to communicate with officers, who learned he had met with several people to sell a handgun. Police said witnesses told them Ellington pointed a handgun at the group and tried to rob them. One of the alleged intended robbery victims was armed with a handgun and fired several times in response to Ellington’s actions, police said.
SAN ANTONIO — An apparent robbery attempt at a northwest-side gas station ended with a masked man dead, San Antonio police said.
At around 6:30 Tuesday night, police were called to a gas station on Culebra Road near Loop 1604. According to police, a man showed a gun and appeared to threaten the clerk.
There were two customers in the store at the time and one of them saw the threat and shot the man, who died at the scene, police said. According to police, the would-be robber did not fire his weapon.
“They [the customers] took matters into their own hands, and were willing to make decisions and live with whatever consequences that came with that,” the officer at the scene said. “At the time if they felt that that was a threat that needed to be addressed… then those are decisions that could be seen as commendable, but a robbery did not happen as a result.”
At this time, it’s not clear if the customer who fired the deadly shot will face charges, police said.
“We absolutely wouldn’t [recommend this.] However, you take matters in your own hands,” police said. “In the state of Texas you can carry a weapon and you have the right to protect yourself and your property. While these were customers and not owners, they felt like this threat was active and they addressed it as such.”
Monday, the Supreme Court heard its FIRST major gun rights case in nearly a decade [brought by NRA & NYSRPA] — in which GOA submitted an amicus brief challenging New York City’s near-prohibition on possessing or transporting handguns.
Regarding the Supreme Court case, our brief argued that New York City limits the right to keep arms only to certain Americans who meet requirements set by the city.
These American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm are subjected to invasive government screening, arbitrary waiting periods, and substantial fees.
The few Americans who qualify cannot “bear arms” in the true sense of the phrase as recognized in Heller.
Instead, they can only “keep” arms in their home or place of business. And when carrying a handgun to an approved shooting range, honest citizens have to keep their handgun unloaded and locked away, rendering the firearm totally useless for self-defense.
We are using the PLAIN TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT to argue against these vicious assaults on innocent Americans’ rights.
As stated in our brief, no reasonable person could possibly argue that the people of New York City are free to exercise their God-given rights outlined in the Second Amendment.
But Monday’s Supreme Court hearing was only the beginning.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will next hear a case of ours on December 11 which challenges the federal bump stock ban as well as the dangerous precedent of allowing unelected bureaucrats to ban an item that had been completely legal for years.
The federal ban on bump stocks also has dangerous consequences for other firearms including AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles.
If a bump stock can turn an AR-15 into a machine gun, then ANYTHING can — even a rubber band or a belt loop.
This is why Gun Owners of America proudly holds a NO COMPROMISE stance on the Second Amendment because we know that when the anti-gunners are given even one inch, they come back for a foot.
But now more than ever before, we need your help as we go up against the anti-gunners and their army of swamp lawyers to defend Americans living behind enemy lines who simply want to exercise their God-given rights as outlined in the Second Amendment.
So please, make a tax-deductible contribution to the Gun Owners Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund to help offset the massive costs we will incur to fight the anti-gun lobby — and it will be MATCHED by a generous donor committed to saving the Second Amendment.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt Senior Vice President Gun Owners Foundation
The lawyer defending New York City in a Second Amendment case on Monday admitted to the Supreme Court that the city’s gun restrictions had no impact on public safety and that gun rights extend beyond the home.
During oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, city attorney Richard Dearing told Justice Samuel Alito that a city regulation governing where gun owners could carry their firearms did not make residents safer. He said New York police determined “The rule could be repealed without a negative impact on public safety” before the state rolled it back. He went on to concede that the Second Amendment applies beyond the home, a core question at issue in the case.
“What I’m conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means,” Dearing told Alito during oral arguments. “And sometimes that may mean … that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.”
David Rutz breaks down the most important news about the enemies of freedom, here and around the world, in this comprehensive morning newsletter.
The comments from Dearing may weigh on how the case concludes. If the Court does not declare the case moot, as it still might, it could rule that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home. Such a decision would be a significant follow-up to the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that paved the way for Second Amendment challenges at the Supreme Court. A ruling in the New York case could also have a significant impact on gun-transportation and gun-carry laws across the country.
Much of the discussion during Tuesday’s oral arguments focused on whether the case was now invalidated because the regulation in question had been mostly undone. New York state rolled back the regulation after SCOTUS accepted the case, leading gun-control activists to express fear of the effects of a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor. New York City argued Tuesday that the case should be dismissed, while plaintiffs argued the change was designed to undermine the case and did not provide a full legal remedy.
The debate centered on plaintiffs’ ability to recoup damages, and on whether traveling gun owners who stop “for a cup of coffee” or “to visit your mother” would be subject to prosecution under the revised gun-transportation law. While Dearing assured the justices that the city would instruct police not to arrest such individuals, he was less clear about what constituted a “reasonably necessary” stop while transporting guns. After Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts pressed him, Dearing retorted that the question was beyond the case’s scope.
The Court had an opportunity to void the case in the immediate aftermath of the regulation being undone, but decided to hear full arguments instead.
The justices will vote this week on how to proceed with the case, but a public announcement of their decision is likely weeks, or even months, away.
The FBI is prohibited from investigating a political party’s candidate for the presidency, so Strzok & Page had to find a way around that law so Trump could be ‘legally’ spied on. Now, did they do this all on their own, or did they have lots of help from higher up in the FBI, DOJ & other .gov agencies?
The alternative to a purely domestic intelligence operation targeting a major political party’s candidate for the presidency (and later, president) was to manufacture a foreign counterintelligence (FCI) “threat” that could then be “imported” back into the United States.
Plausible deniability, the Holy Grail of covert activities, was in reach for the plotters if they could develop an FCI operation outside the continental United States (OCONUS) involving FBI confidential human sources (Halper, Mifsud, others?) that would act as “lures” (intelligence jargon associated with double agent operations) to ensnare Trump associates.
We have evidence of these machinations from December 2015 when FBI lawyer Lisa Page texts to her boyfriend, the now infamous FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, “You get all our oconus lures approved? ;).”
The coup plot failed, but the chief coup conspirators are free, crisscrossing the country on book tours and appearing as paid contributors to CNN and MSNBC.
U.S. Attorney John Durham’s mandate from Attorney General William Barr — to uncover the seditious plot behind the Trump-Russia hoax, if pursued vigorously, will uncover the single greatest threat to the Constitution since the nation’s founding.
There is new evidence that U.S. Attorney John Durham is getting to the root of criminal abuses by senior U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials in their conspiracy to undermine the Trump campaign, transition and presidency. Mr. Durham’s mandate from Attorney General William Barr — to uncover the seditious plot behind the Trump-Russia hoax, if pursued vigorously, will uncover the single greatest threat to the Constitution since the nation’s founding.
Mr. Durham’s apparent interest in FBI source Stefan Halper and the contract vehicles available to the Pentagon think tank, the Office of Net Assessments, for whom Halper worked, is an important clue.
Likewise, Mr. Durham’s travel to Italy for talks with the Italian government and their intelligence service points to another possible clue concerning the mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud.
For the purposes of the manufactured Trump-Russia hoax, one need only remember the associations of Halper with Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page — and Joseph Mifsud with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy junior advisor — to the Trump campaign.
The intelligence agencies of the federal government are prohibited from targeting American organizations in the United States. Executive Order 12333, Section 2.9 states:
Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.
This prohibition on running penetration operations against domestic political organizations is a legal and political “hangover” from the 1960s civil disturbances that saw (among a host of other covert action programs) US Army Counterintelligence agents working undercover against the militant Leftists organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. The U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the “Church Committee,” was empaneled in 1975 under the leadership of Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) to review and make recommendations on intelligence operations. The Church Committee was controversial. Critics claimed the committee exposed the “crown jewels” of U.S. intelligence and hobbled our ability to conduct legitimate collection activities. Today’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Court were inspired by the final reports of the Church Committee.
The seditious coup plotters working against Trump knew the legal prohibitions on what they planned to do. How to target Trump & Co. in a “legal” manner? Was it possible, or more importantly, desirable, to have a legal finding from Attorney General Loretta Lynch justifying their plan to frame-up Trump & Co.? That would authorize their operation — but would Lynch support it? Could Lynch be counted on? Did they want a piece of paper like that floating around Washington D.C.? No, there had to be a better way to pull off the coup.
The alternative to a purely domestic intelligence operation targeting a major political party’s candidate for the presidency (and later, president) was to manufacture a foreign counterintelligence (FCI) “threat” that could then be “imported” back into the United States. Plausible deniability, the Holy Grail of covert activities, was in reach for the plotters if they could develop an FCI operation outside the continental United States (OCONUS) involving FBI confidential human sources (Halper, Mifsud, others?) that would act as “lures” (intelligence jargon associated with double agent operations) to ensnare Trump associates.
We have evidence of these machinations from December 2015 when FBI lawyer Lisa Page texts to her boyfriend, the now infamous FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, “You get all our oconus lures approved? ;).”
To inoculate themselves from further charges of misconduct and criminality, the FBI’s mutually agreed upon lie is that their investigation of Trump/Russia began on July 31, 2016 with the improbable name “Crossfire Hurricane.” That coincides nicely with their manufactured FCI “event,” allowing the full-bore sabotage of all things and persons “Trump.” The coup plotters used a July 2016 event at the University of Cambridge as the opportunity for Carter Page to meet and develop a friendship with Stefan Halper. This is roughly the same time period that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer reported the supposedly drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos concerning the Russians having Hillary’s emails to the FBI. Papadopoulos had already serendipitously met the mysterious Joseph Mifsud in Rome during the second week of March 2016. Learning that Papadopoulos would be joining the Trump campaign, Mifsud let Papadopoulos know that he had many important connections with Russian government officials.
In July 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was questioned closely by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) concerning the persons and sequence of events detailed above.
The summation of Mueller’s testimony was, “Well, I can’t get into it.”
The coup plot failed, but the chief coup conspirators are free, crisscrossing the country on book tours and appearing as paid contributors to CNN and MSNBC. A bright note in the so far grim saga is that one of the collateral casualties has filed a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against Stefan Halper and MSNBC for defamation, conspiracy and tortious interference. It’s the closest thing we’ve seen to justice to date. The complaint makes remarkable and insightful reading.
It is now time for Mr. Durham to “get into it,” in a manner Mr. Mueller was either unwilling or unable to do. Time is of the utmost importance. The American public needs to see action. Indictments and trials are the only antidote for the poison of treasonous sedition.
An armed Wisconsin high school student confronted a school resource officer on Tuesday morning, police said — one day after a similar incident unfolded at another Wisconsin high school.
The student at Oshkosh West High School, located roughly 53 miles southwest of Green Bay, “confronted a school resource officer,” the local police department confirmed online.
Both the student and the officer were injured and transported to local hospitals. No one else was injured in the incident.
As of 10 a.m. local time, Oshkosh West was locked down, according to authorities.
An armed student at Oshkosh West High School in Wisconsin confronted a school resource officer on Tuesday, according to police. (WLUK-TV)
“This incident is being turned over to The state department of criminal investigations who will conduct the investigation, there will be more information released as it becomes available,” the department wrote.
The shooting happened roughly 24 hours after a resource officer at Waukesha South High School — nearly 85 miles south of Oshkosh — confronted an armed male 17-year-old student.
A student at Waukesha told school officials that another student brought a handgun to school. The school resource officer promptly responded to a classroom and tried to secure the scene by getting other students to safety.
BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.
SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.”
Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgun owners from taking their guns outside the city limits.
“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far-reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.
“We’re hopeful the High Court sees through New York’s attempt to moot this case by changing the law,” he continued. “The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down.
“We will be watching this case closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”
SAN ANTONIO – A store owner shot a man who was caught stealing property Sunday afternoon on the city’s Northeast Side, according to police.
The incident was reported at Araiza’s Small Engine Service in the 1700 block of Austin Highway.
Police said the owner caught the suspect, who is in his 50s, trying to steal property behind the business.
Man found dead in parked vehicle after shooting in New Braunfels, police say
The store owner grabbed his gun and confronted the suspect, according to a sergeant at the scene.
An altercation occurred and the store owner shot the suspected burglar in the leg. He was taken to University Hospital, where he is expected to recover.
The store owner is cooperating with police and investigators believe surveillance footage captured the incident.
A 30-year-old man fired shots at and struck a would-be robber Sunday in Austin on the West Side.
About 4:45 p.m., he was exiting a business in the 5200 block of West Chicago Avenue when he was approached by two men, one of whom pulled out a handgun and demanded his property, Chicago police said.
The man, who is a valid concealed carry license holder, pulled out his own handgun and fired shots toward the armed man, police said. The armed man then ran in an unknown direction.
Shortly after the incident, a 39-year-old man showed up at Loretto Hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder and thigh, police said.
Police did not say the 39-year-old man’s condition or if anyone was charged.
Area Central detectives are investigating the incident.
WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) — The Latest on a suburban Milwaukee high school shooting (all times local):
A Wisconsin police chief says an officer shot an armed male student at a suburban Milwaukee high school after the suspect refused to disarm and pointed his gun at officers.
Waukesha Police Chief Russell Jack says a student first warned the resource officer that a 17-year-old classmate had a gun at around 10:17 a.m. Monday. Jack says the resource officer went to the classroom to confront the student and get students in the room to safety.
Jack says Waukesha officers and sheriff’s deputies soon arrived to de-escalate the situation but the suspect “continued to ignore officers’ commands.” Jack says the officer who shot the student is an 11-year veteran of the Waukesha police department.
Jack said the suspect is in stable condition. The police chief did not release additional information.
For decades, New York City enforced uniquely onerous regulations that effectively prohibited licensed pistol and revolver owners from taking their weapons outside their homes, even when they were unloaded and stored in a locked container, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the five boroughs. When several gun owners challenged those regulations, the city successfully defended their constitutionality for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. But after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, the city rewrote its rules, backed a state law that eased restrictions on transporting guns, and urged the Court to drop the case, arguing that the regulatory and statutory changes made it moot. During oral arguments today in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, several justices seemed skeptical of that claim, which is transparently aimed at avoiding a Supreme Court decision that could clarify the contours of the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, whether a prior violation of the old transportation regulations might be held against a gun owner when he tries to renew his license. “It absolutely will not,” Dearing said, although the discretion to deny licenses for “good cause” seems to make that a real risk.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that the possibility of obtaining compensation for economic damages related to the old regulations, although it was not specifically sought by the plaintiffs, might be enough to keep the case alive, as Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued. “This litigation, I think, has taken five-plus years, and that [issue] has become relevant only at this late stage, after the city and the state have enacted a new law,” Gorsuch observed. “Why isn’t the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough?”
Gorsuch also noted that it’s unclear whether the new rules allow gun owners to make stops while en route to ranges, competitions, or second homes outside the city. The city says such trips have to be “continuous and uninterrupted,” while the state law says gun owners have to be traveling “directly” to their destinations. If those restrictions might be read to preclude stops for coffee, gas, or bathroom breaks, Gorsuch wondered, “why isn’t there a live controversy remaining?” He suggested that “despite herculean, late-breaking efforts to moot the case,” there is still relief the plaintiffs could obtain only through a decision on the merits.
Dearing assured the justices that the NYPD would not look askance at “reasonably necessary” stops for coffee, gas, or bladder relief, prompting Gorsuch to wonder, “Is coffee reasonably necessary?” While that remark prompted laughter, Gorsuch emphasized his point: “What’s going to qualify? I’m just a little unclear about that.”
So was Dearing. Justice Samuel Alito, who like Gorsuch remarked upon “the quite extraordinary step of trying to moot the case after we granted review,” wondered about a gun owner who drives to a range in New Jersey and stops to “visit his mother for a couple of hours to take care of a few things for her.” Dearing was unsure whether that would be allowed. “I think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law,” he said. “I hadn’t considered the mother or mother-in-law example before.”
Speaking for the plaintiffs, Paul Clement said Dearing’s assurances are not good enough to make the case moot. “The city took it on itself in Section 7 of the new regs to tell you what they, at least at that point, thought was sufficiently direct, which is ‘continuous and uninterrupted,'” he said. “They’re now making representations that the reg doesn’t mean what it seems to mean….My client[s] shouldn’t have to rely on those representations. They should get that in writing in an injunction that would be enforceable. That would be effectual relief.”
Perhaps the most telling exchange involved not the mootness issue but the constitutionality of the original rules:
Alito: Mr. Dearing, are the people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?
Dearing: No, I don’t think so. We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.
Alito: Well, if they’re not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?
Dearing did not have a very good answer, except to say that the city’s arbitrary restrictions on transporting firearms may have made its other rules a bit easier to enforce. As the petitioners note, “The only ‘evidence’ the City has ever mustered to support the tailoring of its policy is an affidavit from a former commander of the state licensing division hypothesizing, with no evidentiary support whatsoever, that the mere presence of a handgun—even unloaded, secured in a pistol case, separated from its ammunition, and stowed in the trunk of the car—might pose a public-safety risk in ‘road rage’ or other ‘stressful’ situations.” The city will have to do better than that if it wants to demonstrate that its rules were consistent with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which is why it is so desperate to stop the Supreme Court from considering that question.
Keep you fingers crossed. Dick Heller (of DC v Heller fame) opines that NYSRPA has a winning case. If retired Justice Kennedy was the only concern, I might be more optimistic, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be the new ‘squish’. This case should provide some clarity about him, as well as Gorsuch & Kavanaugh.
That New York City is openly hostile to gun rights is not news. Relief may finally be coming to the citizens of the five boroughs, however – and the residents of other towns ruled by anti-gun zealots – via the Supreme Court. On Monday Dec. 2, the high court hears NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York, a challenge to restrictions the Big Apple places on the few citizens lucky enough to be permitted to keep a firearm in the city. This is the first big gun-control case in over nine years at the Supreme Court and gun-rights advocates are hoping the additions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh yield a favorable result.
A Tale Of Two Cities
If you want to own a legal handgun in NYC, you must first be granted a license. The two basic types are carry licenses and premises licenses. A carry license gives the holder permission to own and carry a concealed firearm on their person, wherever they go – but you can’t get a carry license. Well, you can if you’re a celebrity, a friend of or donor to the mayor or a police honcho, but that’s about it. It was always one of those things everybody knew but it was not exposed to scrutiny – until January of this year. As reported by local TV journalist Hazel Sanchez, former NYPD Lt. Paul Dean, a commander in the gun licensing unit, claimed:
“[H]igh-profile politicians, entrepreneurs, and even an actor with a prior felony conviction skated past requirements because of their generous donations to the Police Athletic League, New York City Police Foundation.”
Dean pleaded guilty to accepting bribes in exchange for gun licenses. If you’re not a celeb and you’re short on bribe money, you might be able to get a premises license, though. That’s if you’ve already paid the application fees of over $400 and passed the city’s arbitrary review. The case at the Supreme Court is based on the premises license and the fantastic restrictions placed on gun owners.
You Can’t Take It With You
If you have a premises license, you were previously permitted to keep the handgun only at your home or one of the seven approved gun ranges inside the city – or transport the weapon to or from the range, locked and unloaded. If you live in New York City and have a cabin upstate, you couldn’t legally take the firearm with you when you traveled there. You couldn’t legally take it one foot outside the city limits. As the Supreme Court summarized in its grant to hear the case:
“The City thus bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits – even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition, and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use.”
The restrictions in the law were so bad that not even the most strident anti-gunners thought they could pass constitutional muster. As Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog put it, “the only real question seemed to be whether the justices would issue a narrow ruling that only addressed the constitutionality of the city’s ban, or whether they might instead say more about the broader right to have a gun outside the home.” The prospect of these restrictions leading to broad recognition of gun possession rights outside the home terrified the gun grabbers – and so they rushed to stop the case the only way they knew how: They changed the law.
Going For Moot
The Supreme Court announced in January that it would add the case to its fall term (the current term). By early April, the NYPD announced the rule would change, saying, “The NYPD plans to loosen its rules around gun transportation to allow licensed owners to carry firearms to a second home or a business – instead of restricting them to shooting ranges.” That change set off another battle at the court – the battle by gun rights advocates to keep the case on the docket. After changing the law, the city petitioned the Supreme Court to drop the case, arguing that since a new rule was in effect, the case was moot and the court need not hear it.
Pro-gun advocates were not willing to go along quietly with the change, however. They have been desperate themselves for the court to take a case concerning gun rights outside the home. The Supreme Court last ruled on a gun-control case in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment’s protections recognized in the landmark Heller decision against state governments. That’s because it has refused to take any cases, not that none have been brought. After his fellow justices decided not to hear a challenge to California’s new gun laws last year, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent, chastising his colleagues:
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”
Progressive Senators Threaten The Supreme Court
In an attempt to avoid a new ruling favorable to gun owners, progressives in Congress threatened the Court, in the persons of Democrat Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Mazie Hirono (HI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Richard Durbin (IL), and New York’s own Kirsten Gillibrand. The Senators, bar Gillibrand, are all members of the Judiciary Committee, and all signed an 18-page screed as brief to threaten the justices’ power through court-packing. The piece attacked Kavanaugh’s nomination, the groups that supported it, and conservative legal groups generally. The conclusion, however, was nothing short of threatening:
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”
Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule in an entirely different direction. It took the case to ask if the law “is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.” The court may rule without a new line drawn in Second Amendment jurisprudence or it may find that the case is moot after all and not even issue a ruling. Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination was widely championed by the NRA, as the progressive Congress members’ brief discusses at length. Will his replacement of Justice Kennedy make the difference and see the court finally address the rights recognized in the Heller and McDonald cases? We will find out by summer, when the ruling is issued
GARDEN VALLEY, ID — School administrators in Garden Valley, ID are taking student and staff security seriously. And further, they’re putting their money where their mouth is.
School board minutes from the most recent board meeting have detailed their purchase of four rifles and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
The rifles cost $680 each.
The district is also considering spending up to $2000 on body armor vests and extra magazines.
Superintendent Marc Gee said, “We just have to protect our kids and we didn’t want to do it in a haphazard way.
The guns won’t stay locked in a gun safe with teachers unaware and untrained in how to use them.
No, before the guns were even purchased, school staff who volunteered received training from the Boise County Sheriff’s Office. Further, the district will post signs outside the school entrances telling any visitors that “our school is armed.”
When asked about the community’s response, Superintendent Gee said that it was overwhelmingly positive.
“It’s been positive – I have yet to have a community member come in and say, ‘Why are you doing this?’” Gee said.
The Garden Valley school district is located about an hour north of Boise.
You may not be taking this into Account in Precision Long Range Shooting
If you’re into long range shooting, its important to understand how the “Coriolis effect” affects your shot at 1000 yards or greater.
The Coriolis effect is the rotation of the earth and the movement of a target downrange from the shooter. This is another element that a long distance shooter has to consider for along with wind, rain, snow, distance, elevation and a many other factors. Accounting for all these factors signifies the skill sets needed for precision long range shooting.
Below highlighted is the simple layman’s term and explanation from Jeremy Winters of Gunwerks, he also demonstrates taking a shot from 1000 yards out to the west and easterly direction.
“if you’re shooting West, your target’s gonna rotate up and towards us, which is gonna cause the bullets to hit lower.”
“if you’re facing east, the target’s going to be dropping and slightly moving away, which is gonna cause the hits to be higher.”
Jeremy points out these small errors can cause huge misses at greater distances than 1000 yards if you don’t pay attention to them.
And just like that, it never actually was about climate. It’s always about changing society into a Marxist utopia and every one of these movements prove it. https://t.co/mJiqNAIOkE
This is not the first time a ‘known wolf’ has been on the radar of whichever gubbermint was involved. It makes the idea that there’s some nefarious plan afoot seem all the more plausible.
Update: According to The Telegraph, London Bridge attacker Usman Khan, 28, was a convicted terrorist who was released from prison in December 2018 – less than seven years into a 16-year sentence for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange.
He was also a student and personal friend of notorious Islamist hate preacher, Anjem Choudary, whose private cell phone number was stored in Khan’s phone at the time of his initial arrest.
Khan was one of a series of Al-Muhajiroun connected terrorists to be released over a six-month period beginning in the Autumn of 2018. He was known to have attended a series of Al-Muhajiroun protests and street stalls in the Midlands area prior to his arrest.
Before his conviction for the LSE terror plot, police had previously raided his home in Tunstall over concerns about his links to Choudary. –The Telegraph
Usman Khan
“All these years later, and Anjem Choudary’s one-time acolytes are still butchering members of the public on our streets,” said terrorism expert, Dr. Paul Stott.
“Usman Khan was a loyal and integral member of Choudary’s inner-circle and we know him to have been highly regarded by Choudary.”
Khan — a British citizen born in the UK and of Pakistani origin — left school with no qualifications after spending part of his late teens in Pakistan, where he lived with his mother when she became ill. On his return to the UK, he started preaching extremism on the internet and attracted a significant following.
In January 2012, Khan pleaded guilty to engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism contrary to section 5(1) of the UK’s Terrorism Act 2006. Khan was among nine men charged with conspiracy to bomb high-profile London targets in the run-up to Christmas in 2010. At the time, the men were described as an Al Qaeda-inspired group that wanted to send mail bombs to various targets and launch a “Mumbai-style” atrocity. At the time of his arrest, Khan lived in Stoke-on-Trent, a city in central England. –Dawn
Meanwhile, The Mirror reports that the tusk-wielding hero who helped stop the attack using a 5′ Narwhal Tusk he grabbed off a wall is a Polish chef named only as Lukasz, who immigrated to the UK.
GRAHAM, N.C. — A Graham man was shot Friday when a man tried to break into a home and a fight broke out, according to the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office.
Tristan Antonio Chavez, 22, of Graham, was found with a gunshot wound when deputies responded to the 3200 block of S. NC 87 Highway when they were told about a shooting.
Chavez was taken to UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill.
Investigators interviewed a person who lives at the home and witnesses.
They learned that Chavez came to the home and began beating and kicking on the door and demanding to come in.
A person who lives at the home confronted home and they fought.
The resident was reportedly hit with concrete steps.
Chavez was shot during the fight.
He was charged with one count felony breaking and entering to terrorize/injure and one count assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to kill/inflict serious injury.
A man walked into a home in southern Texas County MO, on Friday night and found himself being held at gunpoint.
The home invasion incident was reported on Highway Y south of Summersville. Authorities said the man appeared to have been intoxicated or drugged and passed out while being held at gunpoint awaiting officers from the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Texas County Sheriff’s Department.
Later he became awake and combative and additional guns were drawn.
Officers arrived and took control of the scene before arresting the man who was transported to the Texas County Jail in Houston. Officers accompanied the transport vehicle because the man was uncooperative.
No name has been released awaiting formal charges.
So he wants people to use Nerf guns, or what?
The Bill of Rights –by its very preamble – were not a grant of rights or a listing of limitations to the people but a generic, noninclusive list of restrictions on government.
The founders were not unlearned men, and were well known as men of science and technology. Even at that time there were several “fast firing” guns that dump the notion on the trash heap of history that the smooth bore muskets of the infantry were the only thing covered by the amendment. The founders would have understood that technology would increase and improve and the 2nd amendment makes no exclusion of any modernization.
That line of thought makes 1st amendment jurisprudence only apply to hand operated printing presses and town criers on the village square.
The Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald & Caetano decisions put this and other ideas to the test, found them wanting and discarded them.
This writer is either ignorant of U.S. Civics and the jurisprudence of the highest court in the land or he’s being disingenuous and simply trying to roll out a much overused and completely rejected line of propaganda.
The views of the rural Virginians described in the Nov. 24 front-page article “In Virginia, gun buffs plan to defy new laws” are that the gun-control proposals expected to be introduced in the 2020 Virginia legislature will “change” their way of life and that a law enforcement officer who believes a law to be unconstitutional may choose not to enforce it. Both assertions are dishonest and factually incorrect.
Assume that the expected laws would limit the number of guns sold and the capacity of magazines, and require registration and add a “red-flag” law. I know some people grow up with rifles for hunting and handguns for protection. But semiautomatic weapons are not part of that way of life. That technology did not exist when the Second Amendment was adopted; indeed, rifling in the barrels of guns to improve the distance and accuracy of a shot was not widespread. Hunting and self-defense do not require that level of lethality. As for registration, the Second Amendment begins with “a well regulated militia.” If one was to be part of a militia with a gun, the authorities needed to know who owned what guns.
Also, no law enforcement officer is given the right to determine what actions are or are not constitutional. Officers enforce the law. The lawyers for their jurisdictions may question those laws and challenge those laws in court, but they have no legal right not to enforce a law validly existing on the books.
The way-of-life argument is bogus and not supportive of the obligations we, as citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia, owe to each other.
A 47-year-old McCleary man was shot and killed Wednesday night after reportedly breaking into a home in the 400 block of Elma-Hicklin Road.
According to Undersheriff Brad Johansson, around 9:25 p.m. the reporting party, a 60-year-old McCleary man, advised that a 47-year-old male broke into the residence armed with a knife.
The suspect was confronted by the reporting party and a struggle ensued. A 36-year-old female who was also present retrieved a firearm and shot the suspect, killing him. The suspect had a protection order prohibiting him from contacting the female who shot the suspect, Johansson said.
Detectives from the Grays Harbor Sheriffs Office responded and served a search warrant at the residence. The investigation is ongoing but early indications appear the shooting was in self-defense, Johansson said. No arrests have been made and no other injuries were reported.
ARLINGTON, Texas (CBSDFW.COM) — A Costco shopper opened fire at two suspects who broke into his car outside the Arlington store Friday morning.
Just after 10 a.m. Nov. 29, Arlington police were sent to a shooting call in the parking lot of Costco. Officers said it appeared that two men were breaking into a pickup truck when the owner and his friend came out of the store and confronted the suspects.
Police said one of the suspects pulled out a weapon believed to be a gun, when the victim pulled out a handgun he was legally carrying and shot “some rounds” toward the suspects vehicle.
The suspects shortly fled the scene with the victim’s toolbox and have not been located yet.
A would-be robber was shot during a gas station robbery Friday morning in west Houston, according to police.
The suspect walked into the Shell station in the 11400 block of Richmond Avenue around 7 a.m., pulled a pistol and demanded money from the cashier, according to police. The clerk complied with the suspect and started cleaning out the register, at which point the suspect became distracted with a set of lottery tickets behind the counter, police said.
With the suspect’s attention away from him, the clerk pulled a pistol of his own and started shooting at the gunman, police said. The robbery suspect was struck at least once, police said.
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – The holiday is off to a violent start after two people were shot in Philadelphia’s Feltonville section overnight. Gunfire erupted outside Cooper’s Bar on the 100 block of West Wyoming Avenue, just after two 2 a.m. Thursday.
Police say a security guard and a 33-year-old man were standing outside when a car pulled up and started firing at them.
The man was struck once in the arm.
The security guard returned fire, shooting the 27-year-old passenger in the hand.
Both victims are in stable condition.
Police are treating the men inside the car as suspects.
For thousands of years prior to the 18th century, authoritarian rule and limited commerce prevented rapid improvement to general human economic conditions. Since then, economic freedom has allowed humans to fly through the air, walk on the moon, conquer numerous diseases, develop hundreds of life-saving medical treatments, more than double our average lifespans, massively improve dentistry, enable billions to live without hunger, and invent conveniences such as appliances, lights, photography, air conditioning, cell phones and indoor plumbing. All of this progress depended on economic freedom: private property rights including the right to trade.
When a system works this well, we shouldn’t mess with it. But alas, leftists point out that economic freedom allows some to get much richer than others. Leftists ignore that in America, the poor today have overall lifestyles far superior to those enjoyed by the middle class fifty years ago, including better cars, better medical treatments, safer food, more affordable clothing, advanced phones and other electronics. And the poor fifty years ago were better off than the middle class 100 years ago, and so forth. But leftists believe they can orchestrate increased income equality without damaging future innovations and prosperity. There is no evidence – theoretical or empirical – to support their beliefs.
The showcase for leftist economic policies is Venezuela. Venezuela seemed to be a country immune to the debilitating effects of socialism: it has the world’s largest oil reserves. The Venezuelan government’s confiscation of wealth and massive giveaway programs in the early years after Chavez’s rise to power caused leftists all over the world to celebrate Venezuela as a success story. In 2007 (about eight years after Chavez took power) Venezuela proudly shipped free heating oil to poor people in the U.S.
It took longer than a few years to destroy Venezuela because of its incredibly valuable natural resources. Eventually, socialism did it. Stealing wealth from those who produce more than they consume has consequences. In recent years Venezuela has been unable to supply its unfortunate citizens with adequate food and other essentials. The Miami Herald reports[1] that 15%-19% of Venezuela’s population has fled the country. Crime rates such as kidnapping are up over 2,000% from the years of democratic rule prior to Chavez’s takeover.
The decline of Venezuela has been truly astounding. Yet leftists plan to impose their hairbrained economic schemes on a global scale just like they did in Venezuela on a national scale.
Millennials and others do not understand economics. They lament over the increasing percentage of our income that goes to health care. What stupidity! In the last 150 years America has gone from having to devote 50% of its workforce to food production to devoting well under 5%. The incredible advances in agricultural productivity have freed up tens of millions of workers to devote themselves to improved healthcare and other pursuits. A cherished goal should be that we are able to meet all of our non-healthcare needs with fewer and fewer workers (and other resources) so that we can devote more and more to healthcare. There is a limit to how many electronic gadgets, automobiles and years of schooling a person needs. But we are nowhere near to reaching the limit to the number of medical cures and innovative treatment methods that can help us live better lives. Eventually, technological advances will permit vastly improved healthcare with less resources – and the resulting excess of resources will be applied to a new sector.
The leftists will not just halt economic progress – they will reverse it. If the leftists gain control of our entire economy they will destroy it. If that happens to America’s economy, what country will take over the role of being the world’s engine of innovation?
