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).
Video and still from @reallouiehuey on Twitter.
On April 26, protesters were rallying to support re-opening Colorado at the state capitol in Denver. Exactly what happened next is unclear. The lack of video from before the incident is concerning too, because we don't know what really happened to incite the incident.
The protesters' version seems to be that Jafar Partowmah, who rally participants say is a concealed firearm permit holder, was arrested for open carry because his shirt blew up and exposed his two handguns. Supporters state that Partowmah was not engaged in any kind of threatening or aggressive act. However, the video from the scene does not show what happened prior to the incident.
Police are reporting that Partowmah was openly carrying and was arrested for that as well as struggling with the officers. Partowmah is clearly shown resisting arrest in the video.
Open carry is illegal in Denver as it is considered to have special status in the state (see the Colorado pages for more info). Open carry is otherwise legal in most places in the state, though cities can ban in it in certain public places. Concealed carry cannot be regulated as strictly, making Colorado an outlier among the Western states.
However, a close watching of the video is telling. It shows Partowmah's red t-shirt tucked in to his belt, with an empty Kydex holster visible inside the waistband. Presumably he was already disarmed by police prior to an attempted handcuffing. With the position of the holster and the tucked t-shirt, it's more likely that Partowmah was deliberately openly carrying.
Clearly, Partowmah struggling with the officers is bad optics and hurts his case. If his exposure of his weapons was accidental, he should be filing suit in federal court. There is a lot of relevant case law regarding the constitutionality of case law the court could rely on.
I’ve recently changed my opinion (a little) on gun confiscation by police in light of the COVID-19 crisis. While I still believe that local police won’t go door-to-door rounding up guns and confiscation/enforcement will be far less draconian than the media will hype it to be, I’m concerned that things have shifted.
I still think there will be three groups; those that enforce the law zealously, those that only enforce it when they have to, and those that quit/ignore it/actively work to subvert it from the inside.
The first “third” will compose true-believers, cops who righteously (and some what blindly) believe it is for the best, and those who don’t care and like kicking doors.
The middle group, the blindly righteous are good people who are the kinds of cops who are dedicated to keeping streets safe. They do a good job and always play by the rules. That dedication and rule-abiding will be what bites us in the butt. These guys believe that the regulations are in our best interest and for the common good, so the public must obey and the officers must enforce.
During this current crisis where religious services and public assemblies are being disrupted, these Dudley Do-Rights were the cops taking people away and passing out flyers. In normal times, you might get a speeding ticket from these folks, but they’ll never, ever frame you. In a Biblical sense, I’d compare them to Saul, the persecutor of Christians who encountered Jesus and scales fell from his eyes.
Yes, these people can be “saved.” A lot of them will get shot though, and that will polarize many of them to the gun control true-believer camp as armed resistance to gun confiscation “confirms” the lies they’ve been told about gun owners. The rest will rally around their deceased brethren and kick doors, shoot dogs, and blow off wives’ heads because we’re fighting back. You hurt me, I hurt you.
True-believers are usually deluded leftists. You can’t fix them, but few are in law enforcement compared to the rest. The middle-ground ones are cops who grew up in foreign countries or immigrant communities and regard guns and people who carry them as bad. Or they have little experience with people other than cops carrying them and believe the lies that an armed citizen is dangerous. They can learn or be terrorized, sorta like the Iraqi police.
In the second “third” you find most human beings, except these are cops. Most of us aren’t quite sheep, but we do what we are told. Usually, doing what we are told isn’t bad. Who here follows the rules at work, even if it’s a PITA, and does a decent job even though they can cut corners? Do you stop and wait patiently at a red light, even though no one is around and it’s 3 AM? That’s most people.
The middle of the road folks will go along to get along. They’ll tell people to “move along” on the beach or reluctantly pass out flyers at the local church, but the sergeant will have to be breathing down their neck if they are going to book or cite anyone for daring to leave home while a disease is out there. We all get upset at these cops when they’re busting us for speeding, but most of the time, if you’re cool and it wasn’t that bad, there’s a good chance they’ll let you off.
Most cops will leave people alone if they don’t draw attention to themselves. Think of the guy going 80 on the freeway versus the dude blowing past the state trooper at over 100. These are the cops that’ll enforce gun laws in a really half-assed manner and only when someone is looking. I worked with plenty of guys who would write the bare minimum traffic citations to stay off the sergeant’s radar. But woe betide you if you were a jerk and doing something really stupid on the road.
These guys are like “cool” California cops now. There’s lots of stories of normal people committing minor gun infractions or outright breaking magazine laws, etc. and a cool cop doesn’t care. Heck, this used to happen with marijuana too, but you know who I’m talking about. Many of these guys brag that they hate gun control, but admit they would use it against a true dirtbag who needed to sink under the weight of any and all charges.
The problem is that when you’re sitting on the fence, you have to fall one way or the other. Cops getting shot and police brass pushing for arrests will make the half-assed guys go one way or the other. Some will go to the first “third” and enforce the law, either out of revenge or fear for their jobs.
I fear the group that will follow orders is larger than assumed because of the COVID crisis. Now the current crisis is nothing to shoot over and a lot of cops can rationalize it as “for your own good.” Even gun owning, staunch patriots are disagreeing vehemently over the shutdown orders and restrictions.
But let’s say things in the gun control world slowly ratchet up. With no door-to-door confiscation, there is no catalyst to kick off an instant boogaloo. It’s individuals going after cops when they raid the house or in revenge. The event looks like a guerilla war and the mass media will be against the “gun nuts” shooting police and politicians.
This isn’t quite the world where a cops who is reasonably safe is going to quit over refusing to assist in a warrant service or do something to a gun owner. As long as the cop is reasonably safe and getting fed/paid, he’s going to do his job over fear of not being fed/paid.
That being said, everyone has their limit. When stuff hits the fan, whether it be retaliation against police or law enforcement going Waco-style on somebody, sides will be polarized. How long is that going to take? I can foresee a long grind where one by one, gun owners are targeted in a way to reduce the boogaloo chances and make those that do boogaloo be the outliers.
Using the COVID crisis as an example, you can bet deputies would outright refuse to enforce beach closures or even drive-by a church or protest if the FBI was arresting cops for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Would the governors and mayors be closing businesses if a federal court deprived the elected officials of sovereign immunity? The US DOJ going full-bore in favor of liberty would put a stop to the most odious of our COVID restrictions.
Yet we are told the restrictions are temporary and to save lives. They’ll go away eventually and they really aren’t that bad. For a cop who just wants to get paid and not make waves, they aren’t going to tell their chief to pound sand for giving that officer park shutdown duty. It’ll take an embarrassing arrest, news exposure, and a lawsuit to get the department brass to back off and allow the cops not to be stepping on necks.
It’s not just police; look at all the people on Facebook who truly think that going to the beach will kill some grandmother hiding at home. “Just follow orders” is a delusion that affects everyone to some degree or another. Ordinary people rat on each other in oppressive regimes to save their own skins, so if you think you’re immune because you’re not a cop, wait until you have to choose between dueling with the SWAT team or diming out your shooting buddies to avoid a felony.
The final group, the ones that would up-and-quit, ignore it and be normal cops, or actively work to subvert the law (resistance) don’t bear mention here.
What changed was my observation of how authorities (police) are reacting to the COVID restrictions. They’re doing what they’re told because it isn’t odious, the public isn’t that mad (lots of Karens still support them for making going outside illegal), and it’s to save lives. It’s not like they’re herding Chinese people into boxcars or anything.
The idea that most cops won’t support gun confiscation has been predicated on the idea the boogaloo will be so nasty and large that you have to choose on side or the other. Unwilling to kill people over a civil right and probably other leftist ideas, cops in the middle wouldn’t risk dying and defect.
So if there is “soft” gun confiscation and repression, I fear we do have to worry. Officer Half-Ass might suddenly care that you’re shooting way out in the desert with a semi-auto “assault rifle” and “high capacity” magazines. On one hand, gun control that goes too far, too fast, and gets enforced immediately with a heavy hand is in our favor. If not, I worry.
All that being said, there are still more cops that are on our side. This is highly geographical, of course. Look at all the rural sheriffs supporting Second Amendment Sanctuaries. LAPD might kick down your door, rural CA cops might bust you if they find out, but cops in Vegas might just look the other way, while some Montana undersheriff helps you modify your AR-15 into full-auto.
Time will tell.
This incident took place in Neptune Beach, Florida.
Three criminally inclined gentlemen decided to burglarize an apartment. Notice how fast it happens. One, two, three and the door is forced open. None appears to be armed, but one does slip on some gloves. You see them going inside the house and then a few second later, they go flying out the door and down the stairs. One dude vaults over the landing railing and takes a nasty landing. If you have the sound off, it's almost funny to see the suspect fleeing.
Couple of things to notice. Again, the front door yields after three fairly minor impacts. Most apartments and homes have similarly weak doors. Can you get to your gun and deploy it the seconds it took to breach the door? That's one hit recognize something's up, one hit to begin to react, and one hit to start moving while the criminals are pursuing you. Home carry or a pistol at hand seems like a good idea.
Three burglars mean multiple targets. Can you engage multiple targets effectively, especially at ultra-close distance? What if they are armed and shoot back? Are you prepared to shoot from a sitting position? Around a door frame or behind furniture? Does your self-defense weapon have the ammo for such a firefight? Not all of them will flee at the first shot though.
Concerned about what will happen if you are involved in a self-defense shooting? Can you afford a defense attorney? Join the US Concealed Carry Association today for knowledge, training, and legal protection.
Breitbart: Mark Kelly Hides Gun Control Support During Arizona Senate Run
He's the astronaut husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who survived an assassination attempt by a mentally ill lose who passed all the background checks Giffords is clamoring for. She's a living martyr for gun control, none of which would have stopped her from being shot. Prior to the shooting, she and Mark at least seemed to be not rabidly anti-gun.
As if any self-respecting gun-owning 'Zoner would vote for this Democratic douche canoe anyway. I don't see the illegal immigrant generation (that's illegal aliens given amnesty by Reagan and the kids of illegal aliens) voting for a bald white guy though.
For more content,