Mediaboss Marketing

The Ider Police Department made an arrest over the weekend after a homeowner called them stating he had a burglar held at gunpoint. The incident happened Saturday night in the area of County Road 732, in the small DeKalb County town.

The homeowner told police he saw the suspect entering the house, and when he approached him, the suspect went under the house to hide. Police said the suspect eventually took off into the woods but later came out of the woods with a knife. The homeowner called the police, and a heated exchange between the two could be heard on the call.

"During the call to police, you could hear both the victim and suspect yelling at one another, the victim pleading for the suspect to drop the knife," Ider Police stated in a press release. "The victim stated he put the knife away, and acted as if he was going to surrender. Allegedly the suspect attempted to stand to his feet and brandished the knife again at this point is when the victim held him at gunpoint advising him he would shoot if the suspect did not drop the knife; the suspect complied."

John Mitchell, 38, of Gaylesville, was taken into custody when police arrived. He was booked into the DeKalb County Detention Center and charged with menacing, second-degree burglary, third-degree criminal mischief and first-degree criminal trespass. He posted a $20,000 bond and was released Monday morning.

"I'm thankful that the victim exercised his Second Amendment right," Ider Police Chief Stephen Malone said. "If not, this incident could have had a tragic ending for both parties. This case is a prime example of how important it is to exercise your rights and legally carrying to protect yourself, family and property. I'm relieved that in this case the victim, suspect, and officers were all unharmed and the only damage done was to the home. Property can be replaced, but people can't."

The Henagar Police Department, Sylvania Police Department and Dekalb County Sheriff's Office assisted.

Mitchell is considered innocent until proven guilty.

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email erica.thomas@1819news.com.

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.

See the original post here:
Ider police chief thankful citizen exercised Second Amendment right, - 1819 News

Darrell M. Allen| Carlsbad Current-Argus

What does the Second Amendment look like in a quiet, residential neighborhood? How does it work? More specifically, 1) who gets to bear arms, 2) what arms can they bear, and 3) who gets to shoot first?New Mexico got a raw look at these questions in the April 5 shooting of Robert Dotson in Farmington at the hands of the Farmington Police Department.The answer to these questions seems to be: anyone without a felony conviction; any weapon; and the fastest on the draw.

Robert Dotson of Farmington, New Mexico, is dead.He was defending his home, his wife and his daughter on April 5 when he was shot to death by officers of the Farmington Police Department.Mr. Dotson was a Second Amendment warrior in the best sense.He likely believed he had the right, the duty, to bear arms in defense of his home and family.And so he exercised his right and did his duty; having done so, he is now dead. His wife widowed, his daughter fatherless.

Three members of the Farmington Police Department, those who killed Mr. Dotson, are not dead. They were defending themselves and their right to go home alive at the end of their shift.They too are Second Amendment warriors, and as front line law enforcement officers they are at war every day.Being on the front line means they see both good guys and bad buys bearing arms, every day. The line between seeing good guys and bad guys may not be seen in the split second it takes to pull the trigger, but the imperative is to go home alive at the end of the shift.So the Farmington warriors rightfully pulled the trigger in a split second judgment.

In the case of Mr. Dotson, the Farmington police warriors mistakenly did not see that he was a good guy with a gun in that split second.He was an unknown guy with a gun who could do harm to them.So they opened fire.The result was death, widowhood, and fatherlessness.The Farmington warriors did not wish for this to happen, but it did.

What we have here is a Second Amendment incentive structure that encourages private citizens to arm themselves to the teeth against enemies and home intruders, and a Second Amendment that simultaneously encourages front line law enforcement officers to guard themselves against anyone who has a gun.Or to guard themselves against anyone who may have a gun, which is another way of saying anyone.You know, constitutional carry, permitless concealed carry, stuff like that. Anyone, because that is the law of the land enshrined in the Constitution.

This is a self-harming circle.More guns in more private hands means that more law enforcement officers will see guns in private hands as a threat, even when the gun is in the hands of a Second Amendment warrior like Richard Dotson. I am confident the Farmington warriors do not fault Mr. Dotson for bearing arms in defense of his home, but when that firearm was visible to their own eyes it became a mortal threat to them.Instantly.And so they opened fire, even though, unbeknownst to them, Mr. Dotson was defending his home and family.The result was the death of Richard Dotson, widowhood for his wife, and fatherlessness for his daughter.

In the end, we have a dead man, a widow, a fatherless daughter, and three police officers possessed both of law enforcement authority and questionable judgment.Does anyone really think this is an acceptable result of a responsible, functional Second Amendment?

Does anyone really think that doing nothing will yield a different result?

Darrell M. Allen is a retired criminal defense attorney and employment attorney. He lives with a nice Republican lady north of I-40, where they run one head of dog and two of cat.

Originally posted here:
Permission to fire granted - Carlsbad Current Argus

With all due respect to the Washington Post, the headline to the recent article referenced in the title of this piece reminds us of the iconic phrase uttered by the character Inigo Montoya in the 1987 film Princess Bride.

You keep using that word (in this case, words, as in courts and win). I do not think it means what you think it means.

A headline announcing using the courts to win ongun control would lead one to believe that the ensuing article would have a few references to impressive successes through the judicial process; or even one success.

But one would be wrong to hold such a belief.

When it comes to discussions about gun control, the article does refer to anti-gun state attorneys general lobbying in support of state legislatures imposing new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, but there is not a single reference to any activity in the courts.

Washington AG Bob Ferguson (D) is mentioned as having helped push a ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines through the legislature, but that had nothing to do with his job as Washingtons litigator. The article goes on to mention it took him six years of lobbying to help get the unconstitutional law enacted, but is that even worthy of praise?

Remember, Washington has been a fairly reliable Democrat stronghold for several decades, and the Democrat Party, at virtually every level, has adopted banning what it labels as assault weapons for quite some time. The state has voted for Democrat presidential candidates every election cycle since 1988, and hasnt elected a Republican for US Senate since 1994. The governor, Jay Inslee (D), has been in office since 2013, and has been pushing for banning guns for even longer than Ferguson.

In that context, six years seems like an awfully long time, and likely attributable to NRAs efforts to oppose both Ferguson and Inslee.

So, the Washington AG has had some success as an anti-gun lobbyist, but Fergusons ability to defend anti-gun laws in court will soon be truly tested, so well have to wait and see how well the Posts headline holds up.

Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum (D) is also referenced as addressing gun control, and lobbying hard for a package of gun control measures in the legislature, but there is also no mention of her success in the courts when it comes to attacking the Second Amendment. Of course, that could be because her efforts in the courtsas they relate to infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun ownersare probably better described as failure after failure after failure.

The bottom line is that the Washington Post headline is, at a minimum, misleading. More likely, it is intentionally false, and designed to present the mirage that the courts are on the side of anti-gun extremists, in spite of the courtroom losses that their policies keep piling up. Starting with the landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and culminating (thus far) in last years NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the US Supreme Court, along with countless lower courts, are consistently recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to acquire, possess, carry, and use firearms.

Of course, weve become accustomed to the Washington Post failing at journalism when it comes to covering firearms and the Second Amendment. We recently pointed out a series of editorials designed to vilify the venerable AR-15, arguably Americas most popular firearm, that ended up promoting just how popular it is, and further solidified the fact that law-abiding citizens owning that very gun is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Therefore, it comes as little surprise that the papers new attempt to paint gun control through litigation as a winning strategy would be not just lacking of any mention of courtroom victories, but be also completely bereft of any litigation, whatsoever.

Go here to read the rest:
Washington Post: Democratic AGs are Using the Courts to Win on ... - NRA ILA

This storyis by the Kentucky Lantern, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. More of Kentucky Lanterns work can be found at https://kentuckylantern.com.Follow them onFacebookandTwitter.

This story mentions suicide and gun violence. If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988.

LOUISVILLE Nearly 100 Kentuckians have died from gunfire so far this year and some lawmakers thinka public health approachis the best way to halt the violence.

As of May 6,national nonprofit Gun Violence Archiveshowed Kentucky had 261 shootings in which 88 people died and 191 others were injured. (COVID-19killed 354 Kentuckiansthis year as of May 4, state data shows).

In response to the gun violence, 16 Kentucky Democratic lawmakers proposed six policies that they believe could help.

The policies include red flag laws, legal responsibility to safely store a weapon, voluntary do not sell lists for suicidal individuals and more. They hope to bring forward legislation to match the policies next session.

Seven people died in twomass shootingsin a single week in Louisville, which movedgun violence to center stagefor many Kentuckians.

Rep. Nima Kulkarni (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd)

Mass shootings have a particular hold on our community, because often theyre at public locations, said Rep.Nima Kulkarni, D-Louisville. I think its just a question of how it impacts the community, how it publicly impacts the community and provides an opportunity, in essence, for the community to come together in grief and in discussing the impact.

It also matters who the victims are, fellow Louisville Democrat Rep. Keturah Herron said.

Mostly the victims of gun violence (in Louisville) have been young Black men and boys, teenagers, Herron said. When you look at what happened at Old National Bank, it just hit a larger number of people and it hit individuals who normally arent impacted.

TheKaiser Family Foundation reported in 2020that white Kentuckians died by gunfire at a rate of 17.4 per 100,000 while that number was 47.6 for Black Kentuckians.

Overall, Kentucky had a higherrateof death by gunfire (20.1 per 100,000) than the nation (13.6 per 100,000).

The public pays attention to a mass shooting in a different way, said Rep.Lisa Willner, D-Louisville. And so its not that its inherently more tragic than any other kind of a loss to gun violence, but that while the community is paying attention, maybe we can actually move some of these initiatives that have been on the books for a while. It may be theres more of a public outcry and really a demand for for those of us in Frankfort to do something.

Rep. Lisa Willner

Among those calling on leadership to act is UoL Health chief medical officer and trauma surgeon Dr. Jason Smith.

Smith went viral after he pleaded with lawmakers to do something about gun violence following the Old National Bank shooting.

In Washington D.C. in late April, Smith joined the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force alongside Congressman Morgan McGarvey, D-Louisville, and others.

Smith has repeatedly said that while the mass shooting was traumatic, he sees many shootings outside of mass tragedies.

Two weeks ago today I became the most recent addition to a horrible but growing cadre of surgeons nurses across this country that have had to respond to a mass shooting, Smith said.

Each shooting is a horrible and tragic event, he added. And its also one I see every single day in my hospital.

Since Louisvilles mass shooting at the bank, hes urged lawmakers to work together on solutions.

In addition to the toll deaths take, treating nonfatal gunshots is expensive.

TheU.S. Government Accountability Officereported in 2021 that treating gunshot wounds costs about$1 billion a year, according to 2016 and 2017 data.

The American Public Health Association says around 85,000 people are injured by guns every year and more than 38,000 people are killed.

UofL Health chief medical officer Dr. Jason Smith asked for lawmakers to do something about gun violence. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd)

Gun violence, the APHA says, is a major public health problemand a leading cause of premature death.

Smith said that while he responded to the bank mass shooting, two other unrelated shooting victims came into the hospital for his help. Between the mass shootings that book-ended that week in early April, he treated 18 other gunshot wounds.

I dont know the solutions. Im a doctor. My job is to put bodies back together after these tragedies, Smith said in D.C. this week. I cant heal the scars of the community. I cant heal the spirit that is broken when this happens and I cannot bring back the losses that we suffer. But I can pray and ask all of you, no matter what side of this issue you are on, to step forward and begin to dialogue

The 16 Democrat representatives and senators want to see the following policies enacted in Kentucky:

The lawmakers who signed onto these ideas are:

Rep. Keturah Herron (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd).

Herron said the state needs to approach work on gun violence in much the same way as tobacco and COVID-19.

Especially as far as suicides that were seeing in community, what does it look like to have some type of public health campaign, whether itsPSAsor bulletin boards, or things at bus stops to help inform people what they can do, what are solutions other than taking their own lives, or other than using a gun, she said.

Several Republican lawmakers, including legislative leaders, declined to speak with the Lantern about the proposed Democratic policies. For decades, the trend in Kentuckys legislature has been to loosen gun laws and regulations.

Republicans vying to be the next governor expressed opposition to gun control measures during the candidate debate on KET. Several, however, said its important to have conversations about mental health.

Candidate Kelly Craft told moderator Renee Shaw that Im not touching the Second Amendment and due process.

We need to make certain that we follow the rules that are currently written, said Craft. And we have to open the conversation of mental health, of mental illness.

Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles agreed, saying we need to shift the focus to mental health.

Fox News publishedpoll resultsin late April that showed Americans support gun control measures: 87% of voters surveyed supported background checks for guns; 81% want enforcement of current gun laws; 81% want people to have to be 21 years old to buy any gun; 80% want required mental health checks; 80% want people at risk to themselves to be flagged as so; and 77% favored a waiting period when purchasing firearms.

Among Republican voters, Fox also found,36% want to ban assaultweapons; 61% want more citizens to carry guns.

The Pew Research Center reported in April that themajority of gun-related deaths are suicides.

PSAs and other education can be help address community violence, Herron said, and how folks talk about trauma and healing. That starts with data collection on gun violence in all 120 counties, she said.

I dont think that theres just one solution, she said. I think that theres going to be multiple solutions. But I think that if we leave out this public health component, I dont think that any piece of legislation we pass is going to be beneficial.

Rep. Sarah Stalker, D-Louisville, said its important to create stable environments for communities as well.

There are things we can do to respect peoples rights to own a gun, she said, But to have common sense laws to help protect people just like you would with anything.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron, left, speaks to reporters with his wife, Makenze, after the KET debate. (Kentucky Lantern photo by McKenna Horsley)

Candidate Quarles also said on KET that he believes there is a need for more gun safety training, but said the issue of lockboxes for guns falls under personal decision for families.

Candidate Alan Keck said keeping murder weapons from reuse is a potential olive branch. Kentucky law now requires that firearms confiscated by police be sold at public auction.

I think its insane, said Keck, that those are being sold to the highest bidderThat should not be a showpiece.Its a murder weapon and I cant imagine that grieving family knowing that that gun is going to somebody elses mantle.

Frontrunner Daniel Cameron said he wont support any kind of gun control.

The Second Amendment, he said, is sacrosanct. we need to make sure that we protect it for Kentuckians all across the Commonwealth.

Christopher 2X advocates against violence in Louisville. He said the recent mass shooting was (a stark) reminder to me that theres still this appetite to engage in reckless gunplay, whether that becomes just regular neighborhood shootings, domestic violence issues that lead to those kinds of tragedies or that mass shooting.

Its just a reminder how the appetite is still alive and well, he said.

2X runs a nonprofit called Game Changers that, through a variety of programs, promotes early childhood education, parental involvement, mentoring, and community involvement to positively transform the lives of children and young people, end violence long term, and make communities safer in the Louisville area,per its website.

Christopher 2X advocates against violence in Louisville

Theres no one answer to ending gun violence, he said. Its going to take a lot of people and organizations working together.

I dont really form an opinion on are more restrictive gun laws going to change anything in this city or any city across the United States and specifically in the state of Kentucky? he said. I dont know the answer to that. But at the end of the day, it takes a combination of things.

A lot of the solution goes back to ensuring kids can have healthier childhoods, 2X said, and stop seeing gun violence as an attractive route.

The governor has the power to call a special session in Kentucky before the regular session next January.

Rep. Sarah Stalker, D-Louisville. (Photo by LRC Public Information)

Kulkarni, Herron, Stalker and Willner said there could be benefits to a special session to address gun violence.

But: they dont want to see important legislation rushed.

Theres an argument there for that being a catalyst to come up with something that can be agreed upon and act on it, said Kulkarni. But theres also this danger of doing things not as deliberately and methodically and with all of the angles considered. That is also a danger if there is a rush to a special session.

Assuming there is no special session, in the roughly eight months until the next regular session, Kulkarni said, it is incumbent on us as state lawmakers to keep focus and attention on the issue.

Kulkarni said she looks at the policies suggested as a good meeting ground for both Democrats and Republicans, calling the measures common sense.

I think that theres also a group of folks on the other side, Herron said, who are not trying to make it political and want to get things done.

Working together is what it will take, UofLs Dr. Smith said in D.C. in April.

This is not a they problem. There is no they in this. This is an us problem, Smith said. Every community is going to be impacted by gun violence. I pray and hope it is not yours. But the simple statistics will tell you: it will be.

First responders gathered the morning of April 10 in downtown Louisville near the scene of a mass shooting at Old National Bank near Slugger Field. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Liam Niemeyer)

Read the original post:
Some Kentucky Lawmakers Want To Tackle Gun Violence Through ... - Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO Weekly)

On April 25, 2023, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed HB1240 into law. The legislation is a sweeping, and flagrantly unconstitutional ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. The law prohibits a host of rifles by name, including Americas most popular rifle, the AR-15, in all forms. The prohibition also targets centerfire rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are equipped with one enumerated feature such as certain popular barrel attachments, grips, and stocks.

The ban is so wide-ranging that it includes,

A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person

As gun owners know, parts that can be used to convert a semi-automatic centerfire rifle into a so-called assault weapon are common and often interchangeable with those used with rimfire and non-semi-automatic firearms. Have a rimfire or bolt-action rifle that utilizes an AR-15 pattern pistol grip or collapsible stock? It would appear that you cant own that alongside certain ban compliant semi-automatics.

Aside from fulfilling its role as a California satrapy, what is the reasoning behind this ridiculous attack on gun owners? A candid Inslee stated that part of the goal of the package of gun control legislation that included the semi-automatic ban is putting the gun industry in its place. One can imagine that many of the measures supporters feel likewise about the laws impact on law-abiding gun owners.

As misguided as they were, earlier gun control advocates were more forthright and connected to reality than their modern counterparts. Advocates such as Handgun Control, Inc. (later Brady Campaign) Chairman Pete Shields advocated openly for a prohibition on the civilian possession of handguns. In 1976, Shields told the New Yorker, The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.

In his 1981 book Guns Dont Die People Do, the gun control advocate explained,

It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns, Rifles and shotguns are not the problem;

Shields went on to add, After the handgun, the criminals next weapon of choice is the knife

Then, as now, the overwhelming majority of firearm-related homicides are committed using handguns. According to 2021 FBI crime statistics, throughout the U.S. almost thirteen times as many murders were listed as having been committed with a handgun than with a rifle of any kind. In fact, more murders were listed as having been committed with Personal weapons (hands/fists/feet/etc.) than rifles. Showing that Shields had a better grip on the facts than his ideological descendants, in 2021 the FBI reported more than twice as many murders committed with knives than rifles of any description.

As for Washington, the FBIs 2021 statistics state that 22 times as many murders were committed in the Evergreen State with handguns than rifles and more than five times as many with knives than rifles. The FBI data show twice as many homicides were listed as having been committed with narcotics than rifles in the notoriously libertine jurisdiction.

Long before the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that Americans have a Constitutional right to own and use handguns in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), gun controllers were forced to face the truth Americans enjoy having the right to own handguns. In 1976, a Massachusetts ballot initiative that would have prohibited handguns was defeated by nearly 40 points.

Further, support for a handgun ban has decreased substantially over time. For over 60 years, Gallup has polled Americans about a handgun prohibition. In 1975, 41 percent of respondents stated that they supported a ban. In 2021, Gallup recorded an all-time low 19 percent support for a handgun ban.

As their handgun ban agenda stalled, gun control advocates sought to shift focus to anywhere they might be able to advance their civilian disarmament agenda. They settled on targeting semi-automatic rifles, believing that they could prey upon the general publics ignorance.

In 1988, Violence Policy Center Communications Director Josh Sugarmann explained,

The weapons menacing looks, coupled with the publics confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Despite its disconnection to the reality of violence perpetrated with firearms, this cynical tactic proved more effective than gun controllers attempts to prohibit handguns. In 1994 President Bill Clinton signed a federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatics into law.

During the course of the ban, two federally-funded studies examined the measure.

Faced with the reality that so-called assault weapons, are rarely used to commit violent crime, a 1997 Department of Justice-funded study from the Urban Institute acknowledged, At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.

A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study came to a similar conclusion. The study determined that AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired, and the bans effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.

Presented with the overwhelming evidence of the bans inefficacy, Congress allowed the ban to sunset after 10 years. In 2014, ten years after the ban sunset, the U.S. homicide rate reached a multi-decade low. Sadly, the homicide rate has risen in recent years amidst many cities ongoing experiment in deliberate anarchy.

Aside from bad policy, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Courts Heller, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) decisions, bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms are legally impermissible.

Justice Antonin Scalias opinion in Heller made clear that the Second Amendment protects ownership of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. Reiterating this point in 2015, Justice Scalia signed onto a dissent from denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, in which Justice Clarence Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. 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, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

In his Bruen opinion, Justice Thomas made clear that in order for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. The opinion stated,

[w]hen the Second Amendments plain text covers an individuals conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individuals conduct falls outside the Second Amendments unqualified command.

Examining how to apply Supreme Court precedent to bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, Constitutional Scholar and Attorney Stephen Halbrook has pointed out that,

Heller and Bruen both establish that the Second Amendment extends presumptively to all bearable arms. Second, banning such firearms is not consistent with this Nation's history. Indeed, the Supreme Court established that such a ban is inconsistent with this Nation's history nearly thirty years ago by holding that AR-15 rifles "traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions," Staples v. U.S. (1994).

So, if semi-automatic bans are stupid policy and constitutionally invalid, why are they pushed with such fervor by gun control advocates? One answer is that gun control advocates are eager to move their civilian disarmament agenda in any manner possible no matter how dubious. Another is that targeting these types of firearms allows politicians and their supporters to indulge their ugly cultural prejudices. In other words, banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms is about putting law-abiding gun owners in their place.

Read more:
The Disingenuous Assault Weapons Ban - NRA ILA