New York City Guns archive
Category : News

Shaneen Allen to Avoid Prison as New Jersey AG Revises Sentencing Guidance for Gun Law Violations

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

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 Advocates Mandatory Gun Turn-Ins

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

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.

Venezuelan President Announces $47 Million for Civilian Disarmament Centers

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

It’s what happens to gun owners and freedom when a lawless, leftwing, socialist president who doesn’t like America, who uses the power of his office to intimidate his political opponents, and who will do nearly anything to preserve his power gets elected. On Sunday, Nicholas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, announced that he will spend $47 million for 60 civilian disarmament centers, where people can turn in their privately owned guns. Venezuela banned the commercial sale of guns in 2012, and Maduro–continuing the fundamental transformation of the country begun by his predecessor, Hugo Chavez–now says “We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.”

Venezuelans ought to think twice before handing over weapons they may need to defend against a “peace” worse than the one under which they currently live. It’s already pretty bad, and it’s moving in the wrong direction.

In March 2013, the Washington Post noted that Maduro is silencing independent news organizations. The same month, the Post said “inflation is among the highest in the world, power outages are routine and consumers are plagued with shortages of basic goods.” The following month the Post noted that Maduro, “a former bus driver and Cuban protégé” initially courted by President Barack Obama, prohibited Venezuelans from protesting the results of his questionable election. In June, the Post said that protesters now object to “food shortages, the suppression of free speech, inflation soaring above 60 percent and a stratospheric crime rate,” but “the Obama administration has opposed imposing any sanctions.” And last month, the Post said that Venezuela may soon “suffer a catastrophic economic collapse,” because the “economically illiterate” Maduro believes “our problems are the result of economic war waged by the opposition and private business.”

Because it’s a clear threat to freedom, Maduro’s plan to disarm civilians is popular in certain quarters. The government of Communist China, which prohibits people from having guns, which killed 1.5 million people during its Great Proletarian Revolution, and which condemns American gun ownership as a human rights violation, applauds it. No doubt gun control supporters in this country do as well.

Civilian disarmament can take many forms and can progress at different rates. Getting people to hand over their guns can even be encouraged with monetary compensation in the form of so-called “buy-back” programs. We can only hope that Venezuelans understand, as American gun owners do, that freedom, once lost, cannot be bought for what, in the long run, amounts to pocket change.

D.C. Council Passes Concealed Carry Bill that Nobody Wants

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

On Tuesday, the D.C. City Council unanimously passed an emergency bill that created a highly-restrictive “may-issue” concealed carry licensing system in the District. The law will be in effect for only 90 days, presumably to give the council more time to develop a permanent law and to wait for further developments in the case that overruled the District’s total ban on carrying a firearm in public for self-defense.

As we previously reported, the legislation itself seems to be an attempt to maintain the status quo of effectively prohibiting the carrying of firearms while the District continues to litigate the Palmer case. In fact, the council already tried unsuccessfully to maintain the current law while it appeals the ruling, but the court denied the District’s motion for an indefinite stay pending appeal. With the initial 90-day stay set to expire on October 22, the council reluctantly passed its bill, but no one should be fooled that the council made any legitimate attempt to recognize the right recognized by the court.

Despite the unanimity of the council’s vote, neither the plaintiffs in the case nor the council are happy about passage of the bill. Councilmember David Grosso made his feelings on the bill very clear at the meeting. Despite voting for it, Grosso said, “We’d like to have much stricter no carry rules at all … preferably no guns at all.” Grosso went on to lament that courts have forced the council into this “difficult situation,” ignoring the fact that the council repealed D.C.’s prior law for the issuance of carry licenses after Heller. As in Heller itself, the comprehensive ban on carrying that resulted was such an outlier that it effectively forced the court’s hand. That lesson, however, appears to be lost on Grosso and his colleagues.

While the council was unanimous in passing the bill, they were divided on a provision that would have made the names of all concealed carry license holders available to the public. Some on the council appeared to favor this measure mainly to punish anyone who actually does get a license or to dissuade others from even applying for one.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his other remarks, councilmember Grosso was in favor of making the names of licensees public. “We should at least give our neighbors and residents a chance to know who has the gun, put it up there …” he said, “we’ll all know who it is and we can treat them differently ….”

Grosso’s advocacy of discriminating against follow D.C. residents for exercising their rights was insulting enough. Yet Councilmember Yvette Alexander would not be upstaged in her utter disregard of the safety implications of advertising gun ownership to potential robbers and thieves. “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner,” she huffed, “we don’t want it.”

That desire to disarm the people, while dismissing their well-being, is of course exactly why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. As ever, the District of Columbia continues to illustrate the genius and foresight of the Founding Fathers who enacted it.

Feinstein: Everybody’s Wrong About My Gun Ban (Delusional Scum ALert!)

Categories: Activism, Humor, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

Here’s a lesson for California voters: When electing a person to represent you in Congress, remember that blind zealotry and self-righteousness are a poor substitute for level-headedness and humility.

California’s senior U.S. senator, Dianne Feinstein (D), sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans of 1994-2004, says that researchers who conducted the congressionally mandated study of the bans, and found them lacking in effect, are wrong.

Two weeks ago, on the 10-year anniversary of the bans’ expiration, Feinstein issued a press release claiming, as she has previously, that the bans were “responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders.” That figure, Feinstein says, comes from the congressionally-mandated study of the bans, which was conducted by Christopher Koper and other researchers at the Urban Institute.

On Wednesday, however, ProPublica reported that Professor Koper disagrees with Feinstein’s claim, and–get this–Feinstein says that Koper is wrong about his own study.

Reporter Lois Beckett writes that “Feinstein attributed the statistic to an initial Department of Justice-funded study of the first few years of the ban, published in 1997. But one of the authors of that study, Dr. Christopher Koper, a criminologist from George Mason University, told ProPublica that number was just a ‘tentative conclusion.’ Koper was also the principal investigator on the 2004 study that, as he put it, ‘kind of overruled, based on new evidence, what the preliminary report had been in 1997.’”

Beckett continues, “Koper said he and the other researchers in 2004 had not re-done the specific analysis that resulted in the 6.7 percent estimate, because the calculation had been based on an assumption that turned out to be false. In the 1997 study, Koper said, he and the other researchers had assumed that the ban had successfully decreased the use of large-capacity magazines. What they later found was that despite the ban, the use of large-capacity magazines in crime had actually stayed steady or risen.”

Professor Koper told Beckett, “The weight of evidence that was gathered and analyzed across the two reports suggested that the initial drop in the gun murder rate must have been due to other factors besides the assault weapons ban.”

However, Feinstein disagrees with Koper’s conclusion that his 2004 study invalidates the senator’s “6.7 percent” claim. And Feinstein insists, “I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle–and the data back this up.”

On reflection, Sen. Feinstein may want to start asking herself why so many people have disagreed with her, for so many years, on this subject.

In 1995, CBS 60 Minutes said that the claim, that the bans reduced crime, was nothing more than “a good applause line,” because the year the bans were imposed was “the best year for assault weapon sales ever.” In 2004, the Christian Science Monitor explained why, noting that “gun manufacturers only had to make minor changes to weapons in order to comply with the ban.” And as we noted in last week’s Alert, that same year, the anti-gun Violence Policy Center called Feinstein’s bans a “charade,” because sales of the guns and magazines that Feinstein tried to ban increased while the bans were in effect.

In fact, though she may not realize it, even Feinstein herself has admitted that her original bans were ineffective. That’s because ever since people started pointing out how ineffective her bans were, she’s been introducing legislation that wouldn’t just reinstate the bans, but which would instead go much further.

So far, Congress isn’t buying either Feinstein’s old ban or her new one. You know the old expression. “Fool me once, shame on you. . . .” To be on the safe side, however, let’s make sure that we get every gun owner to the polls on Election Day, so Feinstein never gets the chance to see how effective her new gun ban might be.

New York Times Mischaracterizes New FBI Report

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

Things have sure changed at the New York Times. In 1863, the newspaper used a Gatling gun to scare off a mob of draft protestors. Today, it can’t resist the temptation to put an anti-gun spin on things any chance it gets.

This week, the Times ran an article titled “FBI Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000,” which claimed that a report recently released by the FBI found that “Mass shootings have risen dramatically in the past half-dozen years.”

Say what? Come again?

The FBI’s report is titled A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2013. As the title indicates, the report deals with “active shooter incidents,” which the FBI describes as situations involving “an individual [or individuals] actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people.” The purpose of the report, the FBI says, is to “provide federal, state, and local law enforcement with data so they can better understand how to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from these incidents.”

While “mass shootings” are generally considered to be those with four of more murder victims, the FBI’s report is mostly concerned with crimes involving between zero and three such victims. Of the 160 crimes FBI considered, 45 (28 percent) had four or more murder victims, 19 (12 percent) had three, 29 (18 percent) had two, 36 (23 percent) had one, and 31 (19 percent) had none. Additionally, only 98 (61 percent) had four or more fatal and non-fatal victims combined.

Also, as the FBI notes, its report doesn’t include crimes committed without firearms. Anti-gun groups would like the public to believe that all mass murders are committed with firearms, but many such crimes are committed by other means. For example, USA Today has reported that between 2006 and 2013, there were at least 61 mass murders, with at least 286 victims, which were committed with knives or bludgeons, or by arson, drowning, strangulation or suffocation. By comparison, for the same period, the FBI’s report includes only 34 mass murders, with 272 victims, which were committed with firearms.

Additionally, the FBI notes, “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence–pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public–were not included in this study.” Thus, the FBI ignored at least 116 felony-related murders with four or more victims between 2000 and 2013, resulting in the murders of at least 498 people.

Moreover, the FBI didn’t include mass shootings that took place between 1949 and 1999, a decision that would affect a long-term trend line for such crimes. And, curiously, it didn’t even include the April 9, 2002, murders of five people in Toms River, New Jersey, by a police officer using a police department submachinegun and pistol, and the October 3, 2002, murders of five people in Montgomery County, Maryland, by the so-called “D.C. Snipers.”

However, the FBI report makes three things clear. First, contrary to what anti-gun groups are trying to get the American people to believe, murders that have four or more victims, whether committed with firearms or by other means, are the exception, not the rule. Second, the recent trend in such crimes has been skewed by a very small number of crimes with high casualty counts, committed by deranged individuals and, in one case, a person with jihadist sympathies.

Third, the FBI recognizes that private citizens faced with an “active shooter” can sometimes successfully intervene to bring the crime to a halt. “Of the 160 incidents, at least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene,” the FBI said.

Presumably, today’s New York Times would reject the FBI’s conclusion, and instead advise those who are under attack to cower, beg for mercy, or run, leaving other victims to fend for themselves. Of course, that’s not what the Times did in 1863, and it’s not always the best advice today.

United Nations to Propose Global Lead Ammo Ban

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 28, 2014

United Nations to Propose Global Lead Ammo Ban

A United Nations agency is proposing a ban on lead ammunition worldwide, which would serve as backdoor gun control by making ammo prohibitively expensive.

The United Nations Convention on Migratory Species, operating under the U.N. Environment Programme, is meeting in Quito, Ecuador on Nov. 4-9 to discuss and act on the lead ban recommended by a scientific council.

Reference material for the conference suggests that “voluntary approaches to restricting use of lead ammunition” do not work on a national level and for a proposed ban to work, a “range of societal issues” would need to be addressed, including “philosophical issues regarding gun rights and increased government oversight of shooting.”

“With respect to lead ammunition, the most effective way of reducing risks to migratory birds is to create legislative processes to restrict sale, possession and/or use of lead ammunition to ensure lead ammunition is not left unretrieved within the environment,” the document states.

Read More…

Designer Builds A 3D-Printable “Imura Revolver” In Honor Of Arrested Japanese Maker

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Shooting
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

When Japanese police arrested Yoshitomo Imura for printing his own revolvers, 3D printing advocates in some circles were up in arms. The guns, which only fired blanks, were simple test models called the Zig-Zag. Now, in honor of Imura’s work in 3D printing, a CAD designer has created a newer, better gun that could be used to fire real bullets.

The designer, who calls himself WarFairy, is part of a team of creators called Free Open Source Software & Computer Aided Design. He has begun Tweeting images of the gun, adding it to an already impressive arsenal of models. Keep in mind that this gun hasn’t been fired yet but it is designed to withstand normal use.

WarFairy, who lives outside the US and preferred to remain anonymous, said that the model is quite difficult to design and print. The finished kit will include metal parts to comply with ATF regulations and to strengthen the firing chamber. WarFairy said that the design wasn’t a political statement. “We called it Imura because the grooving on the cylinder is cribbed from the revolving single action blank gun that Yoshimito Imura produced before being arrested in Japan. Any political statements are inferred by the users.”

Read More…

Sheriffs Who Are Protecting Liberty

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

An increasing number of county sheriffs are rising to resist federal overreach in their counties. About 100 of them met in mid-September at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

The gathering was organized by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association — a group that was formed by former Sheriff Richard Mack. It was a time of mutual encouragement, where several sheriffs shared their experiences in resisting federal overreach.

Sheriff Mike Lewis of Wycomico County, Maryland was one of the sheriffs in attendance. He got national attention recently for saying that the feds better not try grabbing guns in his county.

“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”

Another attendee, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, was equally blunt. “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”

Gun Owners of America presented Sheriff Peyman with the “Nullifier of the Year” award last year because of his strong commitment to defend the Constitution — and the Second Amendment in particular.

GOA goes to bat for pro-gun sheriff … and wins!

Another GOA award recipient who joined the sheriff posse in September was the nationally renowned Sheriff David Clarke, Jr., of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. GOA presented Clarke with the “High Noon Award” last year for “standing for truth when others run, and for telling the truth even though politically incorrect.”

To be sure, Clarke’s political IN-correctness — and his pro-Second Amendment views — has provoked intense hatred against him from the political Left. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is a billionaire, poured $150,000 into his sheriff’s race this past summer, trying to unseat him in his primary.

But Daddy Warbucks’ money couldn’t buy that election, as Clarke won by a comfortable 52-48 percent margin. GOA’s Political Victory Fund rallied gun owners in the state of Wisconsin to contribute to Sheriff Clarke’s campaign. And GOA’s Facebook page made gun owners around the country aware of this important race.

Sheriffs standing up to the fedsalt

Two sheriffs who have attracted something of a cult following are Brad Rogers of Elkhart County, Indiana, and Bennie House of Otero County, New Mexico. While they were not in attendance this September, their stories were heralded as examples to follow.

Sheriff Rogers is a GOA Life Member who interposed himself between the Food and Drug Administration and a raw milk dairy farmer. The feds were on the verge of confiscating the farmer’s equipment which would have bankrupted him.

But Sheriff Rogers communicated with the head attorney at the FDA and told her that if they put one more foot on the farmer’s land, he would arrest them. She, in turn, threatened to arrest him. Rogers simply ended the debate by replying: “Game on.” That was almost three years ago, and the FDA has been MIA ever since.

Then there’s Sheriff Benny House of Otero County, New Mexico, who led a confrontation with the Forest Service several years ago on behalf of some of his citizens. The locals were hauling dead trees out of National Forest land in violation of Forest Service policy. The locals not only wanted the firewood provided by the dead trees, but were also lessening the risk of forest fire (dead trees burn much more quickly and serve to make fires more likely to spread).

The Forest Service threatened to arrest the Otero County citizens who were disturbing the “natural condition” of the forest. But Sheriff House threatened to arrest the Forest Service agents. That successful standoff allowed the folks in Cloudcroft to save their ski village when a forest fire threatened them two years ago.

Another sheriff who has experienced similar conflicts with the Forest Service is Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Oregon. He also interposed himself between the feds and the people, and achieved similar results. In fact, there is not one known example of the feds actually firing on any county’s residents or sheriffs in such situations.

There are a couple of standoffs that did come close — and ironically, they were both in Nye County, Nevada. The Wayne Hage family had an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management ten years ago to protect their right to water their cattle on federal lands. And the Cliven Bundy family went through a similar experience earlier this year. The Nye County Sheriff got involved, albeit belatedly this year, whereas Sheriff Tony DeMeo stood off the BLM with his armed deputies to protect the Hage family.

The liberal media is not covering such stories, but clearly there is some good news.

Larry Pratt is the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a grassroots gun lobby with more than 750,000 members and activists.

Fed. Court Ruling Opens Door To Gun Rights Restoration For Certain Misdemeanors

Categories: Activism, Legal, News
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

The Second Amendment Foundation has quietly won a significant federal court victory in a Pennsylvania case in which the judge has ruled that a man convicted of a serious misdemeanor crime several years ago, but who has demonstrated that he “would present no more threat to the community” than an average law-abiding citizen, may not lose his Second Amendment rights under a federal gun control statute known as 922(g)(1).

The ruling, by Judge James Knoll Gardner for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, says that application of that statute to the plaintiff, Daniel Binderup, “violates the Second Amendment.”

“This case could provide a building block upon which similar cases in which people are convicted of non-violent misdemeanors might be challenged because they have lost their right to keep and bear arms as a result,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Under existing federal law, many people convicted of state-level misdemeanors have lost their Second Amendment rights, essentially because they’ve been lumped together with convicted felons.

“One should not lose his or her constitutional rights for certain non-violent indiscretions that occur once in a lifetime,” he added.

Following his guilty plea in 1998, Binderup lost his Second Amendment rights and disposed of all of his firearms legally. In November 2013, he filed a complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. SAF provided legal support through attorneys Alan Gura and Douglas T. Gould.

The Hill Avoids Mentioning Early Warnings About Virus Outbreak in Children (Illegals Bring Diseases)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

What is the first thing that leaps to your mind when you hear about a mystery virus that has afflicted children around the country just as the school year started? I know what it is. You know what it is. And many of the readers commenting on The Hill article know what it is. Even the writer, Susan Ferris, most likely knows what it is but does not mention the warning that dares not speak its name…at least in The Hill.
I am of course referring to the many health warnings about the illegal children who crossed the border and were dispersed around the country by the Obama administration. Although much of the left pooh-poohed the idea that those children could spread diseases to school kids, by an amazing coincidence a virus outbreak was discovered soon after the school term began.

Democrat NY Senator Gillibrand: Pakistan and Afghanistan Better for Women than America!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014


Oddly Gillibrand insists on living in the United States instead of in the more progressive Pakistan under the notoriously feminist Sharia law.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to her position via Senator Schumer as a favor for a politically connected clan, changed all her political positions and is working hard to pretend that she’s a serious legislator.

Mainly by repeating stupid things that other people have said.

The most animated speaker was Gillibrand, who condemned opposition to expanding paid family leave across the country.

The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act would establish a national paid family and medical leave insurance program so workers would not have to choose between a paycheck and caring for themselves or a family member, said Gillibrand.

“In every other industrialized, wealthy country in the world they have paid leave,” the senator said. “Europe has up to six months. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan have paid leave, but we do not have paid leave in this country, and because of that when forced to meet a family need, an urgent care need, often times women are forced to leave the workplace because they cannot take that time off unpaid.”

Sure Pakistan and Afghanistan are fantastic for women.

Read More…

NYC Woman Raped by Two Men in Space of an Hour Had Approached Her Second Attacker Pleading for HELP

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

Attacked: The woman was attacked twice in one hour, and police managed to retreive CCTV from the second crime scene, showing the alleged attacker leaving

The woman who was raped by two different men within the space of an hour had approached her second attacker pleading for help, prosecutors claim.

The 31-year-old victim was walking home from a bar in Brooklyn at 5am when she was allegedly attacked by Nicholas Isaac, 17 who is said to have threatened her with a gun before assaulting her.

She then walked 500 feet and approached Daquan Jackson, 21, in a desperate bid for support – but he told her ‘I am going to do the same thing to you’, before raping her as she begged him to stop, a court has heard, according to the New York Post.

Police claim both attackers pushed the victim to the ground and threatened to shoot her if she did not comply, but neither produced a gun.

They also suspect the men were working together.

Isaac was arrested on Monday. Jackson was arrested today after CCTV footage allegedly showing an attacker leaving the scene was released.

Unarmed California Woman Melora Rivera Caught on Camera COWERING FROM INTRUDER on Roof

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

View image on Twitter

Actress Melora Rivera uses the awning of her roof while being terrorised by a homeless man who broke into her home in Venice California.


Chilling images have been captured of a woman hiding on her roof, cowering with fear, unable to see a masked intruder approaching her from behind.

The Californian woman climbed out of her second-storey bedroom window early in the morning on Wednesday to hide from a man who broke into her home in Venice Beach, near Los Angeles.

“Once I saw him in the house, I knew that we both couldn’t be there,” Melora Rivera told CBS news. “I knew that I didn’t want to have a confrontation with him of any sort, you know, not knowing what his intention was.”

She hid under a window eave, wearing just the flannel shirt she had been sleeping in, and called the police.

Read More…

New York postal worker caught ‘hoarding’ 40,000 pieces of mail

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 27, 2014

Pieces of mail that a New York City mailman allegedly stashed away in his home and car over nearly a decade are seen in an undated picture released by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York 26 September 2014

A New York City postal carrier is accused of failing to deliver more than 40,000 pieces of mail, some dating to 2005.

According to a federal court complaint, Joseph Brucato hoarded the mail at his home, car and post office locker. He was arrested Wednesday after a supervisor noticed undelivered mail piled up in Brucato’s personal vehicle.

The 67-year-old Brucato was arraigned Wednesday and released on his own recognizance.

Magistrate Vera Scanlon ordered him to “abstain from excessive alcohol consumption.”

Read More…

Training Schedule

10/25/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/8/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/16/14 NRA Pistol Instructor Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $175.00

11/22/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/6/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/20/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

Awesome Vulgarity Warning!
“The Victim Cult”


Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Shop & Support Us
Real Gun Facts
Welcome , today is Saturday, October 25, 2014