Fairfax, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) says this week’s Supreme Court hearing on a New York City gun control law could ultimately strengthen the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights by making it harder for governments to impose gun control schemes.
The NRA-supported case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. the City of New York, centers on New York City’s handgun “premises” license that restricts gun owners from transporting a handgun to a range or other residence outside city limits. After the NRA’s New York affiliate, the NYSRPA, challenged that law, and the Supreme Court took up the case, the City amended its regulation in an attempt to moot the case and prevent the high court from hearing it.
“It’s rare that SCOTUS takes on a Second Amendment case. It is perhaps unprecedented when a defendant, in this case New York City, tries to win by admitting they passed an unconstitutional law and revoking it in a last-ditch effort to stop the Court from hearing the case,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA.
“Will other states facing similar NRA-supported challenges “throw in the towel” at the 11th hour as Justice Sotomayor says New York did in this case?
“This case is just one more example of how the NRA fights every day, as it always has, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case before the end of June 2020.
About:
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
North Korea and United States two flags. iStock-Oleksii Liskonih
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- As of Dec. 26, Kim Jong Un's “Christmas gift” to President Donald Trump had not arrived. Most foreign policy analysts predict it will be a missile test more impressive than any Pyongyang has yet carried off.
What is Kim's game? What does Kim want?
He cannot want war with the United States, as this could result in the annihilation of the Kim family dynasty that has ruled North Korea since World War II. Kim is all about self-preservation.
What he appears to want in his confrontation with Trump is a victory without war. In the near-term, Kim seeks three things: recognition of his regime as the legitimate government of North Korea and its acceptance in all the forums of the world, trade and an end to all U.S. and U.N. sanctions, and a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter a U.S. attack, including missiles that can strike U.S. bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam, and the Western Pacific. And he seeks the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead on the U.S. mainland.
Nor is this last goal unreasonable from Kim's vantage point.
For he knows what became of the two other nations of George W. Bush's “axis of evil” that failed to develop nuclear weapons.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was invaded, and he was hanged and his sons hunted down and killed.
The Ayatollah's Iran negotiated a 2015 nuclear deal with America and opened up its nuclear facilities to intrusive inspections to show that Tehran did not have a nuclear weapons program.
Trump came to power, trashed the deal, reimposed sanctions and is choking Iran to death.
Moammar Gadhafi surrendered his WMD in 2004 and opened up his production facilities. And in 2011, the U.S. attacked Libya and Gadhafi was lynched by a mob.
Contrast the fate of these regimes and rulers with the Kim family's success. His father, Kim Jong Il, tested nuclear weapons and missiles in defiance of U.S. warnings, and now the son is invited to summits with the U.S. president in Singapore and Hanoi.
If Kim did not have nuclear weapons, would American presidents be courting him? Would U.S. secretaries of state be visiting Pyongyang? If Kim did not have nuclear weapons who would pay the least attention to the Hermit Kingdom?
Undeniably, with his promised “Christmas gift,” possibly a missile capable of hitting the U.S., Kim is pushing the envelope. He is taunting the Americans. We have told him what he must do. And he is telling us where we can go.
But by so doing, Kim has put the ball squarely in Trump's court.
The question Trump faces: Is he prepared to accept North Korea joining Russia and China as a third adversarial power with the ability to launch a nuclear strike on the continental United States?
And if U.S. sanctions are insufficient to force Kim to “denuclearize,” as seems apparent, is Trump prepared to force him to do so? Is Trump prepared to use “fire and fury” to remove Kim's nukes?
With 28,500 U.S. troops and thousands of U.S. citizens in South Korea, many within the artillery range of the DMZ, is Trump prepared to risk a clash that could ignite a second Korean War in the election year 2020?
Is the president prepared for whatever that might bring? How does this confrontation play out?
A guess: The U.S. has lived with North Korea's nuclear weapons for a decade, and Trump is not going to risk a second Korean conflict with a military attack on Kim's nuclear and missile arsenals. Kim Jong Un and his father have created a new reality in Korea, and we are going to have to live with it.
Where does East Asia go from here?
South Korea has twice the population of the North and an economy 40 times as large. Japan has a population five times that of North Korea and an economy 100 times as large.
If the U.S. treaty guarantees, dating to the 1950s, to fight for these two nations come into question as a result of America's reluctance to face down Pyongyang more forcibly on its nuclear arsenal, these nations are almost certain to start considering all options for their future security.
Among these are building their own nuclear arsenals and closer ties to the one nation that has shown it can discipline North Korea — China.
Much is on the line here.
Kim's challenge is ultimately about the credibility of the United States, which has treaty commitments and issued war guarantees to scores of nations in NATO Europe, the Mideast and East Asia, but whose people have zero interest in any new war, especially a second Korean War.
If the world sees that America is reluctant to face down, or fight a North Korea that is threatening us, will they retain the old confidence that the United States will risk war for them?
What Kim is undermining is not just U.S. security but U.S. credibility.
Screenshot from surveillance video at Kam's Market Shooting
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- An attempted armed robbery and self-defense shooting occurred in Kam's Market in Bay Point, California. Bay Point is in Contra Costa County in the East San Francisco Bay area.
From multiple published accounts, Mark Kaspowitz was starting to close up for the night at about 11 p.m. on 22 December 2019. Two masked assailants came into the store. One of them jumped the counter, confronted Mark, attacked him, and took money from the register. The assailant pistol-whipped Mark with what appeared to be a semi-automatic pistol, beating him down to the floor.
The assailant used both hands to grab the cash. From the floor, Mark manages to access a store owned pistol kept in a drawer not far from the cash register. The robber noticed and attacked Mark again. Noticing Mark's access to the store pistol, the assailant recovers the pistol he brought to the store and again used it as a club. Mark fired a shot, pointing the store pistol upwards at the person who was above him and pistol-whipping him.
The robber fled the store, only to die outside, yards from the entrance.
Mark Kaspowitz is reported to be a military veteran of the Air force, from 1980 to 1984, with about 20 years experience as a security guard. He said he is 56 years old. After the shooting, Mark gave an interview to reporters in the video below.
Here are a few things to consider from Mark's experience.
Situational awareness:
Mark was busy with the store close down procedures. The store considers robbery a serious threat, or it would not have a store pistol available to employees. Closing time is a prime time for robbers. All of the days proceeds are likely to be available, and it is likely there will be fewer customers to interfere. Mark did not notice the robbers until one was within 5-6 feet, pointing a gun at him.
Denial of reality:
Mark had a masked man with a gun pointed at him from 5-6 feet away, at closing. He still denied the reality, saying:
This may be why Mark makes the ineffectual disarm attempt, simply pushing the robber's gun aside. The attempt is quickly and easily defeated. If the robber's gun were operative and loaded, Mark could have been shot. A disarm attempt should be all-out, a matter of life and death. The robber was relatively unguarded. A serious disarm would probably have succeeded.
Firearm stored off body:
The store firearm was stored in a drawer close to the register. If Mark had noticed the masked robbers coming in, he might have had time to access it before the robber cleared the counter. The difficulties Mark encountered show the value of on the body carry.
Contra Costa County issues very few concealed carry permits. In 2016, the estimated number of permits was 263. The population of Contra Costa County is over 1.1 million people. The chance of Mark getting a permit was virtually nil.
Focus on survival:
Mark focuses on survival, rather than saving the store some money. This is positive. Mark said the money was the least of his concern. He only accesses the store firearm after being attacked. Then he hears the assailant saying “He's got a gun”, indicating there was more than one assailant, increasing his concern for his and his co-worker's survival. He thinks he hears a shot, as he is being pistol whipped again, just before he fires.
It may have been the blow to the head the assailant delivered a second or so before Mark fired, which Mark interpreted as a gun shot.
Lack of instantaneous effect from the shot:
Mark says he did not know if he hit the assailant or not. There was no obvious, instant, effect from the shot. We do not know the caliber of the small, black, semi-auto pistol which Mark accessed.
It is likely the robbers guns were not operative, either through operator ignorance, mechanical problems, being unloaded, fake, or toy guns. If toy, the gun was sufficiently hard to wound Mark as he was being pistol whipped. Using ineffective guns in a robbery is common.
Alert readers will notice alternative courses of action which Mark could have taken. The list above is not exhaustive or complete. It is a compilation of some of the more obvious things to be considered from the robbery and shooting at Kam's Market in December of 2019. It is not meant to denigrate Mark's successful defense.
Commenters are free to discuss potential problems with Mark's interview, and other areas not considered above.
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.
Brian Pavia said: “Pro 2nd amendment non-republican here in San Jose. Transport my guns and pistols in sealed containers in the trunk for both my S ...
