Mediaboss Marketing

LARGO Charges against a 40-year-old man involved in a fatal scuffle outside a St. Petersburg bar were dismissed this week after his defense attorneys invoked the state's new Stand Your Ground law.

Bobby Ryan of St. Petersburg was charged with manslaughter and accused of punching Christopher Motlenski, who later died from complications of his injuries. On Thursday, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit judge Frank Quesada granted his motion to dismiss the case.

Under Florida law, a person "does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground" if they believe they or others could face imminent death or great bodily harm.

Previously, it was up to the defense to show their client is immune from prosecution under this law. But in the spring, the state Legislature revised the law, shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

Ryan's case is likely the first time the new law, signed by Gov. Rick Scott in June, was invoked in a Pinellas courtroom.

According to court records filed by Ryan's defense attorneys, James Beach and Richard Watts, this is what happened the night of Feb. 10, 2016. At 2 a.m., Ryan and friend Torsten Simpson, arrived at Angelo's Grill and Bar on First Avenue N in downtown St. Petersburg to pick up some sandwiches.

They were standing near the bar when Motlenski began an argument with them about their British accents. An employee escorted Motlenski, 53, outside. When Simpson and Ryan left the bar, Motlenski "continued to harass the defendant," records state. The men threw punches and Motlenski "bull charged" Simpson against a pair of doors, drawing other patrons' attention.

That's when Ryan punched Motlenski, who fell and hit his head on the pavement. Ryan was initially arrested on a charge of felony battery. After Motlenski died of complications, the charge was upgraded to manslaughter.

"It was just a tragic accident that shouldn't have happened," said Beach, adding that Motlenski's comments and aggression toward Simpson "led my client to believe that there was certainly danger involved."

In an all-day hearing July 6, prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their arguments to Quesada. On Thursday, the judge dismissed Ryan's charges.

Contact Laura C. Morel at lmorel@tampabay.com. Follow @lauracmorel.

Pinellas judge tosses charge against man under new Stand Your Ground law 08/04/17 [Last modified: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:47pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Link:
Pinellas judge tosses charge against man under new Stand Your Ground law - Tampabay.com

The Right Opinion

Washington, DC, residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that DC residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a DC ordinance that denied concealed carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take upPeruta v. California,an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it "extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In theopinionover the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the DC Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out DCs complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says,Hellerreveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

AfterHeller,DC implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 inPalmer v. District of Columbia. DC responded by restricting concealed carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhoodwasnta good enough reason for a concealed carry permit under DCs regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

DC argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even underHeller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established inHellerthat by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, The individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because DCs restrictive good reason concealed carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the DC panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with DCs good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent inPeruta:

For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Republished from The Heritage Foundation.

View post:
The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won't the Supreme Court Enforce It? - Patriot Post

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Anti-gunners focus on these so-called assault weapons was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and theyve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are weapons of war with no legitimate civilian use.

Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, three-gun and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban's incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. [I]f it has no other effect," the majority opinion stated, the challenged ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Thats hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Hellers author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, Thomas concluded, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

With states violating Americans rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

Originally posted here:
Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians - NRA ILA

JUDY WOODRUFF: Italys Parliament today approved a plan to send a naval task force to Libya to crack down on smugglers who send thousands of migrants on a deadly journey across the Mediterranean to Europe. Italy put stricter rules around rescue ships run by charities in the area.

Amid this, a ship containing anti-immigrant activists is heading towards Libya on a mission to return migrants.

From Sicily, special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports.

MALCOLM BRABANT: At Trapani in Western Sicily, the routine rarely varies. Survivors of a disaster off the Libyan coast disembark from a charity ship. The injured and traumatized make landfall first. And then, shielded from the living by a line of hearses, come the dead.

Save the Children spokesman Rik Goverde:

RIK GOVERDE, Save the Children: They probably died of drowning, in combination with chemical burns, which is when seawater and fuel, when they react, they get some bodies were just without skin. It was terrible.

MALCOLM BRABANT: The migrants were lifted from a deflating dinghy by rescuers from the Spanish charity Proactiva.

WOMAN: I am pregnant. I am dying.

MALCOLM BRABANT: So far this year, almost 2,400 have drowned in the Mediterranean. Last year, the death toll was 5,000.

WOMAN: There is 10 dead bodies at the boat. Three jump inside the water. The rest are inside the boat.

LEOLUCA ORLANDO, Mayor of Palermo, Sicily: Its a cemetery. Its a place so full of dead people, is a place that is a shame for the European Union. We cannot say we dont know what is now happening in front of our eyes.

MALCOLM BRABANT: At city hall in Sicilys capital, Palermo, Mayor Leoluca Orlando is exasperated by Europes reluctance to share Italys burden.

LEOLUCA ORLANDO: What is sure that, today, some European states, first of all, are responsible for what is happening.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But this new right-wing organization vehemently opposes the mayors open-borders agenda. It is militant about what it sees as the threat to Europes racial identity from Africa.

MAN: Every week, every day, every hour, ships packed with illegal immigrants are flooding the European border. An invasion is taking place.

MAN: This mass migration is changing the face of our continent. Were losing our safety, our way of life. And we will become a minority in our own country.

MALCOLM BRABANT: They call themselves the Identity Generation. Trailed by police and opponents in Sicily, they quietly traveled to Cyprus, where a supporter filmed them.

They believe Europe can stop the influx by emulating Australias military strategy of intercepting migrant boats and returning them to the point of departure. They have chartered a ship called the C-Star, and its reportedly heading from Cyprus towards the Libyan coast. They say they will return any migrants they rescue.

Italian Lorenzo Fiato:

LORENZO FIATO, Italian Identitarian: Since when the NGOs started operating, the deaths in the sea increased. And the illegal immigration became more, more, more a problem. So, breaking the narrative of the NGOs that are literally a taxi service from Libya to Europe is the most important thing to do now.

PROTESTERS: No borders, no nations! Stop deportations!

MALCOLM BRABANT: The left-wing campaign group Avaaz signaled its opposition to the extremists by symbolically blocking the Sicilian port of Catania, from where the C-Star had originally been expected to begin its mission to Libyan waters.

Spokesman Luca Nicotra:

LUCA NICOTRA: We know they are trying to show their best face.

We know they are coming from the worst far-right movement all around Europe, some of them with neo-Nazi pasts. We know that, in May, they tried to literally stop one of the boats here in the port.

MALCOLM BRABANT: That was the Aquarius, jointly operated by SOS Mediterranee and Doctors Without Borders.

Many volunteers insist the presence of rescue ships doesnt entice migrants to make the desperate journey. They claim the push factors of conflict, intimidation or poverty in their homelands are stronger.

Dr. Craig Spencer, a public health specialist at Columbia University Hospital in New York, has just spent three months on the vessel.

DR. CRAIG SPENCER: For me, the question is, is it acceptable to you, is it acceptable to anyone to let someone drown? I hope everyone would answer no, that, no, its not acceptable to allow humans, children, even your worst enemy to drown unaccompanied in the middle of the Mediterranean.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But one Sicilian prosecutor is investigating allegations of collusion between the charities and Libyan smugglers.

Today, a German ship was stopped and searched by the coast guard before leaving the island of Lampedusa. This week, in an attempt to impose more control in the rescue zone, the Italian government has ordered the NGOs to sign a code of conduct.

Marcella Cray leads the Doctors Without Borders team on the Aquarius.

One of the accusations thats sometimes leveled against organizations like yours is that you are in cahoots with the smugglers, that youre communicating with them, so that you can actually pick these people up at sea. What is the situation?

MARCELLA CRAY, Doctors Without Borders: Well, what I can say is that in no way, shape, or form have we ever been in contact with any traffickers or anything like. We are patrolling the international waters north of Libya, looking for boats in distress.

We work with the Maritime Rescue Coordination Center in Rome, and theyre the ones that direct where we go, which rescues we do, and where we go afterwards to bring the people.

MALCOLM BRABANT: So theres never any communication whatsoever?

MARCELLA CRAY: None whatsoever.

MALCOLM BRABANT: The Aquarius sailed for the rescue zone before the code came into force. Doctors Without Borders has refused to sign. It objects to having an armed police officer on board, and claims lives will be lost by a new rule demanding that ships return to Italy immediately once they have rescued migrants.

Previously, they could transfer survivors between ships and spend more time in the search-and-rescue zone. Today, the Italian Parliament approved plans to send a small naval task force into Libyan waters.

The internationally recognized Libyan government asked for help to crack down on traffickers responsible for sending 600,000 migrants to Italy since 2014. The European Union has just pledged to give Italy $120 million to help ease the migration burden.

But the president of the European Parliament has warned that the E.U. is underestimating the scale of this crisis. Antonio Tajani is predicting that millions of Africans will try to come to Europe in the next five years unless urgent action is taken. He says that the way to discourage them from coming is for there to be a massive program of investment in Africa.

This center for unaccompanied minors gave a taste of Italys problems to the man who wants to replace Angela Merkel as Germanys chancellor. Martin Schulz, the former president of the European Parliament, now leads the Social Democratic Party as it heads towards Septembers German general election.

And he visited Sicily late last week.

What do you think about the suggestion that there should be an Australian solution to try to stop the wave of migrants coming across the Mediterranean?

MARTIN SCHULZ, Chairman, Social Democratic Party of Germany: What we need are systems of legal immigration to make the distinction between attempt to join the territory of the European Union outside the legal frame, and the legal frame, which is giving hope, not a guarantee, but hope. And thats whats missing and lacking in Europe.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But do you not think that its worth taking away all the vessels because theyre acting as a pull towards Europe?

MARTIN SCHULZ: I think theres a lot of activities of the security forces, but at the center of all our activities is, first of all, humanitarian aid.

MALCOLM BRABANT: At the memorial for those drowned in the Mediterranean, another question for the man campaigning to be the most powerful figure in the European Union.

Is there anything more that Europe could do to stop the deaths?

MARTIN SCHULZ: Thats the reason why Im here. We need a fair share of the responsibilities.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But much of Europe isnt listening, and isnt softening either.

For the PBS NewsHour, Im Malcolm Brabant in Sicily.

See the rest here:
Political clashes over the migrant crisis turn the Mediterranean into a battleground - PBS NewsHour

Italy on Wednesday sent a navy patrol boat to Libya and seized a German rescue ship in dramatic steps aimed at ending the migrant crisis that has engulfed Europe in recent years.

The crew on board the Iuventa, operated by the NGO Jugend Rettet, is being questioned on the orders of the Italian prosecutor.

While investigators suspect "the crime of clandestine immigration'' was committed by some of the Jugend Rettet boat's crew, prosecutor Ambrogio Cartosio told reporters that "my personal conviction was that the motive is humanitarian, exclusively humanitarian.''

Jugend Rettet said on its Facebook page Wednesday that it went to Lampedusa on instructions from the Rome-based maritime rescue coordination center after being asked to help in a search-and-rescue mission on Tuesday.

"As it happened during other stops at this port, the crew was questioned by the local police, which also entered the ship,'' Jugend Rettet said. After a warrant-authorized search of the ship, authorities seized the Iuventa, which will eventually be taken to the main island of Sicily.

Cartosio stressed that no individual members of the crew have been charged and the investigation was ongoing to see which of them might have made contact with smugglers at sea.

"There is no indication [the crew] was paid,'' by smugglers, "nor is there any element to make us think there is a stable tie between the ship and Libyan traffickers," Cartosio said.

New rules for NGOs

It is the first time Italian police have seized a humanitarian boat. The move came amidst growing suspicion over the role non-governmental organizations are playing in picking up migrants off the Libya coast and bringing them to Italian ports.

Jugend Rettet was one of several NGOs which declined this week to sign on to new rules promoted by Italy's interior minister and aimed at ensuring rescue groups don't end up effectively helping human traffickers.

The humanitarian groups say they are only interested in saving lives, warning that thousands of people would die if they were not out at sea. Despite their efforts, 2,200 migrants have died this year trying to reach Europe from northern Africa.

But Italians are getting tired of playing host to thousands of migrants.

Migrant numbers

The number of migrant arrivals in Italy in July was down dramatically on the same month last year, suggesting that efforts to train and better equip the Libyan coast guard could be having an impact.

The Interior Ministry said 11,193 new arrivals had been registered in July, compared with 23,552 in July 2016.

Italy's naval mission to Libya is aimed at holding that trajectory.

Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti said Italy was providing technical support, not seeking to impose a "hostile" naval blockade designed to prevent the departure of migrant boats.

Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni said last week that the naval mission was being organized following a request from Fayez al-Sarraj, the head of conflict-torn Libya's U.N.-backed unity government.

Read more here:
Italy Seizes Boat in Aim to End Migrant Crisis in Europe - Voice of America