BREAKING NEWS: Two people were shot at the Westgate Mall in Glendale, Arizona, Wednesday evening. While information is in the early stages, it appears only two victims were wounded and the suspect is in custody. The suspect also appears to be armed with an AR-15.
In video posted to Twitter, purportedly from the shooter's social media, he made a general complain about society being dysfunctional. It appears the shooter was disaffected about something and chose to vent his rage by shooting people.
Once again, we urge people to carry firearms and train with them so that if they are in this situation, they might be able to intervene, or at least fight back if they are on the other end of the bad guy's muzzle. Even more importantly, having an individual first aid kit including tourniquet on one's person, or even in their vehicle, is a prudent measure to treat traumatic gunshot wounds.
Watching the video, one can't help but think that if more people were armed, if this degenerate loser would have attempted his killing spree or if an armed citizen would have been able to stop it. What is clear that streaming mass shootings is now a thing.
ABC News: Protesters, some armed, spill into Michigan Capitol building demanding end to stay-at-home order
Rolling Stone: Fully Armed Rally-Goers Enter Kentucky’s Capitol Building With Zero Resistance
Be careful. Carrying firearms and open carry was legal in California too. Until the Black Panthers did it in 1967. Then we got the Mulford Act and they tacked on a weapons ban in the capitol too.
Scared, vindictive Democrats will take your rights away. They did it in Virginia when gun owners organized for Lobby Day.
Be careful where you can do that. Know what you're in for. But as I said earlier, if the Constitution doesn't apply in the Legislature, where does it apply?
For Denver, see below.
The minimum age for open carry in Colorado is 18 and does not require a permit. Open carry is more restricted than concealed carry is (this is a reverse from most states in the West). Local governments can ban open carry at government buildings and public property (such as parks). Signs must be posted at each public entrance.
29-11.7-104 Regulation-[open] carrying-posting
A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.
Many Colorado municipalities ban open carry to the fullest extent of the law. While areas such as public streets and sidewalks generally cannot be designated 'no open carry' zones, "specific area" is broadly interpreted to include parks, trails, and public plazas. Local governments are prohibited from regulating concealed carry only.
'No guns' signs do not have the force of law on private property. If you openly carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would only be trespassing. Signs on private property may cite 18-4-504, which is simply trespassing.
Menacing (18-3-206) is if, by any threat or physical action, a person knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon (felony). Case law indicates this section is meant to be applied when someone uses a firearm to essentially threaten death in aggravated circumstances (assault, robbery, road-rage, etc.).
It appears that under very specific, narrow circumstances that one could be charged with a crime for open carry, but no reports suggest that this is a problem in Colorado and furthermore, case law indicates that exacerbating circumstances would likely be required to elevate open carry to a different crime. An intentional act, such as making threats or drawing a firearm not in justifiable self-defense, would be required on behalf of the carrier, not simply a fearful reaction from a hoplophobia third party.
Colorado's state preemption of local firearm laws is rather weak. As you have read above, Denver's exemptions border on ludicrous. Additionally, unlike other states, which usually reserves firearm regulation power to the legislature and grants limited authority to local governments, Colorado only prohibits local governments from making certain laws in a very narrow field. Local governments are prohibited from regulating concealed carry only. 29-11.7-101
See also 29-11.7-104 regarding open carry lack-of-preemption protection.
Open carry is illegal in the City and County of Denver 38-117(a) DMC
Denver has banned open carry since 1973, under the premise that Denver is a 'special' home-rule city and somehow different than the rest of the state. Arguments seemed to be based on the fallacy that an openly carried handgun equates target shooting and that allowing open carry in the city would lead to people getting shot. The Supreme Court found that Denver has the right to regulate open carry because it is urbanized. In other words, Denver residents are less entitled to full Second Amendment rights than other Colorado residents.
The Supreme Court's opinion allowing Denver's strict gun control regime is based on the fact it is organized differently than most cities. Under home rule, it is not subject to certain limitations that other cities are subject to. While that issue is one unique to Colorado, the arguments to support the validity of the anti-gun ordinances are specious and are a stunning abuse of logic.
The City and County of Denver is a home rule city created and organized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution (the “home rule amendment”). Under the home rule amendment, a home rule municipality has the supreme power to legislate in matters of local concern. Historically, Denver has had a range of ordinances controlling various aspects of the possession, use and sale of firearms in the city. (CO Denver Ruling)
From the Firearms Policy Center:
URGENT: Republicans Conspiring With Democrats To Institute Searchable, National Electronic Gun Registry
In the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic Republicans have conspired with Democrats to infringe on the rights of all gun owners.
H.R. 6006 introduced by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) is labeled as the “Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act of 2020” and already has two REPUBLICAN co-sponsors, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ).
The companion bill, S. 3348 is sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), ranking member on the powerful U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations.
All of these measures would implement separate parts of an electronic, universal gun registration scheme -- which has been a goal of the gun ban movement for decades. And now two Republicans are assisting them in this effort.
TTAG Link: Tyranny of the Snitches: If ‘Karens’ Will Snitch on You for Playing in a Park, They’ll Definitely Do It Over Your Guns
The Truth About Guns: Tyranny of the Snitches: If ‘Karens’ Will Snitch on You for Playing in a Park, They’ll Definitely Do It Over Your Guns
If Karen will rat you out for jogging or tossing a ball around with your kids in a park, she’ll surely drop a dime on you as a gun owner in a heartbeat. Does she think you have a banned gun? Heck, she may not even care if it’s a banned gun. She might call just because she thinks you have any gun.
Good article. Read the whole thing.
The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club.
Snitches get stitches.
I'd rather trust a cop to not rat me out that a Karen. Why? A third of cops hate gun control. The other third is doing their job half-assed or can be scared of being killed.
Karen thinks she's on a mission from God and thinks shes invulnerable. No one will ever request the 911 call and recognize her voice or get the report that shows who the complainant is.
In the boogaloo, you might have to kill and terrorize more than just the gun control squads.
In the meantime, if a Karen files a false police report about you (say she calls 911 about you openly carrying in a park and lies that you're threatening people), call an attorney and sue her for slander. She can't defend it and won't. Have your attorney get an asset declaration from her and find an amount that hurts, but not enough for her to think it's worth it. Like $500 if she's got $1,500 in the bank. She'll settle and learn her lesson and no one goes to prison.
My deepest condolences to our Canadian friends. Canada's war history is one replete with heroes and their firearms traditions were only second to the United States.
After last week's mass shooting, Canada is set to ban semi-automatic firearms under the guise of "assault weapons." It looks like Canada is going the way of Australia and New Zealand. Trudeau was just waiting for an excuse. If their queen was worth anything, she should command the Governor-General to deny assent to these bills, but the Windsor's have become full puppets of their parliaments.
I'll let the quotes from the Daily Globe do most of the talking.
Along with the Ruger Mini-14, the government will ban the AR-15 and similar types of firearms that have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States, officials said. They added that the ban will also include the CZ Scorpion, the Swiss Arms Classic Green, the Beretta Cx4 Storm, the Robinson Armament XCR and the Sig Sauer SIG MCX, among others, as well as firearms that use the same platforms.
I thought most of those were already banned?
On Tuesday, RCMP Superintendent Darren Campbell said the gunman in Nova Scotia was carrying two semi-automatic rifles and several semi-automatic pistols as he rampaged through a rural swath of the province. He told reporters that one of the long guns could be described as a military-style assault rifle.
Supt. Campbell declined to disclose the make or calibre of the firearms, saying investigators were still conducting ballistic work to determine which gun was used against each victim.
So they haven't formally identified them to disclose it to the public, but they can tell the Prime Minister so he can ban them? Sounds like Las Vegas and bump fire stocks.
In last year’s election campaign, the Liberals promised to ban military-style assault weapons, allow municipalities to ban handguns on their territory and bring in a series of new laws to restrict access to illegal weapons, among other elements. In addition, the Liberals said they would create a buyback program to require the owners of newly banned firearms to sell them back to the government.
Remember, Canada is the country that fielded the Ross rifle and cancelled it's excellent interceptor the Avro Canada Arrow (and basically threw it and everything about it—tools, papers, and all—down the memory hole).
For more content,