Consider the shotgun: traditional provider of meat for the pot, defender of hearth and home, and long regarded as the ultimate in anti-bad-guy ordnance. Having conducted a fair number of shotgun home-defense courses over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to see a lot of different people, with a lot of different levels of experience, handle a lot of different shotguns. However, a few similarities have emerged over time regarding people and their favorite scattergun. From the 58-year-old insurance adjuster to the 26-year-old police officer to the 33-year-old single mother, I’ve made the same observations time and time again. So with your kind indulgence, I’d like to look at a few of these items and the ways they can be addressed. After all, fixing things in training mode can help stave off catastrophe in reality mode.
- Law Archive
- Gun Laws By State
- NY Article 265 (State Firearms Laws)
- NY Article 35 (Defense Justification)
- NY Article 400 (State Firearms Licensing)
- NYC Title 38 (NYC Firearms Laws)
- NYC Prop/Airsoft/Replica Gun Laws
- NY State Police Guide to The New York Safe Act Enforcement (Leaked PDF)
- Kwong vs. Bloomberg
- Beach Vs. Kelly (NYC Residents and FOPA)
- Maloney v. Cuomo (Nunchukas Banned)
- ATF Section
- TSA: Traveling with Firearms
- Chronology: US Historical Documents
- NYCG Radio
“Law of the Gun”
- 2014 (1176)
- 2013 (2777)
- 2012 (2380)
- 2011 (43)
- 2010 (27)
- UK: Father Who Killed His S… by Glenn At New…
A father who used a mobile phone app to track down the man who stole his son’s iPhone before killing him in a knife fight has been jailed for six years.
Derek Grant’s son Jordan, a 20-year-old politics student, was held up at knifepoint by Patrick Bradley, described in court as a “man of violence”, as he made his way home from work last August.
They found Bradley later the same day after tracing the phone using the Find My iPhone app.
When Grant demanded the handset from Bradley he blinded the father-of-four by stabbing him in the eye. Grant then retaliated by knifing 29-year-old Bradley and fatally injuring him.
Grant, 38, was originally charged with murder, following the incident in Greenock on August 30 last year, but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
At the High Court in Livingston, the judge Lord Boyd noted that Bradley “was a man of violence” who had 10 convictions for assault.
He told Grant: “But you, of course you did not know that. What you did know was that earlier that night Patrick Bradley had robbed your son of his mobile phone at knifepoint.
“Had he been caught it seems likely, given his record, that he would have been prosecuted in this court, the High Court, and on conviction would have received a High Court sentence.
“As it happens you had the means to bring him to justice because the phone had been easily located by the Find My iPhone app.”
The judge added that all he needed to do was to phone the police and give them the information, but instead he took a knife from his home and went with his three sons to look for the robber.
Glenn Says: Why do I fight the pussification? This is why! A limp-wristed elitist judge jails a father for doing WHAT THE POLICE & COURTS WOULD NOT DO. This human waste was jailed 10 TIMES. The system failed. This father should be given a medal, not six years. Pussified assholes in the UK Unite…
- Virginia Democrat asks God … by Glenn At New…
Mike Dickinson, the unhinged Virginia Democrat who once sought the House seat formerly held by Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a tweet Sunday asking God to kill everyone in the NRA with the Ebola virus. The tweet was sent after he issued another message saying he would lead a prayer asking God to murder everyone in the NRA during the debut of his alleged radio program.
“Dear god (sic),” he began. “Please use Ebola to infect the @NRA and it’s various members. For they are A (sic) true virus and true terrorists in America.”
He followed that up with another tweet, telling the world he thinks “there would be no funnier thing then (sic) to see the @NRA s (sic) members in a death clutch of their gun while dealing w Ebola.” Dickinson’s tweets didn’t go over well with anyone.
“I doubt hate speech will help out your campaign…..especially since your (sic) running in Virginia,” one person said. Dickinson, however, is not on the ballot as he elected to not file papers.
“@VoteMike2014 you realize how damaging this is to your image, right?” one person asked. “Or is it acceptable to wish death on political opponents in the US now?”
- Black Riots Hit New York Ci… by Glenn At New…
Five people have been arrested after five police officers were injured trying to break up an out of control block party in Upper Manhattan Saturday night.
Residents lobbed bottles and other items at the officers while the cops were trying to disperse a crowd at the annual “Love is Love” gathering on Edgecombe Avenue and West 164th Street in Washington Heights, around 10:15 p.m., officials said.
Five police officers were injured and taken to St. Luke’s Hospital, according to the NYPD. All were treated and released.
“This whole city is turning into Ferguson,” complained neighbor Jaqelle Walker.
- Would-Be Dairy Queen Bandit… by Glenn At New…
On August 28 “a man trying to rob” an Albuquerque, New Mexico, Dairy Queen was shot and killed by an armed employee.
According to the Albuquerque Journal, a Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) spokesman said the would-be robber “went to the Dairy Queen window with a gun and demanded money.” A store employee handed money to the suspect, after which the suspect continued pointing the gun and “asked for more money.” That is when a different employee – one who was armed – stepped up shot the suspect.
Walter Lopez was working in his backyard next to Dairy Queen when he “heard three shots, then a pause, and then two more shots.”
- The Communist States of America by Glenn At New…
A preferred ploy of left-wing change agents is to ridicule critics when they point out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s “progressive” movement, to include the Democratic Party in general, and the goals of the early, and very much still alive, communist movement.
If, for instance, one mentions the historical fact that nearly every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist, to include his own parents, then one is immediately mocked and dismissed as a neo-McCarthyite hack pining for the bygone days of the Red Scare. This is an evasive, ad hominem strategy employed by those who are caught, for lack of a better word, red-handed.
To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.
There are multiple layers within “progressivism’s” pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian Marxist philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood, however, is the “progressive” rush toward cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.
- New Form of Cyberbullying T… by Glenn At New…
There is a new form of cyberbullying out there and it is scary, because it could derail the professional career of any conservative – even those working in apolitical jobs. Slimy folks like “Busta Troll” are hijacking Facebook pages of conservatives, replacing the content with goats and anti-conservative messages. Some believe a goat is used because it is a Satanic symbol; many of the conservatives are targeted because of their Christian or Jewish views.
The conservative Citizens’ Post page on Facebook was hijacked by the “Goatz Alliance,” which also goes by the name “Busta Troll,” by pretending to be from a conservative organization called Freedom Alliance. The bullies also set up several fake conservative Facebook groups to give themselves credibility. Once they cajoled the owner into giving them admin privileges, the hijackers posted anti-conservative propaganda all over the page. On one of their fake Facebook pages, a cyber thug claims to be paid by George Soros.
Another conservative Facebook page, “America, the Next Generation,” was hijacked not just once but twice by the cyber thugs, who pretended to offer help fixing a rude post about Obama, but then posted goats. R.W. Burgin, who runs a Facebook page called The Seditionist, told The Examiner that liberal cyber thugs copied photos from his page and photoshopped them into parody pages and videos, including alongside pornography. He was called a pedophile and his employer was contacted, in order to try and get him fired.
The cyber thugs are clever and have a lot of time on their hands. The main thug, Busta Troll, apparently gave an anonymous interview to the Atlanta Conservative Examiner, boasting that he had “goated” 17 Facebook pages. Then he supposedly set up an elaborate scheme where he pretended that a conservative named Kevin Kopper had his Facebook page hijacked, so Kopper offered $1,000 to anyone who could out Busta Troll. Kopper claimed he found someone for $1,000 who identified Busta Troll as Christopher Lyman. Busta Troll explains the scheme on his website and how all the names involved are fake. It looks like Busta Troll’s identity may have finally been discovered. Fortunately, Facebook appears to be cracking down on Busta Troll, at least for the most part.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are even more disturbing ways cyber thugs are going after conservative activists. Donna Cruse, a vocal Tea Party activist, had one of these hateful people photoshop her Facebook page to make it look like she said something racist related to her credit union employer and how they give out loans. The screenshot was then posted publicly by Americans Against the Tea Party, and the credit union was contacted to complain about her.
The problem? They should have contacted the credit union first. The bank told the anonymous coward that she hadn’t been employed there since 2010! Her alleged comment makes no sense in 2014. Unfortunately, her current employer watched as the cyber storm occurred on the credit union’s site, and due to the frenzied public reaction to this hoax, she was immediately suspended and has been placed on indefinite, unpaid suspension. She is nowreceiving death threats. Her previous co-workers are afraid to associate with her, possibly out of fear for their jobs. Even more outrageous, Donna has many black friends – who I happened to notice in photos with her on her Facebook page – and last year, she shaved all her hair off her head to show her support for an ethnic friend who was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.
Nevertheless, her current employer launched an investigation into her and found what they believed to be another Facebook profile of hers, but it was actually a dormant account of a leftist troll who simply changed the name and added a stolen photo, causing further investigation into her personally. In other words, Donna has become “the criminal” in the story. This is how they terrorize people on the right to the point of suicide.
- When can you legally use a … by Glenn At New…
One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an “unarmed” Mike Brown. (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6’4″ 292 pound Brown as a “kid” or “child,” as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.) Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the “unarmed” Trayvon Martin.
The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense.
In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force. Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets: non-deadly force and deadly force. There is some stratification in the context of non-deadly force–a poke to the chest is not the same degree of non-deadly force as a punch to the face–but really none whatever in the context of deadly force. Deadly force is simply deadly force. For purposes of conciseness, I limit this discussion to cases in which deadly force is involved, as was the case in both Ferguson and Zimmerman.
Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm
It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can literally cause death. Of course, force likely to cause death qualifies, naturally. But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader than the phrase might suggest. In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave bodily harm.”
We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the following lines: the temporary loss of an important bodily function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of defenselessness.
Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully respond. Rather, there must be an imminent threat of one of these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as would a defender being threatened with such harm.
- Federal District Court: Cal… by Glenn At New…
On Monday, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an opinion holding that California’s 10-day waiting period for nearly all firearm sales violates the Second Amendment, at least as applied to certain individuals. The opinion, written by Judge Anthony W. Ishii, generally found California’s justifications for the waiting period insufficient to overcome the burden the waiting period placed on Californians’ right to keep and bear arms.
The court first concluded that the waiting period created a burden on the Second Amendment. Specifically, it found the state failed to put forth any historical evidence showing that the waiting period should fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment or was one of the types of longstanding and presumptively lawful regulations identified by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Because the court determined that the waiting period burdened the Second Amendment, the state was required to show a “reasonable fit” between the supposed state interest furthered by the law, public safety, and the state’s rationale for how the waiting period furthered that interest.
The state attempted to justify the burden created by the waiting period with three separate arguments. First, that the waiting period provided time for the California Department of Justice to conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser. Second, that the waiting period created a “cooling off period” that prevented impulsive acts of violence. Third, that the waiting period helped to deter “straw purchases” by giving law enforcement sufficient time to investigate the purchaser.
The plaintiffs argued that these justifications were insufficient to meet the “reasonable fit” requirement as to three classes of individuals: those who already own a firearm as indicated by California’s Automated Firearms System, holders of concealed carry permits, and holders of a Certificate of Eligibility. Notably, individuals in each of these classes have already undone extensive background checks and, in most cases, already own one or more firearms.
The court analyzed the justifications for each class separately, but the court’s rationale in rejecting each justification was generally the same for each separate class. In rejecting the background check justification, the court found that in many cases background checks are completed anywhere from a few hours to one day and in the vast majority of cases the check was completed in fewer than 10 days, so the background check provided no justification for the waiting period beyond the actual time needed to complete the check on a case-by-case basis. The court was not persuaded by the “cooling off period” justification because individuals in each of the three classes already owned a firearm or had undergone a thorough background investigation that made it extremely unlikely that these individuals would carry out an impulsive violent crime. As to the “straw purchase” justification, the court found that there was no evidence that the legislature had intended the waiting period to serve as a deterrent to straw purchases or that the waiting period actually did deter straw purchases.
Even if the decision is not appealed, it will not take effect for at least 180 days because of a stay that was granted to give California sufficient time to alter its firearm acquisition procedures to comply with the court’s holding. While the holding is technically limited to the three classes of individuals raised by the plaintiffs, the court’s discussion of the state’s justifications, or lack thereof, for the waiting period exposes waiting period laws for what they truly are: an attempt to limit firearm ownership through burdensome regulation.
- Study: “Assault Weapon” and… by Glenn At New…
In a new study, Mark Gius, of Quinnipiac University’s Department of Economics, has found that between 1980 and 2009, “states with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher” than those of other states. Gius also concluded that state “murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal [‘assault weapon’ and ‘large’ magazine] ban was in effect.” Gius says that more research is needed to determine whether these gun control laws contributed to, or merely coincided with, higher rates of crime.
Nationally, murder rates have certainly been lower since the federal gun and magazine bans were in effect. The bans went into effect in September 1994 and expired in September 2004. During the 10 years 1995-2004, the average annual murder rate was 6.2 per 100,000 population. From 2005 to 2012, however, the average rate has been 16 percent lower, at 5.2 per 100,000.
Murder rates have also decreased as the number of Right-to-Carry (RTC) states have increased. From 1987, when Florida adopted its trend-setting Right-to-Carry law, through 2012, the share of the American population living in RTC states rose from 16 percent to 70 percent, and the nation’s murder rate decreased 43 percent.
Looked at another way, from 1991, when violent crime peaked in the United States, through 2012, 24 four states adopted Right-to-Carry laws and 45 states experienced decreases in their murder rates (ranging from one to 83 percent). Similarly, 43 states experienced decreases in their total violent crime rates (ranging from one to 65 percent).
The findings of the Gius study are essentially in line with two other major studies on the same subjects. John Lott’s and David Mustard’s study found that Right-to-Carry laws not only coincide with, but contribute to, a reduction in violent crime. Meanwhile, the Urban Institute’s study of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban found that the ban was ineffective because the banned firearms and magazines were rarely used in crime prior to the ban.
The Gius study adds to the increasing body of research concluding that Right-to-Carry laws don’t increase crime and may reduce it. It also adds to the already substantial body of evidence that restricting general-purpose semi-automatic rifles and limiting magazine capacity doesn’t reduce crime.
One wonders, therefore, whether the next study should seek to understand why anti-gun activists continue to pretend otherwise.
- Rahm Emanuel Puts “Po… by Glenn At New…
Even though Chicago has more murders than any city, its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, says it’s not the “murder capital,” Politico reports.
Emanuel appears to base his conclusion on a study ranking Chicago 21st in terms of its per capita murder rate. However, this ranking compares Chicago (population 2.7 million) to towns with populations as low as 100,000. While apples-to-apples in terms of using rates instead of numbers of crimes, it isn’t apples-to-apples to compare a big city with small towns.
Emanuel further noted that violent crime is down for the first seven months of 2014. However, Chicago’s situation doesn’t appear so favorably when its murder rates are compared to those of other cities and the country, year-in and year-out, over time, from 1985 through 2012. Since the early 1990s, Chicago’s murder rate has been significantly higher than the aggregate rate of other cities of comparable size.
Emanuel notes that murders in Chicago have declined thus far in 2014, as compared to 2010 and 2013. However, Emanuel was elected in May 2011, and from 2011 to 2012, Chicago’s murder rate increased 16 percent. Meanwhile, the aggregate murder rate of other cities of one million or greater population decreased three percent.
Additionally, Chicago’s murder rates have remained consistently higher than the aggregate rate of other large cities over time.
Chicago’s murder rate trends have also been worse than those of the other cities over time.
Chicago’s crime problem may take a turn for the better, however. Recent court decisions have eliminated some of the most egregious violations of, and obstacles to, city residents’ exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.
In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down Chicago’s ban on shooting ranges in Ezell v. Chicago, saying “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use.” In 2012, the same court declared Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for protection unconstitutional, resulting in the state adopting a “shall issue” carry permit law the following year. And this year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck down Chicago’s ban on firearm transfers.
In his bid for reelection, Emanuel is trailing a potential opponent, in part due to Chicago’s persistent crime problem. We look forward to a day when the mayor of Chicago, whoever that may be, can happily report that crime in the city has been cut by the same margins that have been seen in states and cities whose laws have a longer history of respect for the right to arms.
- Ray Ficara on “Repeal the SAFE Act&…Are they in the basement of the Gov's Mansion?
- Ray Ficara on Star Witness In Michael Bro…Is he Jenteal's cousin?
- Ray Ficara on An Automatic Weapon Is What…The Media HAVE their "sources".
- Ray Ficara on Gun-grabber Bloomturd’s epi…The ONLY stores not robbed or burned were guarded by owners with GUNS.
- Glenn At New… on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Notice he 'fesses up only after Bloomturd's last paycheck cleared...
- Ray Ficara on Video: Stupid Liberals Shoo…They ALWAYS do. That's why libs hate ranges and shooting schools.
- Ray Ficara on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…But you can have a NICE living of them.
- Greg Tabor on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Well, Duh, anyone with half a brain could have told you that it wouldn't work!!!
- Greg Tabor on Trend toward stand your gro…Who else sleeps with a pistol under their pillow?? Mine's a .45, how about yours?
- Greg Tabor on The Second Amendment Only A…Well, Duh, money Rules, Peons eat shit.