We’ve been arguing against gun buyback programs since day one (three years come mid-Feb). They’re a really bad idea on every level—save feel-good political grandstanding. If nothing else, these “no questions asked” cash-for-guns initiatives destroy evidence that could be used to solve crimes. And waste taxpayer money. And . . . don’t get me started. In an ideal world, gun buybacks would die from a confrontation with common sense. In the real world, they may peter out on their own. orlandosentinel.com brings us glad tidings of waning participation…
- 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
- HR 218 “LEOSA” Carry Law
- NYS Police Guide to SAFE Act
- 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- Chronology: US Historical Documents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
“Gabby Giffords Jumps the Shark”
- 2014 (1380)
- 2013 (2777)
- 2012 (2380)
- 2011 (43)
- 2010 (27)
- Oklahoma City beheading: Wi… by Glenn At New…
Vaughan Foods Chief Operating Officer Mark Vaughan, a reserve sheriff’s deputy, used his personal handgun that he brings to work to stop a beheading attack by recently converted Muslim Alton Nolen on Friday in Oklahoma.
While police in Moore, Okla., have called Mr. Vaughan’s actions heroic, it’s also true that in some parts of the US he could have faced employer sanctions for bringing a gun to his job.
Oklahoma, however, is a pioneer in so-called “bring your gun to work” laws that have spread to 22 other states, mostly in the South and Midwest. The laws make it illegal for a firm to tell employees to leave their guns at home if they use a company parking lot. Some states, including Oklahoma, extend that protection into the workplace.
As the FBI began to investigate whether Mr. Nolen’s recent conversion to Islam played a role in the attack, the issue of guns at work took on new importance, at least for Americans who worry that lone-wolf Islamic jihadis in the US could take inspiration from gruesome beheading videos from the Middle East. Corporations have largely opposed “bring your gun to work” laws out of concerns that guns at work could instigate rather than defuse workplace violence.
“Americans should be ready to face these fanatics,” John Snyder, a gun law expert and lobbyist, says in a press release on Saturday. “As the Oklahoma [attack] indicates, people can stop terror attacks with firearms. Americans need their guns to defend life and freedom.”
- The Journalists’ Guide to G… by Glenn At New…
Journalists. Bless their hearts. As a rule of thumb, any time we read a news story about a subject or incident we already know a lot about, it turns out that about 25% of what’s reported is simply wrong.
This is why knowledgeable gun owners distrust many news stories involving guns: because too many “journalists” display an ignorance of firearms that would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling. If they can’t get their facts straight about gun technology and shooting, then we don’t trust them on much else.
For over 24 years as a patent attorney, I’ve taken pride in my ability to explain stuff effectively. I’m known as “The Firearms Patent Attorney” because I represent more firearms companies than any other patent attorney or law firm in the world (by a wide margin). That means I spend lots of time explaining how guns work. And I have to keep it simple because I’m not just writing for specialized patent examiners, but for juries and judges, in case there’s ever a lawsuit.
The best compliment I ever get from inventors about a patent application is “Wow! You really understand my invention!” So maybe if I’m good at making gun tech understandable, I might be the right guy to help out the technically-illiterate journalists. Here we go:
- California case could end &… by Glenn At New…
Millions more Americans will have the right to drive and walk around U.S. cities with hidden, loaded guns if former police officer and videographer Edward Peruta wins his fight to carry one on assignment.
The sheriff in San Diego rejected Peruta’s application for a permit to carry his Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol while traveling with cash and expensive equipment in high-crime California neighborhoods. Peruta sued, and a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled in February that the Second Amendment entitles any responsible, law-abiding citizen to possess a concealed firearm in public for self defense.
If the ruling stands after further review by the full court, the Supreme Court could take the case, six years after the justices struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned handguns in the home.
Since that landmark decision, state and local government efforts to regulate gun possession have largely survived legal attack by gun-rights advocates. A victory for Peruta at the high court could reverse that trend and be used to attack strict public-carry laws in New York City, Boston, Baltimore and Washington. That would expand the number of people with concealed guns on city streets to as much as 5 percent, according to Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
“It would mean that the discretionary permitting process in many major cities would be invalidated,” Winkler said. “You’re absolutely talking about millions more people having permits to carry guns.”
The Supreme Court has rarely waded into Second Amendment disputes, the 2008 case being the first in 70 years. In that ruling, the court in a 5-4 vote said for the first time that the Constitution protects individual gun rights, even if a person isn’t affiliated with a state-run militia.
In a 2010 decision that expanded on that one, the court ruled 5-4 that states and cities are bound by the Second Amendment, as well as the federal government. Both cases involved handgun possession in the home, not in public.
- CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NON-… by Glenn At New…
Can/should I hold someone at gunpoint?” A common question when the topic of guns and defensive use of deadly force is discussed. The questioner’s “gunpoint” hypothetical usually poses a home invasion, robbery attempt of the questioner, or “in progress” interdiction of someone committing a property crime, or a violent crime against the questioner or another person. The question is another one to which I respond with my smart aleck lawyer’s answer: “I don’t know, can/should you?” It lends itself to analysis similar to what I discussed in prior MSW posts on the use of deadly force – my paradigm:
CAN / MAY / SHOULD / MUST
For the purpose of this post, holding someone “at gunpoint” is not necessarily muzzling the threatened person(s), openly holding an exposed firearm in any specific “ready” position, or a mode of “display” permitted or prohibited by a state “brandishing” statute. I use the phrase here to mean the display of a firearm coupled with the express or implied threat that a failure to obey commands will result in the use of deadly force, that is, the gunpointer WILL shoot. (If unprivileged, usually considered a serious felony, such as an armed assault or assault with/by deadly weapon). Consider the following for your analysis of the SHOULD element of the paradigm.
The CAN: Yes, it has been done. By the aged and frail, even when outnumbered. You can find the stories on the internet. Surprisingly, stories on gunpoint failures are absent. (The embarrassed don’t admit, and the dead don’t speak). Reality check: Anything beyond a brief taking of someone at gunpoint and then allowing/urging them to make a hasty retreat is rather complicated. It requires command presence/confidence for an extended period of time, advanced tactical skills (CQB, firearm, improvisation, less lethal), and most important – in-hand firearm retention training. Gunpointing is difficult at best against one adversary, and almost impossible to effect solo over multiple adversaries. (Unless one or both are incapacitated — see example here). Your hypothesized home invader and robber are not likely first time rodeo attendees. He/she/they may have planned in advance to implement a response (you can bet it is ugly) if caught in the act or resisted by an uncommitted homeowner/victim. Questions to ask yourself: Do you know the experience, skill, or mindset of the adversary? Does he/she have a second/concealed weapon? Does your adversary know that action usually beats reaction? Can you multitask with a gun and phone in hand to secure family members or other innocents, handle possible criminal confederates, admit/direct responding LEOs? Does your gunpoint position give you overwatch on avenues of ingress? What is the adversary willing to risk? What are you? Are the interests of other innocents simultaneously at stake? Do you feel lucky?
- Chuckie Cheese Shooting (CA… by Glenn At New…
Windows shattered and families ran for cover Sunday night after an argument between two men in front of a Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurant in Southern California escalated to a shooting, authorities said.
No injuries were reported after at least 13 rounds, some striking windows and walls just a few feet from customers, were fired at about 8 p.m. outside the family pizzeria at 6005 Rosemead Boulevard in Pico Rivera, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
“It sounded like fireworks,” said witness Sergio De La Cruz. “It could have been dangerous. It could have hit a child.”
No arrests were reported Monday morning.
- USA Today fluff piece: “Gif… by Glenn At New…
Sitting at her kitchen table, nose-to-nose with speech therapist Fabi Hirsch, the former Arizona congresswoman is painstakingly practicing the brief speech she plans to deliver this fall at appearances advocating tighter gun laws. The text in front of her reads, “We stand for common sense,” but to her growing frustration she keeps saying, “We stand for common self.”
Hirsch says the phrase alone a few times as Giffords closes her eyes to listen. Then they recite it together, slowly. Finally Giffords nails it: “We stand for common sense.”
Word by word, step by step, inch by inch, Gabby Giffords is coming back from the assassination attempt in suburban Tucson on Jan. 8, 2011, which killed six people and sent a bullet into her brain.
Spurred by the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School two years later, she and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, founded Americans for Responsible Solutions. Their new book, Enough: Our Fight to Keep America Safe from Gun Violence, is being published Tuesday by Scribner — a sort of sequel to their 2012 book, Gabby, which chronicled the shooting and her all-but-miraculous survival.
Now a day with Giffords and Kelly at their colorful, comfortable Spanish-style house gives a glimpse into how far she has come, and how far she has to go.
- U.S. GUN RANGE BANS MUSLIMS… by Glenn At New…
A gun range owner, Jan Morgan,decided to ban Muslims from her business.From her website…
I officially declare my business, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, a MUSLIM FREE ZONE.
I have made this decision based on the following FACTS:
1) The Koran (which I have read and studied thoroughly and (which all muslims align themselves with), contains 109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam. Don’t take my word for it, click on this blue link and read the verses, HERE.
2) My life has been threatened repeatedly by muslims who are angry that I have studied their koran, know it better than most of them, and am exposing the vileness of their so called “holy book” and its murderous directives.
3) The barbaric act of beheading an innocent American in Oklahoma by a muslim, the Boston bombings, and the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11 are more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate that muslims can and will follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.
4) Because the nature of my business involves firearms and shooting in an enclosed environment, my patrons are not comfortable being around muslims with guns. (can you blame them?)
Read more at Jan Morgan Media
- MA Town Officials Push CCW … by Glenn At New…
GOAL released the statement be low on August 22, 2014, since then the situation has evolved. Once again anti Second Amendment forces are working to ban your rights and remove your choice of armed self defense, leaving you unable to protect yourself or loved ones. The genesis of this new attack is quite reprehensible and based on what somebody “thought” they saw. As the story goes, an attendee at a recent public meeting “thought” they saw a person carrying con cealed, they never actually saw a gun. That person who might, or might not have been carrying concealed was supposedly in a heated discussion with another attendee of the meeting.
The person who “thought” they saw something reported it. This gave Natick Chief of Police James Hicks and Town Administrator Martha White the idea of enacting a ban on your right of choosing armed self defense. At this time GOAL is working to confirm that the town of Natick is planning to go forward with voting on this ban at town meeting which is scheduled for October 21, 2014.
GOAL will update with alerts as necessary. If you live in Natick please make plans to attend town meeting if necessary. If you know anybody that lives in Natick, please make them aware of the situation.
- Shaneen Allen to Avoid Pris… by Glenn At New…
In a stunning outbreak of sanity in the Garden State, Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain has reversed his earlier decision to seek prison time for Shaneen Allen, a single mother from Philadelphia who was facing felony prosecution for misunderstanding concealed carry reciprocity rules. The decision came after John Hoffman, acting New Jersey Attorney General, issued statewide guidance to county prosecutors clarifying the application of New Jersey’s mandatory sentencing scheme to certain minor firearm violations. These developments mean that not only will Ms. Allen and her children be spared the ordeal of her facing a felony conviction and lengthy prison term but that other travelers who unwittingly violate New Jersey’s harsh laws gun laws may also avoid a similar nightmare.
Shaneen Allen’s case shocked the conscience of a broad range of Americans, particularly given the disparate treatment McClain’s office recently provided to professional football player Ray Rice. Rice was caught on video knocking unconscious his then- fiancée with a punch, but McClain still approved him for New Jersey’s Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI), which allows first time offenders to avoid criminal conviction after a period of supervised rehabilitative efforts. Meanwhile, McClain had initially refused to show Allen the same leniency, instead offering her a plea that would have required her to complete at least 3 ½ years of a possible 10-year prison sentence without chance of parole. Even certain media figures not known as stalwart Second Amendment supporters — including CNN’s Anderson Cooper — recoiled at the injustice.
McClain has now reversed his decision on Ms. Allen’s participation in PTI, stating, “In applying the factors set out in the [attorney general’s] clarification, I determined that the defendant in this case should be offered the opportunity to be admitted into the Atlantic County PTI Program.”
Indeed, the “mitigating” factors the attorney general’s memorandum counsels prosecutors to consider closely parallel the circumstances of Ms. Allen’s case. First, she lawfully owned the firearm and would have been lawfully able to carry it in her state of residence. Once in New Jersey, the firearm apparently never left her vehicle. She was otherwise law-abiding, and police only discovered the gun because of a routine traffic stop. Ms. Allen volunteered the presence of the firearm even before being asked about it, and police immediately took it into custody. Finally, Ms. Allen was honestly unaware that her Pennsylvania concealed carry permit did not apply in New Jersey. Given the number of out-of-state tourists who come to New Jersey for its beaches, amusement parks, and casinos — and given that most other American states recognize and respect the Second Amendment — violations of this sort are to be expected. As the attorney general recognized in his memorandum: “[I]n most of these cases, imprisonment is neither necessary nor appropriate to serve the interests of justice and protect public safety.”
While we certainly welcome these developments, the enduring lessons of Shaneen Allen’s case (and the anguish and upheaval it has already caused her and her family) should not be forgotten. Even under the new guidance — which is merely advice on the law, not binding law itself — the simple act of carrying a firearm for purposes of self-defense is still presumptively criminal and still presumptively leads to mandatory imprisonment. Those lucky enough to be shown leniency in the disposition of their cases also still face arrest and search, an interruption of their journeys and normal lives, potentially lengthy periods of detention, the forfeiture of their lawfully-possessed firearms, fines, legal fees, stigma, and stress. Ms. Allen herself lost her employment and her residence and will face a lengthy period of rebuilding her life. And all this for an activity — carrying a firearm in case of confrontation.
True legal reform is still needed, including enactment of “Shaneen’s Law” in New Jersey and the Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 now pending in Congress. In the meantime, Ms. Allen joins such pivotal and largely unsung civil rights heroes as Otis McDonald and Mary Shepard, whose personal struggles achieved greater recognition of the Second Amendment for their fellow citizens. As Ms. Allen’s attorney Evan Nappen noted, these victories were not achieved in isolation but with the aid of untold numbers of Second Amendment supporters who ensured that these struggles did not go unnoticed. “Every NRA member should be proud,” Nappen said.
- The N.J. Star-Ledger Advoca… by Glenn At New…
Echoing a desire repeatedly mentioned by President Obama, last week the New Jersey Star-Ledger’s editorial board declared its support for Australian-style gun controls, most notably mandatory gun turn-ins. The comments come following the passage of A2895 in the New Jersey State Assembly, which would require the state to have a minimum number of voluntary gun turn-ins each year, using forfeiture funds and private donations. While conceding that their wish is unlikely to come true, the board insists that unless the voluntary turn-ins are made mandatory, “don’t expect it to make much of a difference.”
The editorial board goes on to tout Australia’s other severe gun controls, such as the country’s registration and licensing laws. Specifically, the Star-Ledger approvingly cites Australia’s lack of respect for the right to self-defense, stating, “Gun owners have to present a ‘genuine reason’ to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn’t enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun.” This view is at odds with the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which found that the Second Amendment protects firearm ownership for the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Further, it ignores data showing that the majority of American gun owners own firearms for personal safety reasons.
Credit the board’s frankness, at least. Few gun control advocates in today’s increasingly-media conscious age are willing to be so explicit about their views and goals.
The accuracy of the board’s research, however, is another matter. The paper contends that Australia’s strict gun controls have led to a massive drop in violence. However, this isn’t the conclusion reached by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice in the run-up to the Obama administration’s 2013 gun control push. In a memo that surveyed a variety of gun control measures, including the Australian regime, the author noted:
The Australia buyback appears to have had no effect on crime otherwise. One study (Leigh & Neill 2010) has proven confusing in that its abstract suggests that Australia’s gun buyback reduced firearm homicide rates by 80%, but the body of the report finds no effect. Others (Reuter & Mouzas 2003) have used the same data and also found no effect on crime although they also noted that mass shootings appear to have disappeared in Australia. A third study (Chapman et al 2006) using Australian data from 1979 to 2003 shows that the firearm homicide rate was already declining prior to the firearm reforms and that there is no evidence that the new legislation accelerated the declines. This remains true when data through 2007 are added to the analysis (conducted by G. Ridgeway on 1/3/2013 at NIJ).
Regardless of the misinformation in the editorial, the piece is useful as an unfiltered glimpse into the minds of gun control supporters. Gun control advocates will not be satisfied until Americans are forced to turn their firearms into the government. This viewpoint, shared so vividly by the Star-Ledger editorial board, also illustrates why gun owners must fight firearms registration and restrictions on private transfers. Such measures facilitate gun control activist’s ultimate goal of involuntary turn-ins/confiscation.
Perhaps coincidentally, the news this week suggests the Star-Ledger editorial board have a comrade in gun control, literally. On September 22, BBC reported that Venezuela’s United Socialist Party President Nicolas Maduro will be spending $47 million on a gun turn-in initiative to help enforce the country’s stringent gun laws. Maduro is the decidedly undemocratic hand-picked successor to the notorious Hugo Chavez.
- 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.