What Will Virginia’s Gubernatorial Election Mean for the Second Amendment?iStock-884220580
Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- Two years ago, Second Amendment supporters suffered a serious reverse in the 2019 off-year elections in Virginia. We saw the gun-rationing scheme re-imposed by anti-Second Amendment extremists who took power.
In some ways, it showed some of our failures. We have failed to address the worries of those in the suburbs, opening fertile ground for Bloomberg to attack us. Second Amendment supporters also failed to deal with the attacks Andrew Cuomo started on our ability to make the case for our Second Amendment rights.
Now, given recent reporting, things look like they are making a 180. Glenn Youngkin, dirty tricks aside, looks to be headed for a win as governor, and the momentum could lead to seeing a pro-Second Amendment majority in the Virginia House of Delegates along with taking the lieutenant governorship and the attorney general.
Youngkin and a pro-Second Amendment House of Delegates – if elected – will stop the bleeding in terms of attacks on our rights. That is not a bad thing. Virginia’s state senate is not up for election until 2023, and the House of Delegates will be up for election as well, so Second Amendment supporters will have more work to do if they want to move the ball forward on passing pro-Second Amendment legislation.
Most important could be if Jason Miyares wins the attorney general election. This would be a potential game-changer, especially if there is legal action against some of the anti-Second Amendment legislation that has been passed. Perhaps Second Amendment supporters can use the “sue and settle” approach that
But Second Amendment supporters would be foolish to think that all of the problems with winning elections in states like Virginia have been solved with what looks to be a good night on November 2. The fact is, like the 2018 midterms, this election looks to have shifted on unrelated issues, mostly education. Second Amendment supporters, though, have a vested interest in keeping an eye on what goes on in schools. The fact is, this may be an opening to reach out to those same parents to make the schools safer, and it can even help reduce the effectiveness of the Bloomberg attacks.
The good news is that there are some trends that Second Amendment supporters can feel good about – but capitalizing on these trends will take a lot of work. In addition, how we come across will matter as well. Second Amendment supporters, though, need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box as soon as possible.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Yesterday, the House Government Oversight Committee passed Constitutional Carry legislation, House Bill 227. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the House Government Oversight Committee passed Constitutional Carry legislation, House Bill 227. The measure will soon be placed on the House Calendar and your State Representative needs to hear from you now! Please contact your State Representative and urge them to SUPPORT House Bill 227.
House Bill 227 allows a law-abiding adult who is at least 21 years of age, and legally allowed to possess a firearm, to carry a handgun without first having to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have the right to self-defense without government red tape or delays.
Again, please contact your State Representative and urge them to SUPPORT House Bill 227.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging New York State’s restrictive carry law on Wednesday, Nov. 3.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- When the U.S. Supreme Court convenes Wednesday, Nov. 3 to hear oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it won’t be the Second Amendment on trial, but the extremist gun control law in New York state requiring applicants for a permit to carry a gun for personal protection to show some “special need” to exercise a constitutionally enumerated fundamental right.
Writing at Vox, Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser seems to lament, “For nearly all its history, the Supreme Court kept its distance from gun policy. Now it’s about to decide a case that could radically reduce the government’s power to regulate guns.”
With due respect to Millhiser, that’s what every tenet of the Bill of Rights is supposed to do, limit the government’s power. The fact self-described “progressives” (make that liberals) are concerned about this probably says more about their motives and goals than they care to acknowledge.
Millhiser contends “The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia…”
No, gun rights activists could argue, it doesn’t really say that at all, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller in June 2008.
Millhiser refers to the 1939 case of United States v. Miller to argue the high court’s unanimous ruling in that case—for which there was no argument for the defendant before the court—showed the “’obvious purpose’ of the Second Amendment was to ‘render possible the effectiveness’ of militias, and the amendment must be ‘interpreted and applied with that end in view.’
But Justice Scalia, on Page 49 of the Heller decision, put that argument in its place.
“JUSTICE STEVENS,” Scalia wrote, “places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). ‘[H]undreds of judges,’ we are told, ‘have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,’…and ‘[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,’… And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment ‘protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.’ …
“Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case,” Scalia added. “Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.”
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a grassroots gun rights organization with some 650,000 members and supporters across the U.S., filed a solo amicus brief in this case. The New York organization is a CCRKBA affiliate, and the amicus looks at the history of the Amendment, explaining powerfully, “The Founders understood that, even if the written Constitution delivered the benefits they hoped for, man’s essential nature meant that civilization was inherently fragile and prone to violent flareups. All the more so given the federal system of shared sovereignty: brief or prolonged episodes of violence and mayhem in response to local conditions were inevitable.
“Thus ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by any sovereign,” the CCRKBA brief adds. “With this backdrop, it is folly to even suggest that the Founders believed the people ceded to any government official—let alone a local sheriff —the power to condition the right to bear arms on some sort of heightened showing of ‘cause’ or ‘need.’”
What the high court could do with the NYSR&PA case is not “radically reduce the government’s power to regulate guns,” but instead put the government in its place, like that of a servant of the people, not the master.
New York is one of a handful of states with such a restrictive approach to regulating the exercise of a constitutional right to bear arms. Thus, if the Court rules against the law, it also jeopardizes similar laws in other states including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, California, and Hawaii.
Rights activists have long contended citizens should not be required to demonstrate some “special need” in order to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection. Bearing arms, they stress, is a right, specifically enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Writing at SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe (former editor and reporter for that site) states, “Both sides in the case agree that the Constitution protects a right to carry a handgun outside of the home for self-defense, but they have very different views on whether and when the government can place restrictions on that right. The court’s decision is likely to be a major ruling on gun rights, and it could hinge on the justices’ view of the history of gun rights in England and the United States – a history that, like the right itself, the parties to the case hotly dispute.”
She lays out arguments on both sides fairly and in detail.
“The high stakes in the case are reflected in the number of ‘friend of the court’ briefs filed on both sides – over 80 in total, including one from the Biden administration supporting New York,” Howe notes.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation—which joined in a separate amicus brief in this case—perhaps summed it up best earlier this year when he observed, “A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Combat Corporate Gun Control – Or SCOTUS Wins Become Hollow Victories, iStock-471503379
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Picture this scene sometime in the last weeks of June 2022: The Supreme Court has not only handed down a sweeping ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, but the high court also announced they will be taking up challenges to semiauto and magazine bans. Second Amendment supporters celebrate and engage in schadenfreude as anti-Second Amendment extremists wail with impotent fury…
Then there is an event at the White House. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the CEOs of major banks and credit card companies are there – and Biden is announcing that these banks and credit card companies are acting.
The CEOs declare that companies and dealers who sell modern multi-purpose semi-automatic long guns will be financially deplatformed. Those who make the guns will have their accounts closed. Consumers will not be able to use a major credit card to buy those guns (or, say, standard-capacity magazines). In addition, the Treasury Department encourages other banks and financial service companies to consider the “reputational risk” of being tied to gun sales.
Far-fetched? Then you’ve forgotten Operation Chokepoint. And if you think it will just be aimed at gun manufacturers, dealers, or your efforts to buy firearms, take a look at what Andrew Cuomo and Letitia James have done and are doing to the NRA. You don’t have to like the NRA or Wayne LaPierre to recognize that anti-Second Amendment extremists won’t just stop with a dissolved NRA. They will come after the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and others – and what chance will those groups have if the NRA can be taken down? Think that over, loyal Ammoland readers.
The same corporate assaults aimed at gun makers will be aimed at pro-Second Amendment organizations. The “real crime” won’t be what anti-Second Amendment extremists claim it is, whether it is James or anyone else. It will be that we used our First Amendment rights to defend the Second Amendment. And as we have seen from some anti-Second Amendment extremists, they view our efforts to protect ourselves from having our rights infringed on over horrific crimes and acts of madness we did not commit as corrupt (in the best case).
Here’s the worst part: There is precious little that the Supreme Court could do about it. We’d have the legal right to buy a modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifle for the many lawful purposes there are – whether it is personal protection, hunting, competition, or even informal target practice – but the policies of the big banks and other financial services companies would deny that right.
You may think this is far-fetched but consider this: Anti-Second Amendment extremists will be trying to find ways to attack our rights. If they can’t ban guns, they’ll tie us up in red tape, they will make it far more of a financial burden, and they will come up with other avenues, like forcing industries to boycott the Second Amendment and those who defend it.
What can be done? The legislation passed in Louisiana and Texas is a start, but just denying the ability of those banks to underwrite bonds will not be enough. Versions of the Freedom Financing Act need to be passed at the state level as well, but most important will be working to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels as soon as possible.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A few years ago, “ghost gun” homemade shotguns were appearing at gun “buyback” turn-in events, as makers of the simple shotguns cashed in on the money to be had. Gun “buyback” is an Orwellian term. You cannot “buyback” a gun you never owned before.
In a recent turn-in event on October 23, from 10:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m. in Columbus, Ohio, it appears two of the shotguns were turned in for $50 each. The guns show a bit of craftsmanship. The hose clamps are nicely clipped instead of having excessive over-run, the stock is inletted for the barrel and clamping system, and the pipe-barrel muzzle is squared off and trimmed. The materials cost about $10.
“Ghost Gun” homemade shotgun at Columbus event.
The event brought in a little less than 100 guns. Some of them were worth far more than the $50 offered. From 10tv.com:
The Public Safety office told us they received 73 handguns, 11 shotguns, and 13 rifles.
It is said to be the first event of its type held in Columbus. From 10tv.com:
This was the first gun buyback held by Columbus police.
Public Safety Director Robert Clark said first the guns will be run through the system after being received.
If the guns are reported stolen, they’ll then be returned to the rightful owner.
If the gun is linked to a crime, detectives will then take over and investigate.
The homemade “ghost guns” have no serial number. They are made all over the world where factory guns are difficult to get. There is some dispute about how much was being paid out at the event. From spectrumnews1.com:
The drive-through-style event allowed citizens to pull up, hand over their firearms to police and get a $50 gift card in exchange.
Copper wire on breech of Ghost Gun Shotgun at Columbus event.
Close inspection of the breech of the ghost gun shotgun shows a copper wire of unknown purpose. It may be these ghost guns are electrically fired muzzleloaders instead of the more traditional slam fire guns. I have made hardware store electrically fired firearms 40 years ago as a proof of principle experiment.
Dispatch reports debit cards worth $25 will be given out. It may be two will be given for each gun. From dispatch.com:
U.S. Bank debit gift cards worth $25 each will be given as gifts to the first 200 people who turn in firearms at the event, which will be held from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday at the Columbus Fire Training Academy, located at 3639 Parsons Ave. on the city’s South Side.
In the middle of an ammunition shortage, someone decided to turn in 500 rounds of Remington .22 for free. Maybe it found a good home. The rounds have no serial numbers, like the “ghost guns”. Many firearms professionals are willing to take difficult to “dispose of” ammunition, and dispose of it properly, preferably at a private range.
Homemade guns have been made in the United States since before it became the United States. Bans on making your own legal guns are a new and, very likely, unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. There are no federal restrictions on making your own guns, as long as the guns are legal to own. No serial numbers have ever been required for homemade guns, until very recently.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
A federal prosecutor in Western Pennsylvania is hoping to team up with county sheriffs to revoke the concealed carry licenses of travelers who accidentally bring guns to airport security checkpoints. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- According to local news reports and gunbloggers, a federal prosecutor in Western Pennsylvania is hoping to team up with county sheriffs to revoke the concealed carry licenses of travelers who accidentally bring guns to airport security checkpoints.
The reports also state that Allegheny County Sheriff William Mullen, whose jurisdiction covers Pittsburgh and its international airport, has agreed to cooperate with the plan.
Needless to say, the NRA encourages all gun owners to be prudent and conscientious about checking any bag that could contain a firearm before using it as carry-on luggage at an airport.
Nevertheless, innocent mistakes can and do occur. Many peoples’ lifestyles involve lawfully carrying firearms, as well as making frequent or last-minute trips by air travel. Someone going to a funeral or hastily-scheduled business meeting, for example, could easily get distracted enough to forget what was in a carry-on bag.
To put things in perspective, the Transportation Security Administration regulates all sorts of items that purportedly pose a risk to air travel, up to and including drinking water. It shouldn’t be assumed that everyone violating one of these rules does so intending to cause harm.
The criminal law recognizes this, and absent illegal intent, cases of firearms mistakenly brought to airport checkpoints are usually resolved with civil fines (perhaps in the thousands of dollars) and possible confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm itself. These measures, where appropriate, should more than encourage more careful behavior from forgetful travelers.
Nevertheless, Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Kaufman of the Western District of Pennsylvania also wants the travelers to lose their concealed carry licenses. Kaufman is reaching out to local sheriffs in Pennsylvania, asking them to revoke these licenses in incidents of this type, even when no criminal charges are brought.
While Pennsylvania concealed carry licenses are considered “shall-issue” for applicants who meet statutory requirements, provisions of the law give licensing officials some discretion to revoke the credentials for unspecified “character and reputation” reasons.
The manifest intent behind these provisions is to allow law enforcement agencies to respond to indicia of criminal intent or activity that hasn’t yet resulted in a conviction.
Leave it to a Biden administration official, however, to try to stretch the bounds of the law as far as possible to diminish the freedom to keep and bear arms, even where’s there no evidence of bad motives.
Moreover, it’s not as if the federal government doesn’t have ample legal tools of its own for dealing with true criminals who intentionally and unashamedly use guns to harm and threaten and others. We have often made the point that federal prosecutors should vigorously enforce existing laws against dangerous predators, rather than search for ways to scapegoat or harass well-meaning citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights. There remains plenty of room for the U.S. Justice Department to improve in this regard. Indeed, some of the same voices calling for increased gun control also want the federal government to handle fewer firearm cases.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration is more interested in harassing law-abiding gun owners than reducing crime through the prosecution of violent criminals.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The Big Apple’s core is rotten with corruption and anti-gun zealots. IMG iStock-1169074379
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is just two months into her term and not wasting time renewing a sham gun control effort that began under her predecessor, disgraced former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The original order carried a taxpayer price tag of $160 million to target crime hotspots, engage youth, declare a gun control “border war” at the state line, and rebuild police relations with the community. It was bluster so Gov. Cuomo could say he was treating crime with the same level of attention as a health emergency.
Except he didn’t and neither is Gov. Hochul. Only one-third has been used to address “gun violence” in what both administrations call an urgent “epidemic.” Gov. Hochul’s spokesperson said, “Gov. Hochul will continue to work…to end the gun violence epidemic, including job training, community engagement, and more intervention programs.”
Gov. Hochul is extending it even though $50 million has yet to be allocated. Local reports stated, “Most of the $159 million promised has been allocated, although not yet spent.”
The declaration included a promise that $18.5 million would create 2,400 long-term jobs, “in communities distressed by gun violence.” The program has only created about 20 jobs so far.
Neither governor focused on holding criminals committing crimes accountable. New York-based government watchdog groups called foul. They labeled Gov. Cuomo’s original announcement a means to both “hold on to power” and to distract from his “ongoing controversies.”
The new governor decided to keep the charade going.
Failing Policies
It was the wrong approach when former Gov. Cuomo declared a “disaster emergency” as his attempt to again address crime. There was never an administration policy reversal for releasing violent criminals from prison with a slap on the wrist. Some were incarcerated for committing murder.
Gov. Cuomo peddled gun control talking points, even repeating the debunked lie that, “The only industry in the United States of America immune from lawsuits are the gun manufacturers,” when he announced the emergency order. His declared gun violence “emergency declaration” didn’t do anything other than infringe on the lawful rights of New York residents who are only interested in self-defense. Gov. Hochul is following the same playbook.
Failing Grade
Gov. Hochul is a former Congresswoman from Western New York and had previously received an “A” rating from the NRA during her one term in Congress. She once told a gun rights audience, “When a bill comes up that affects your Second Amendment rights, I’m on your side.” Times, and her commitment to gun rights, have changed.
Her efforts to reduce criminal misuse of firearms, or “gun violence” as she and her gun control allies term it, in the Empire State are abysmal. She’s in lockstep with Gov. Cuomo’s plan. She’s continuing the declared “disaster emergency” in New York that Gov. Cuomo launched, including prisoner release programs and targeting lawful firearm manufacturers by attempting to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) with New York’s new law allowing lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse by remote third parties of lawfully sold firearms.
New York is facing a trifecta of failing gun policies. The state has among the nation’s strictest gun control laws; the governor continues chasing an ineffective gun control “disaster emergency” that has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to create gun control jobs; and threatens legal firearm manufacturers and retailers. Not a single word has been offered as to how New York will enforce existing criminal laws.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
Starting November 1, the process for obtaining a firearm license in the United Kingdom is set to get harder and more invasive IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Starting November 1, the process for obtaining a firearm license in the United Kingdom is set to get harder and more invasive. On October 20, the Tory government issued new “statutory guidance” relating to firearm licensing and announced that “No one will be given a firearms license unless the police have reviewed information from a registered doctor setting out whether or not the applicant has any relevant medical history…” Extending beyond a medical veto on firearms licenses, the UK Home Office also announced guidance encouraging law enforcement to delve into an applicant’s social media and financial history when making license determinations.
Under UK law, a subject may not possess, purchase, or acquire a shotgun or rifle without a shotgun or firearm certificate/license. The already onerous application process requires an applicant to divulge sensitive personal information, including medical data and contact information for the applicant’s general practitioner. An applicant must detail their firearm storage arrangements, which are subject to warrantless inspection. The applicant must also provide justification for possessing a shotgun or rifle and two character references.
This attack on gun ownership and medical privacy has been in the works for quite some time. Back in 2015, NRA-ILA informed gun owners of the UK government’s interest in further tracking gun owners’ medical records.
At that time, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) issued a report titled, “Targeting the risk: An inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of firearms licensing in police forces in England and Wales.” The report lamented that licensing authorities were not sufficiently embedded in the doctor-patient relationship. HMIC demanded the creation of a system whereby General Practitioners (GPs) would be informed of a patient’s status as a gun owner and would be required to report to licensing authorities “any changes to the medical circumstances” of the licensee.
The new Home Office rules go a great deal further, requiring a GP to sign off on a firearm license application. The document states,
When a person applies for a firearm or shotgun certificate or to be registered as a firearms dealer, the applicant will ask their GP, or a suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor, to provide information to the police which will confirm whether or not the applicant is or has been diagnosed or treated for any relevant medical condition which could affect their ability to possess a firearm safely. … It is for the applicant to arrange for the medical information to be sent to the police either with the application itself or, alternatively, direct from the doctor. An application for a certificate will not be granted without such medical information. If medical information is not provided the police should inform the applicant that the application cannot be progressed in the absence of the required information from the doctor and will be refused.
Dismissing civil liberties concerns, the Home Office adopted the collectivist view that “Doctors owe a duty of confidentiality to their patients, but they also have a wider duty to protect and promote the health of… the public.”
The new Home Office rules also encourage law enforcement to conduct other invasive checks on applicants. In a move that will further chill speech on Airstrip One, the document calls for licensing authorities to examine “information obtained from open source social media.”
Exhibiting the worst characteristics of the UK’s ugly classism, the Tory rules also call on police to conduct “credit or other financial checks” as part of the firearm licensing process. The Home Office press release accompanying the statutory guidance cited “unmanaged debt” as problematic.
Excited by his group’s new powers, the deputy chair of the British Medical Association GP committee England stated that he was “pleased” and “delighted” by the rules change. The official also noted, “As doctors, we support the government’s overall message – that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right…”
The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and is not dependent upon the government for its existence. As a natural right, it is inherent to all people regardless of political interference. A government may infringe upon this right, but it cannot extinguish it.
As is so often the case, this latest UK infringement offers an important lesson for U.S. gun owners. While announcing the new rules, Home Secretary Priti Patel noted, “The UK has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, but we must never become complacent about these high standards.” Once again, gun control supporters have made clear that no amount of gun restrictions will satisfy them – short of total civilian disarmament.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Carry guns, and our EDC setups are unique to every gun owner that chooses to carry a firearm for self-defense. There is no correct answer to what gun to carry or what holster to use. Hell, even where to carry a gun is something that can be debated without finding a “one size fits all” answer. But what we can do is share our reasonings for what we do.
In Bruce Lee’s book, The Tao of Jeet Kung Do, the martial arts master posed that we should take what is useful to us and leave what is left behind. Most people leave off the part of the book where Lee explains what works for you might not work for me and vice versa. This philosophy can absolutely apply to concealed gun carriers.
I bring this opinion up because I am going to write about my concealed carry gun and the setup I run on most days. I am in no way an expert in concealed carrying, but I can give my opinions and the reason why I do the things I do. Take of it what you will and leave the rest.
GLOCK 43X
GLOCK 43X
My everyday carry is a Glock 43x. I have always carried Glocks from my concealed carry guns. Glocks are known for their reliability, and in my experience, it is a well-deserved reputation. Reliability is the most critical factor for me in choosing a gun that I may need to save my life. If I need to pull my gun and use it to defend myself or my family, I want a pistol that I can be reasonably sure that it will go bang.
I can shoot reasonably well with my Glocks. I am more accurate with my HK VP9 after about ten yards, but realistically, most encounters will be within less than ten yards. With that said, I am not a bad shot with Glocks and can still shoot a five-to-six-inch group at 15 yards to my average four-inch group with my VP9.
Many people complain about the ergonomics of Glock pistols, but I don’t think it is as bad as people say. I tell everyone to try a handgun before buying that one gun for an EDC. What fits my hand might not work for your hand. For example, a lot of people love Sigs. For me, I don’t like the Sigs’ standard pistol frame’s ergonomics. I replaced the Sig branded chassis of my JSD Supply 80% P320 with an aftermarket frame from Polymer80, which was a significant improvement.
The Glock 43x is also thinner than my Glock 19. The upside is that the Glock 43x prints less than the G19. I have tried open carrying the Glock 43x, and I didn’t like it as an open carry piece, but I hardly ever open carry, so it isn’t a big deal for me.
Shield Arms 15 Round Magazines
Shield Arms 15 Round Magazines for the GLOCK 43X
I swapped out the Glock 43x’s magazines with the Shield Arms 15 round mags. I know some people have had issues with the Shield Arms magazines with the stock polymer Glock mag catch. I replaced the polymer magazine catch with a steel mag catch that Shield Arms sells on its website. I haven’t had an issue with using the Shield Arms magazines. I have put around 3,000 rounds through my Glock 43x with only a couple of failures, but those failures were probably from the ammunition I was using since they were low-quality reloaded range ammo. I also carry an extra Shield Arms 15 round mag in a Kydex mag holder. If I need more than 30 rounds, then I am in serious trouble.
I use Hornady 115 gr Critical Defense Ammunition. I have trained with this ammo and have found it to be very reliable. I believe everyone should train with the ammo that they carry in their EDC handgun. That isn’t to say it should be the only ammo you train with because that would get really expensive. I try to mix in a box of my self-defense ammo for every 100 to 200 rounds of ball ammo. Since the ammo shortage, it is on the higher end.
JM4 Magnetic Holster
Glock 43X and JM4 Tactical Holster
There is a lot of holsters on the market for the Glock 43x. I tried a lot of different rigs to carry my EDC gun. I have tried leather and Kydex holsters, but I keep coming back to my medium JM4 Original magnetic holster. The holster is made of Herman Oak leather and is very comfortable. Comfort is essential to me when it comes to a holster.
The holster also is one of the most concealable holsters on the market today. I wear my firearm at the five o’clock position. I know appendix carry is the “in style,” but it is just uncomfortable to me. I tried multiple holsters, and it just doesn’t work for me.
Finally, I don’t use lasers or red dots on my EDC firearm. I use night sights, but that it is. Since night sights don’t depend on batteries and won’t fail me when I need it the most, maybe in the future I will use a red dot, but right now, it isn’t for me. For full disclosure, I did have a guide rod laser on my G19 but never used it.
This article describes my EDC firearm setup. Is it perfect? Probably not, but I will continue to evolve it over time. Will it work for you? Maybe or maybe not. I will leave you with a quote from Bruce Lee.
“Be like water, my friend.”
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
FPC, SAF, NJ2AS Challenge New Jersey Handgun Carry Ban
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2020 was recently released and everyone’s going gaga over it. As we should. Truth be told, the FBI Crime Report does offer up very important statistics. Pretty much they are the standard of where we’re to turn to for the raw data on violence, murder, property crimes, etc. Over the last few weeks there has been a good deal of reporting on the statistics, but how do they measure up? Honestly, I was personally not going to dive into the numbers just to dive into them to discuss them because they were released, however, I’ve been moved to do so based on the different headlines I’ve been reading since the report dropped. Generally, I’ll reference the reports when needed, but the rollout of the statistics doesn’t usually have me over the moon. Just a different data set to look at.
Three different headlines I feel illustrate some of the gaps in mainstream media.
FBI Crime Report 2020: Violent Crime Down In New Jersey Again
Overall crime in N.J. decreased in 2020, but violence spiked during COVID-19 pandemic
Murders in NJ up around 25% last year, but overall crime down
To be fair, one of those headlines was from January of 2021, but was looking at the data directly available in New Jersey at that time, not the FBI statistics.
First, what moved me to even bring this up: “FBI Crime Report 2020: Violent Crime Down In New Jersey Again“. Published through the Patch network of news, by Montana Samuels, reporting from Mahwah, NJ. Patch reporting, at least in New Jersey, is generally pretty good. It’s one of the many news aggregates I’m subscribed to. According to the website AllSides, the Patch is considered “Center” in it’s bias rating. Well, that very may well be true if one looks at Patch through the country, however, in New Jersey, most of their reporting, when there is a bias, it’s left of center. This article is no different, as I find the work to be a sugar coating of what else was going on in the Garden State in 2020.
Violent and property crimes decreased in New Jersey last year, according to data released by the FBI in its 2020 uniform crime report.
In New Jersey, the FBI estimated crime statistics based on reports from all 577 of the state’s law enforcement agencies.
Then to the sixth and seventh paragraphs:
The data shows violent crime went down in New Jersey from 2019 to 2020. Property crime went down during the same period.
In fact, the continued decline in these numbers completed a decade long trend in the state, which has seen both violent and property crimes decrease since 2010, according to the data.
Okay, so this is good news for those of us that do live in the state of New Jersey, kinda. However, that’s really a sugar coating. Because looking at the numbers things are not all that bright in the state that made tolls cool. In fact, the remaining 2/3rds of the article does bring up the fact that murders rose in New Jersey, but then there is a hard left turn and digression talking about, you guessed it, so-called “gun control” efforts.
Most types of violent and property crime occurrences were down as well, including rape, arson and robbery. Aggravated assault and homicides, however, did see an increase from 2019 t0 2020.
During the 2010s, the state’s homicide rate fell to the lowest point in 2019, at a mark of 3 homicides per 100,000 per year. The number rose past levels last seen in 2017 this past year, at a mark of 3.7 homicides per 100,000 people.
Neither the state Attorney General, nor the New Jersey State Police, responded to a request for comment on the numbers, but Gov. Phil Murphy perhaps provided some insight into how seriously the state is taking the issue of gun violence.
Of course, Murphy and the State Police have no comment on this. Murphy allegedly made us all safer by enacting all those new “gun control” measures he was so proud to sign. Taking in a question about the state’s stance on “the issue of gun violence” would perhaps be admitting failure. Murphy, you did not make us safer. Bravo for stripping us of our rights and having a zero net effect on the state’s murder rate. However, I’m going to toss you a small bone here. What Montana failed to report was the breakdown of those murders. From the Crime Data Explorer for New Jersey for 2020, we have the following chart:
The Chart As Text:
Weapon
Number
Handguns
156
Firearms, type not stated
71
Knives or cutting instruments
55
Personal weapons (hands/fists/feet/etc.)
13
Other weapons or weapons not stated
11
Blunt objects (clubs/hammers/etc.)
9
Fire
8
Asphyxiation
3
Rifles
2
Strangulation
1
Shotgun
0
Narcotics
0
Poison
0
Drowning
0
Other guns
0
Explosives
0
TOTAL
329
Okay, so yes, looking at this chart, more than the majority of murders were committed in New Jersey with firearms. The tally of 156 handguns, 71 not stated firearms type, 0 shotguns, and 2 rifles adds up to 229 murders. 69% of the murders were committed with a firearm of one sort or another. Even though there is still a 30% of other weapons and means used to murder in New Jersey, Montana, much like Governor Phil Murphy, wanted to focus on the gun. That’s fair, no really. How about just focusing on the fact that people are murdering each other? Does it really matter how they do it? What about the root causes? Let’s not go there.
What else is interesting about those numbers? The 2 murders were committed with rifles. Two. Read that Governor Murphy, two rifles. So by advocating for a .50 caliber ban or any further limitations on AR-style rifles (which a bill has been introduced in the past on this subject of further neutering semi-automatic long guns) would be moot. Keep your hands off the rifles, the statistics show they’re not a problem. .6% – that is six tenth of a percent of the murders in 2020 were committed with rifles. Blanket statement, keep your hands off all the firearms, clearly so-called “gun control” does not work.
Montana continued in his article to cite the latest “agreement” that Murphy got into with three other states as if this will have an effect.
Murphy, along with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed a Memorandum of Understanding to share crime gun data in “an effort to prevent gun violence and enhance public safety.”
What this means is that agencies from each of the four states can share crime gun data across state lines in an effort to cut down on the illegal firearms trade.
“Firearms trafficking networks frequently engage in criminal activities on an interstate basis, and in order to prevent gun violence in our communities, we must work collaboratively as a region,” said Murphy. “By sharing vital gun crime information with New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, we are equipping our law enforcement agencies with the necessary resources and intel to analyze, track, and deter gun violence. Our multi-state approach reaffirms our collective commitment and shared goal of ending gun violence in our communities and enhancing public safety throughout our region.”
All that amounts to is more chest-beating, “look at me, I’m doing something” non-sense, rolled out right before the election. Mr. I’m tough on “gun violence” Murphy froths at the mouth like a rabid dog whenever he has an opportunity to talk about firearms. Such was the case in the recent debate with Jack Ciattarelli as reported a couple of weeks ago (Murphy vs Ciattarelli NJ Gubernatorial Debate, Guns & Half Truths from Murphy ~ VIDEO).
As for this sharp decline in property and other violent crimes? The answer is simple. No, Phil Murphy did not concoct some sort of magical formula that made the crime go down. People were home, therefore they were not getting robbed, raped, and or burglarized. During the lockdowns of the pandemic, it made it too difficult for criminals to get down with their normal modus operandi. Okay, if Murphy wants to take credit for the decline in these other types of crime because he’s a tyrant, and he shut the state down, go right ahead. But there was no magical policing going on. It was simply people being locked up and locked down.
The other articles brought up look at this a bit differently than the Patch piece did.
From January 2021, “Overall crime in N.J. decreased in 2020, but violence spiked during COVID-19 pandemic“, an NJ.com article. NJ.com would best be described as a left-of-center news source with a heavy bias of anti-gun views. Generally speaking, NJ.com does not report pragmatically on the subject of civil liberties. But, I’ll give them credit where credit is due, their headline addresses the spike in violence. From the first few lines of the article:
While New Jersey is on pace for a double-digit drop in overall crime in 2020, violent crimes surged in some areas during the coronavirus pandemic, breaking records and bucking years of violent crime declines.
As of Nov. 30, 2020, New Jersey police departments reported 149,501 cases of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and auto theft – the seven crimes tracked by the FBI for statistical comparison. That’s down from 171,954 such crimes at the same time a year earlier, New Jersey State Police statistics show.
The 13% drop is largely attributed to major decreases in the three nonviolent crimes of burglary, larceny (theft) and auto theft, which coincides with pandemic lockdowns and stay-at-home orders earlier in the year.
With more people in their home during quarantines, burglaries dropped nationwide, as did shoplifting thefts when businesses closed as well, a Council on Criminal Justice report on COVID-19′s effect on crime shows.
For example, residential Bergen County had 90 burglaries for every 100,000 residents in 2019. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the rate had dropped to 58.
Violent crime, however, soared in urban areas and cities. Overall, New Jersey homicides had increased 23% as of Nov. 30, 2020. “It’s been a very challenging year,” Mercer County Prosecutor Angelo Onofri said.
The reporting above pretty much does speak for itself. There was no real sugarcoating there, however, the noted rise of crime in certain areas etc. is attributed to the “pandemic”. Not some sort of inability of the Murphy administration to make meaningful changes in the state. Again, that whole so-called “gun control” thing, you might as well toss that out the window Murph.
Murders increased last year in New Jersey at the fastest pace per capita since 2003, though not as much as they did nationally, according to data in an annual FBI crime report issued Monday.
The murder rate in New Jersey climbed from 3 per 100,000 residents in 2019 to 3.7 per 100,000 in 2020, up 23%, reaching the highest it has been since 2016. But the national murder rate rose faster, from 5.1 to 6.5 between those two years, reaching a level last seen in 1997.
They don’t mince any words but go right to the fact that murders were up. That is meaningful. While the rest of the population jumps up to click their heels because fewer people were robbed while they were staying locked in their houses, at least someone is putting in their headlines the fact that murder went up.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report is a very important tool. As of now, it does not seem to be tainted, as would be expected from the US Government these days. However, we need to read between the lines when looking at “reporting” on these statistics. Again, the subject was not one I was explicitly seeking out to bring up, but the sugar coating of some of the reporting really has to make us wonder what are these reporters actually doing?
The numbers were there. All of them. Why not actually look at them?
Instead of taking a far left turn and digressing into a non sequitur about another meaningless program that needs no introduction from Phil Murphy and his ilk. A program that does not address the simple question of why so many people are murdering each other. Why not at least admit that “Hey, rifles are not the problem. Keep your ARs and repeal the laws limiting them.” or say “Man, those gun-control laws Murphy singed really did squat.” No, we get more pandering from the leftist media that tried to turn our rise in murder into a positive thing. Yeah, no, it’s not. No matter how many homes were not burglarized and people not robbed because we were caged like animals through 2020, none of these numbers are a cause to celebrate.
Anti-gunners just can’t seem to help themselves. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s supporters are getting increasingly desperate. A group backing McAuliffe is posing as conservatives and running ads attacking Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin from the right. Named Accountability Virginia PAC, the outfit was described by news outlet Axios as a Democratic strategist-led effort to “drive a wedge between the Republican candidate for Virginia governor and his core voters.”
The content of the Accountability Virginia PAC’s ads show that they are targeting gun owners in their voter suppression campaign. The disingenuous ads are designed to portray Youngkin as anti-gun to pro-gun voters in the hopes that these voters will sit this election out. Some of the misleading messages even mimic NRA’s well-known orange election postcards in order to give the false impression that NRA opposes Youngkin’s candidacy.
Here are the facts:
NRA-PVF has not endorsed a candidate in the Virginia governor’s race.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe is an anti-gun extremist.
McAuliffe is seeking to attack gun owners and the Second Amendment by enacting a multitude of radical and unconstitutional gun control measures.
McAuliffe supports:
Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, like America’s most popular rifle – the AR-15.
Banning commonly-owned firearm magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Registering gun owners as part of a “permit to purchase” scheme.
Waiting periods for firearm purchases.
For more on McAuliffe’s plans for Virginia gun owners, click here.
Dirty Tricks
Axios’s research into Accountability Virginia PAC revealed the following information on the shadowy outfit.
Accountability Virginia’s online donation page is hosted by the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue. Its bank account is at Amalgamated Bank, a financial institution popular with Democratic political groups.
The PAC was incorporated in Virginia by compliance consultants at the MBA Consulting Group, which works uniformly with Democrats.
Its ads on Snapchat were purchased by Gambit Strategies, a firm founded this year by the Biden presidential campaign’s digital director and the former head of Democratic super PAC Priorities USA.
Disappointingly, one of the commonwealth’s largest interests is implicated in this voter suppression campaign. According to subsequent Axios reporting, Virginia electric utility Dominion Energy lavishly funded the phony outfit to the tune of $200,000. It should be noted that Dominion Energy enjoys a monopoly in much of the commonwealth. Therefore, many Virginians were effectively forced to pay for this underhanded misinformation campaign.
Following public outcry, on October 18, Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue emailed employees to tell them that the company had erred in donating to the voter suppression outfit. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dominion Energy has asked the deceitful group to return its $200,000.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time gun owners have been targeted by a left-wing misinformation campaign. In the 2020 election, Montana gun owners were the focus of a California-funded fake hunting group and misleading mailers concerning a pro-gun state referendum.
It’s easy to understand why dishonest political actors would target gun owners. Firearm owners are a proven political force that has the power to sway elections. Well-informed gun rights supporters should work to ensure that their family, friends, neighbors, and other like-minded individuals know the truth about these ugly voter suppression tactics prior to election day.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On October 25, 2021, there was a hearing on evidence to be presented at trial in the Kyle Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The most important issue covered appeared to be the prosecution arguing who the aggressor was in the incident, is irrelevant.
The video is two hours and 29 minutes long. This article covers the highlights of the action, as judged by this correspondent.
There was trouble with the video equipment. Near the beginning, Judge Schroeder quips:
“What do you want for $50,000, right?”
The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Binger, is a bit confused on his motion numbers. It is amusing but not a serious issue, at about 13:50.
DA Binger argues police interaction with Rittenhouse on the night of 25 October, has no relevance.
Judge Schroeder does not wish to rule out evidence beforehand.
The Defense and Prosecution reach an agreement on the issue of expert witnesses. Dr. Black, the expert witness for the Defense, will be able to testify as to timing and how people’s subjective view of time is often different. The Prosecution agrees and agrees to not to have the prosecution expert testify.
Judge Schroeder says he is not going to muzzle the Defense in the terms used in court to describe the people who were shot. The Defense will be allowed to present evidence and make their case based on the evidence. Terms such as “rioter, looter, arsonist” will be allowed. It is up to the defense to make their case to the jury.
An incredible exchange takes place, starting about 1:58 (one hour and 58 minutes) and continuing to 2:10 in the video.
It starts with evidence about events shortly before the shooting, on the night of the event, bearing on the character of the first person shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum.
Judge Bruce Schroeder Listens to DA Binger claim, who was the aggressor does not matter, in a self defense case (Rittenhouse case)
DA Binger claims: Who is the aggressor, has nothing to do with self-defense.
Judge Schroeder appears puzzled. At first, he cites rules of evidence, from federal guidelines:
“In most jurisdictions today, the circumstantial use of character is rejected, but with important exceptions:”
“An accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim (and they do use the word victim by the way) as in support of a claim of self defense in the case of homicide or in consent in the case of rape.”
“That is without reference to whether the defendant knew anything about it.”
He spends time talking about relevant portions of a Wisconsin Supreme Court case known as “Jackson”.
At about 2:00 in the video, this important point is made.
Judge Schroeder:
What is the essential element that the defense is attempting to prove here?
Who was the aggressor?
“I think, on that issue…”
DA Binger, interrupting:
I disagree your honor. I think that’s part of it, but we have an armed, a person armed with an AR15, shooting an unarmed man. I…
Judge Schroeder, interrupting:
“An unarmed man can’t be an aggressor?”
DA Binger, interrupting:
“I don’t think it matters whether he is. I don’t think you get to kill somebody with a gun when they are unarmed, even if they are the aggressor. I mean, let’s think about a bar fight, your honor, we have a lot of bar fights…
Judge Schroeder, interrupting:
Lets not talk about a bar fight. This isn’t about a bar fight.
This was a bar fight that the Supreme Court was talking about. (holding up papers of the case being cited, Jackson). It (the Rittenhouse case) is not a bar fight.
DA Binger:
You’ve got an armed person shooting an unarmed person, your honor.
Judge Schroeder:
Right.
DA Binger:
That, that’s the question.
Judge Schroeder:
Does that mean it doesn’t need to go to the jury? I just take it away from them, and tell them he’s guilty?
DA Binger:
No. I’m saying the issue is whether or not deadly force was justified. Was there a risk of great bodily harm or death to the defendant at that time? That is the question.
Judge Schroeder:
And one of the factors in that is: Who was the aggressor?
DA Binger:
I think, I think the aggressor issue can preclude the defendant from presenting self defense.
Judge Schroeder:
Probably.
DA Binger:
But, I don’t think otherwise it has an impact on it.
Judge Schroeder:
It is not a factor to be considered?
DA Binger:
Only if it precludes the defendant from presenting self defense. I don’t think it has any other. I don’t think it bears on the use of deadly force and whether or not the defendant was at risk of great bodily harm or death. I, I don’t think whether he is the aggressor or the other side is the aggressor changes that equation. The essential question is was he at risk of great bodily harm or death.
Defense Attorney Richards:
That’s a jury question. It goes into the reasonableness. I mean, if the jury doesn’t think that an armed man with an AR15 shooting an unarmed man is reasonable, then that’s the finding that they make. But to say…I am not totally following the argument…
Judge Schroeder (to DA Binger):
Your question is really knowing, is suggesting to me, that the jury cannot acquit the defendant, because he had the gun and the other man did not.
Do you think that is consistent with our law?
DA Binger:
Your Honor, I want to take a look at the jury instructions here on self defense, here. So we have jury instruction 805, which talks about self defense, and, unless I am reading it wrong, I don’t see anything in that jury instruction about who is the aggressor. It is not an element as to that issue.
Judge Schroeder:
This is a dissenting opinion, and this is the late Justice Abrahamson, paragraph 126, talking about the particular case that was before the court, the record demonstrates that the issue of who was, and this is a brief synopsis, the defendant shot and killed a man who was unarmed. and it was a post-bar fight. But the defendant wanted to offer evidence of the mean disposition, the violent disposition of the person whom he shot, of which he was not aware, and that was the discussion of the entire case.
Judge Schroeder, quoting the late former Chief Justice Abrahamson of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
“The record shows that who was the first aggressor was an essential part of the case, for both parties. During and after the presentation of evidence “
You are telling me that who is the aggressor, in a case where an armed man shoots an unarmed man, that’s not an issue. Now, you’re right in the sense that Justice Abrahamson was in the dissent, but, she certainly made a point there, that varies with what you are telling me.
DA Binger:
Your Honor, I am reading Jury instructions 805, 810, and 815, that I think are most pertinent to the self defense issue. 805 or 810 say nothing about who is the aggressor or who provoked.
815 brings in the issue of provocation, and it applies to the defendant. It talks about the defendant provoking an attack and therefore being, essentially prohibited from claiming self defense. And then it talks about if the defendant provokes an attack and may use proportionate self defense. The defendant, if he provokes the attack may, would initially, lose the right to self defense but could regain it if he withdraws in good faith and gives adequate notice to the other party. But then it says the person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm, is not entitled to a self defense.
As far as I can tell your Honor, in terms of the elements of self defense, provocation only comes into play in the jury instructions, in that narrow scope, of whether or not the defendant, if he provoked the attack, therefore would not have the right to claim self defense. None of these elements or jury instructions talk about the victim or the deceased here, whether he provokes it or whether that somehow affects the decision of the defendant here. So, I disagree with the Court that provocation is the key issue in this case.
Now, we’re going to talk about it. I understand that. There is going to be some evidence about that, the defense is going to argue, as to who provoked it, and we’re going to respond with an FBI video which shows the defendant chasing down Mr. Rosenbaum and confronting him first. But legally, in terms of the elements here, and again, Jackson stands for whether or not this evidence is relevant to the elements of the crime, I don’t see any element here where Mr. Rosenbaum, provocation, or being the aggressor, changes the juries decision pursuant to the elements of self defense.
Defense Attorney Richards:
That makes no sense, as it goes to the reasonableness. If I attack you, and you use self defense, the jury gets to hear that because that goes to your, the reasonableness of your actions. It doesn’t say provocation. It uses it all in terms of the reasonableness of what the defendant poses.
If someone else, if Rosebaum is the aggressor, it goes directly to the issue of whether or not someone would believe that Mr. Rittenhouse’s actions were reasonable.
They are not reasonable if he walks, if we are having a prayer circle and he walks up and shoots Mr. Rosenbaum. Not reasonable.
If Mr. Rosenbaum is, and he is, waiting for him, chases him, after telling him he is going to kill him? That goes to whether or not Mr. Rittenhouse’s actions were reasonable.
It is that simple. That’s it. The aggressor goes to the reasonableness. Period.
Judge Schroeder (addressed to DA Binger):
Anything else?
DA Binger then appears to give up on trying to claim who is the aggressor is irrelevant, and continues to claim the evidence of what Mr. Rosenbaum did earlier is irrelevant.
Judge Schroeder then cites an “Ancient Rule”.
Judge Schroeder:
The decision was made long ago. Long ago.
What is the probability that if someone acts in a threatening and belligerent way, (they) would have been threatening and belligerent in this close encounter a while later?
That is the end of the claim by DA Binger, that who is the aggressor in the case has no relevance as to whether the Jury should know the information, in determining whether the incident was valid as self-defense or not.
Judge Schroeder ruled the filing of a lawsuit by Grosskruetz (the last person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse) is evidence of bias (on the part of Grosskruetz), and can be brought up in court.
The Defense has filed a motion to dismiss the charge. Judge Schroeder has not ruled on the motion. The defense submitted additional information on the issue to the court since the last hearing.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
