Positive Gun News of the Day

[Bone]

@Fear_Itself

He is still guilty of the crime on the porch. He is not furthering that crime when he enters the house, because there are no additional charges that could be added to the crime that occurred on the porch.

The unlawful activity occurred when the gun owner left the cab without paying. He is not furthering that unlawful activity by entering his house; he is not guilty of any additional charges than if he had stayed outside. The cab driver has one appropriate response, and that is to call the police.

Your interpretation that the phrase “engaged in unlawful activity” does not include when a person commits theft and then enters a house is not supported by anything. Do you have any evidence that suggests this to be true?

And that’s just the 3rd prong - this doesn’t touch the “without fault” part. Any act of the shooter in violation of law and reasonably calculated to cause the conflict amounts to bringing on the situation and bars the right to assert self-defense.

And while I think it would be preferable for the cab driver to call the police, he does enjoy the ability to effect a citizen’s arrest for the theft.

[Bone]

In other news, Suspected Bledsoe County prowler recovering after being shot by resident

A 33-year-old Pikeville, Tenn., man faces multiple charges and is recovering from being shot last weekend by a local resident while he was on the run from authorities.

Wesley Brandon Siever, of Pikeville, is being held without bond on charges he accumulated last weekend while, authorities say, he fled from deputies, stole clothes from a home and broke into a truck at another home before encountering the unidentified owner who was armed with a .22-caliber rifle.
…
Then another nearby resident called, saying someone was breaking into a truck in the yard and that her son was outside with Siever, he said.

Her son had Siever at gunpoint and had told him not to move, Hodge said.

“He saw the firearm on [Siever] and it was visible to the homeowner and he told him not to make any sudden moves or he would shoot,” Hodge said. “As the sheriff entered the driveway with the K-9 unit [Siever] lunged, and when he lunged the homeowner fired a single shot out of the rifle, striking [Siever] in the right calf.”

DGU with no deaths. Is this like photography - the best gun is the one you have with you.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bone

Your interpretation that the phrase “engaged in unlawful activity” does not include when a person commits theft and then enters a house is not supported by anything. Do you have any evidence that suggests this to be true?

Is that a triple negative, or just a double? It is hard to parse. Theft is a crime, and occurred when he left the cab without paying. Entering his own house does nothing to further that crime.

And that’s just the 3rd prong - this doesn’t touch the “without fault” part. Any act of the shooter in violation of law and reasonably calculated to cause the conflict amounts to bringing on the situation and bars the right to assert self-defense.

The conflict that lead directly to the shooting was not the theft of the cab fare, but the criminal breaking and entering of the gun owners house, thus justifying self-defense.

And while I think it would be preferable for the cab driver to call the police, he does enjoy the ability to effect a citizen’s arrest for the theft.

Not by breaking into someone’s house.

[Bone]

@Fear_Itself

Is that a triple negative, or just a double? It is hard to parse. Theft is a crime, and occurred when he left the cab without paying. Entering his own house does nothing to further that crime.

Let me rephrase. Imagine a scenario where a person commits theft 2 steps away from the entrance of a residence. At step 0, they are engaged in unlawful activity. At step 1, still outside the house, they are engaged in unlawful activity - the theft. At step 2, now inside the house, you are saying they are no longer engaged in unlawful activity. Is that right?

I don’t think any court will share that conclusion. Do you have any evidence to support your position that a thief can be considered to no longer be “engaged in unlawful activity” by stepping inside a residence? Any evidence whatsoever to support your position?

Entering the house doesn’t further the crime, but he is still engaged in it. And the fact pattern is actually a bit unclear. There are conflicting reports (from the shooter) that the people were invited in. The time frame is also unclear which could impact the fact pattern.

The conflict that lead directly to the shooting was not the theft of the cab fare, but the criminal breaking and entering of the gun owners house, thus justifying self-defense.Not by breaking into someone’s house.

There’s the concept of proximate cause. I’m not sure if that applies here, but it’s short sighted to think that the theft was unrelated to the events that followed.

[Little_Pig]

Well …er …um … I guess this is positive news… somewhere.

[Bullitt]

@Little_Pig

this is positive news

It looks like we are neighbors. We can go shooting one day, say, at Reed’s Indoor Range in Santa Clara? It’s right off of 101 near Bowers. How about it?

[Bone]

In other news, Homeowner shoots suspect in the face after attempted home invasion

Slokken will never forget the night her neighbor called her. She tells us right after midnight Friday a man went on a home invasion rampage on her street.

“Break in the door kicking it and trying to break it down,” said Slokken.

The man was not successful in getting through the front door, so neighbors say he went to a home next to Slokken’s.

Witnesses say the man armed with a 12-inch knife tried getting through the doggie door. The homeowner ended up shooting the man in the face.

DGU with no deaths. I am on the fence with doggie doors. I know most have a closable gate but those don’t seem very secure.

[Little_Pig]

@Bullitt

It looks like we are neighbors. We can go shooting one day, say, at Reed’s Indoor Range in Santa Clara? It’s right off of 101 near Bowers. How about it?

Gee Bullitt! I used to live just off of San Tomas on Monroe. We could have “Bang Banged” in blissful unison! Have you been to Reed’s Indoor Range in Santa Clara? If so, do tell…

[StGermain]

I didn’t see this on your list:
Two armed citizen hold kidnapper at gunpoint while waiting for police. Guys tracked and found kidnapped in the deep woods with 8 year old girl.

StG

[Bullitt]

@StGermain

I didn’t see this on your list:
Two armed citizen hold kidnapper at gunpoint while waiting for police. Guys tracked and found kidnapped in the deep woods with 8 year old girl.

StG

Wow, a great ending to the manhunt. 8 year old Carlie Trent is alive, thanks to searchers Donnie Lawson and Stewart Franklin. Gary Simpson, the alleged kidnapper, is in custody.

Great use of a firearm, holding the alleged kidnapper until police arrived.

[Bone]

In other news, Police: Woman shoots at man trying to kick down her door

“I looked out the window and saw him kicking at the window, kicking at the door,” said a 14-year-old who didn’t want his face shown.

He said he was playing video games next door when he heard the drama unfold.

“When I stepped out the front door, I saw him kicking at her car and punching at her window.”
…
“I saw her firing shots at him, and then he jumped into the car and took off.”

The man was later found driving around Frayser on Dellwood and Madewell with a gunshot wound.

DGU with no deaths. Sounds like domestic violence and someone had enough.

[Bone]

In other news, Man charged with aggravated burglary

The victim told police that the defendant, identified as Michael Smith, had been harassing her all day by banging on her door and windows.

The victim said she repeatedly yelled at the defendant to leave, but he refused and broke a window.

At that point, the woman told police she fired shots at the defendant when she saw his hand coming through the window. The defendant fled in his car and flagged down police in the 3100 block of Madewell. He was bleeding heavily from a cut on his arm and was taken to the Regional Medical Center in noncritical condition.

DGU with no deaths. Not sure if the injury was due to gunshot or breaking window, but the gunshot convinced the burglar to flee.

[Bone]

Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) won another victory in the 9th circuit court of appeals. This case dealt with a CA County ordinance that prohibited gun stores within 500 feet of residentially zoned district, and certain other stores like bars. From the opinion:

As our predecessors recognized, logic compels such an
inference. **If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”
is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire
the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear. Indeed,
where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make
little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such
activity as well. **The Supreme Court recognized this principle
in very different contexts when it held that “[l]imiting the
distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed
pharmacists clearly imposes a significant burden on the right
of the individuals to use contraceptives,” Carey v.
Population Servs., Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 689 (1977), and when
it held that a tax on paper and ink products used by
newspapers violated the First Amendment because it
impermissibly burdened freedom of the press, see
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of
Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 585 (1983). “[F]undamental rights,
even though not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized
by the Court as indispensable to the enjoyment of rights
explicitly defined” because such “unarticulated rights are
implicit in enumerated guarantees.” Richmond Newspapers
v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579–80 (1980). One cannot truly
enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the State is
permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it; one
cannot keep arms when the State prevents him from
purchasing them. Cf. Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 (“[W]ithout
bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless.”); Ezell
v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The
right to possess firearms for protection implies a
corresponding right to . . . maintain proficiency in their use;
the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and
practice that make it effective.”). Thus, the Second
Amendment “right must also include the right to acquire a
firearm.” Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of
Chicago, 961 F. Supp. 2d 928, 930 (N.D. Ill. 2014).4 As the
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois noted in
striking down a Chicago ordinance that abridged such right,
a “ban on gun sales and transfers prevents [citizens] from
fulfilling . . . the most fundamental prerequisite of legal gun
ownership—that of simple acquisition.”

(my bold)

A couple notes:
[ol]
[li]The two prong analysis that is pervasive with the 1st amendment is again present in 2nd amendment analysis. 1st amendment analogues are directly on point to 2nd amendment analysis.[/li][li]Efforts to curtail gun ownership by limiting the ability to purchase implicate the 2nd amendment.[/li][li]The right to possess firearms for self defense is coextensive with the right to acquire and practice.[/li][li]Some subsidiary activities are included in the 2nd amendment.[/li][li]Plaintiffs asserted that under the County guidelines, there are zero places that are suitable. This question was directly addressed however the opinion notes that if this were true and if the 500 ft ordinance functioned as a total ban on all new gun retailers, then a more rigorous showing than even intermediate scrutiny, if not quite strict scrutiny would be warranted.[/li][/ol]

According to the dissent, there is no
constitutional infirmity so long as firearm sales are permitted
somewhere in the County. We doubt the dissent would afford
challenges invoking other fundamental rights such cursory
review. Would a claim challenging an Alameda County
ordinance that targeted bookstores be nothing more than “a
mundane zoning dispute dressed up as a [First] Amendment
challenge”? See Dissent at 35. Surely the residents of
Alameda County could acquire their literature at other
establishments that, for whatever reason, had not been
shuttered by the law.
Such an ordinance, of course, would give us great pause.
Our reaction ought to be no different when it comes to
challenges invoking the Second Amendment. See Ezell, 651
F.3d at 697. The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to
bear arms is not a “second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights
guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due
Process Clause.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780. Indeed, it is one
“that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment
counted . . . among those fundamental rights necessary to our
system of ordered liberty.” Id. at 778. Just as we have a duty
to treat with suspicion governmental encroachments on the
right of citizens to engage in political speech or to practice
their religion, we must exert equal diligence in ensuring that
the right of the people to keep and to bear arms is not
undermined by hostile regulatory measures.

(my bold)
In other words, just because there are other places available to purchase guns in the County, this is no defense to prohibiting new gun stores.

Solid opinion. Though it does say that if the county is able to produce evidence to support the substantial interest and reasonable fit, then the ordinance may not offend the constitution. The case was remanded back to the district.

---

I expect a ruling in the near future about a gun store prohibited from advertising handguns visible from the exterior of a store, though long gun advertisements are allowed. This is a first amendment claim rather than a 2nd.

[Gyrate]

@Bone

In other words, just because there are other places available to purchase guns in the County, this is no defense to prohibiting new gun stores.

I wonder if this would be a useful argument to counter the recent pervasive crackdown on abortion clinics, something also (apparently) Constitutionally protected, albeit much more obscurely.

[Bullitt]

@Bone

Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) won another victory in the 9th circuit court of appeals. This case dealt with a CA County ordinance that prohibited gun stores within 500 feet of residentially zoned district, and certain other stores like bars. From the opinion:

(my bold)

A couple notes:
[ol]
[li]The two prong analysis that is pervasive with the 1st amendment is again present in 2nd amendment analysis. 1st amendment analogues are directly on point to 2nd amendment analysis.[/li][li]Efforts to curtail gun ownership by limiting the ability to purchase implicate the 2nd amendment.[/li][li]The right to possess firearms for self defense is coextensive with the right to acquire and practice.[/li][li]Some subsidiary activities are included in the 2nd amendment.[/li][li]Plaintiffs asserted that under the County guidelines, there are zero places that are suitable. This question was directly addressed however the opinion notes that if this were true and if the 500 ft ordinance functioned as a total ban on all new gun retailers, then a more rigorous showing than even intermediate scrutiny, if not quite strict scrutiny would be warranted.[/li][/ol]
(my bold)
In other words, just because there are other places available to purchase guns in the County, this is no defense to prohibiting new gun stores.

Solid opinion. Though it does say that if the county is able to produce evidence to support the substantial interest and reasonable fit, then the ordinance may not offend the constitution. The case was remanded back to the district.

Good news. This was for Alameda County, in the San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland and Berkeley are in Alameda County).

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Appeals court reinstates California gun store restriction lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court said Monday in a California lawsuit that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to gun stores and requires governments to justify restrictions on them.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a lawsuit against Alameda County by three men who wanted to open a gun store. They said a county ordinance that prohibits gun stores within 500 feet of a residential area violated the Second Amendment.

The 9th Circuit did not rule on the constitutionality of the 500-foot restriction, but it said the ordinance did involve the Second Amendment because the right to purchase and sell arms is “part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.”

The county, therefore, has to present evidence to justify the restriction and can’t simply assert that gun stores increase crime, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the 2-1 decision.

“Alameda County’s ordinance may very well be permissible. Thus far, however, the county has failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns,” O’Scannlain said. The ruling is unique in its determination that there is a right to open new gun shops regardless of whether such stores already exist, said Eugene Volokh, a professor who has taught classes on gun regulation at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

He said the ruling also establishes that governments must show proof if they argue that gun shops are magnets for criminals.

[Bone]

@Gyrate

I wonder if this would be a useful argument to counter the recent pervasive crackdown on abortion clinics, something also (apparently) Constitutionally protected, albeit much more obscurely.

I doubt the direct holding would be on point since the enumerated nature of the 2nd is different than abortion rights.

@Little_Pig

Well …er …um … I guess this is positive news… somewhere.

This is solid, though I expect Governor Nixon to veto the bill. The legislature did pass it with a large enough majority to override the veto, but since the session is over they would have to do it when they are back in session which I think is in August. That’s a lot of time for people’s votes to change so it’s up in the air at this point.

---

In other news, Richardson Man Shoots, Kills Burglar After Struggle For Gun

Richardson Police say they got a 911 call at 5:50 a.m. from a resident who said he was holding at gunpoint, a suspect who had broken into his home.

Before officers arrived, police say the suspect. 22-year-old, Derick Roderick Jackson, tried to get the gun from the resident and during the struggle the resident shot the suspect who later died from his wounds while in surgery.

DGU with one death. Holding someone at gunpoint seems like a very risky scenario.

[Orwell]

@Bone

In other news, Richardson Man Shoots, Kills Burglar After Struggle For Gun

DGU with one death. Holding someone at gunpoint seems like a very risky scenario.

I’ve given this thought over the years. Not everyone is going to meekly comply if you hold a gun on them, nor calmly wait for the cops, which may take 5-15-30 minutes. There is a lot of time for the crook to think about fleeing, talking his way out or attacking the person with the gun. If you are holding someone at gunpoint, you need to keep a calm head, maintain some distance, and be ready to let them leave if you are not threatened, and ready to shoot if necessary.

[Fear_Itself]

And hope to god another good guy with a gun doesn’t mistake you for a mugger.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bone]

In other news, Man who was shot during home invasion now behind bars

Ryan Aytch, 19, of La Grange, and Dashawn Dail, 23, of Kinston, have both been charged with attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon and first degree burglary. They say Danny Lewis of Greenville will face similar charges when he’s released from Vidant Medical Center.

Pitt County deputies say the three tried to rob a home on Paul Place in Grimesland Tuesday night, but one resident fought back.

Mary Johnson lives in the mobile home with her boyfriend, Nathaniel Rembert.

Johnson told WITN that she and Rembert, along with their 14-month-old, were in the living room when three men snapped open the locked screen door.

Johnson grabbed her son and ran to a back room, while she says Rembert managed to get his revolver and unloaded the weapon, firing six times.

She said the men dropped their shotgun and ran out.

DGU with no deaths. 3 people armed with a shotgun vs 2 residents and a 14 month old child. The residents were lucky that 6 rounds were enough to scare off the three who broke in as the homeowner only registered one successful hit in the arm. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with only 6 rounds available.

[carnivorousplant]

“Danny Lewis of Greenville will face similar charges when he’s released from Vidant Medical Center.”