Categories
Well I thought it was funny! You have to be kidding, right!?!

GIANT TURTLE ASSAULTS GIRLFRIEND, MAN ROBS DRUG STORE WITH DOG BY COMMANDER GILMORE

Assault Critters

Handgun Control, Inc., should be proud of Dennis Amber. After all, the 45-year-old could have used a firearm to assault his girlfriend in her suburban Pittsburgh home. Instead, he used a 15 lb. snapping turtle, which he lugged to her house, then tried to persuade it to bite her.

The attack failed, possibly because Snappy’s full-auto sear was broken — or maybe Amber didn’t know how to work the “safety.” He was charged with assault anyway.

“Fire Superiority”

Los Angeles resident Ike Hudson might have considered the possibility of return fire when he pulled the trigger of his shotgun, but doubtless never dreamed — not in his worst nightmare — of the response he received. Now he’s suing for $339,875, claiming damage to his home, therapy costs, and a severe case of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Hudson says he was armed on the night of May 3, 1992, as the L.A. riots raged, because he feared another man who was trying to grab his girlfriend. When two Compton P.D. officers knocked, he fired a shotgun blast through his door, wounding both cops.

They didn’t have to call for back-up, though. Behind them were several more police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and U.S. Marines who saw Hudson’s muzzle flash and immediately returned fire, blasting the house with 185 rounds of small-arms fire.

Hudson’s lawyer, B. Kwaku Duren, says his client fired accidentally. If the jury believes that, they’ll probably thrown in an extra $5 for fresh underwear, too.

Disney Technique

In San Diego’s community of Normal Heights, frequently referred to as “Abnormal Heights” by residents, a stick-up man employed the “Disney Technique” of robbery with more success.

The suspect walked into a Pay Less drug store with a leashed Doberman and threatened the clerk with “imminent bite.” While Fido growled and drooled, the suspect filled a bag with cameras and other goods, then fled with his accomplice in a Chevrolet Monte Carlo.

Witnesses couldn’t say for sure if the Doberman was a Standard Sporting Canine of the dreaded “Assault Dobie,” which is known to be capable of rapid multiple bites.

Neither Senator Feinstein nor Senator Boxer were available to comment on whether or not this would lead to prohibitions against dogs with more than 10 teeth, or registration of dogs which are black, have military-style collars, and come equipped with a protruding “grip,” like the Doberman’s menacing-looking bobbed tail.

Certainly such animals have no legitimate sporting purpose, and enjoy no constitutional protection.

Regardless of the fallout from this incident, it is expected to simply fuel the already raging debate over concealable Schnauzers, said to be the “critter of choice” of terrorists and drug dealers.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

DOJ Creates New Center to Help Local Officials Apply ‘Red Flag’ Laws Against Certain Gun Owners

by Arjun Singh

 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Saturday the creation of a new entity to train state and local officials on procedures to apply “red flag” laws that temporarily prevent certain individuals from owning a firearm.

The National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center is an entity created under the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) that will both educate and assist local officials when they initiate legal proceedings to obtain “red flag” orders that rescind an individual’s right to bear arms based on the belief that they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, according to the DOJ’s press release. The individuals to be trained are “law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals.”

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in the press release. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

Red flag orders, or ERPOs, have previously been supported by gun control advocacy groups.

“Gun violence is a complex issue that requires comprehensive solutions. Extreme risk laws are an evidence-based tool that can help prevent many forms of gun violence tragedies before they ever occur — suicide, interpersonal violence, and mass shootings alike,” Brady: United Against Gun Violence, a non-profit organization that advocates for gun control, wrote on its website.

ERPOs are issued by state courts in civil proceedings to prevent persons from purchasing or possessing firearms should they be deemed likely to use them to harm themselves or others, the press release explains. Twenty-one states along with Washington, D.C. have passed such laws.

“OJP’s investment in ERPO programs demonstrates the Department’s commitment to addressing the gun violence crisis in the United States,” Assistant Attorney General Amy Solomon wrote in the press release. “This crisis cannot be solved at one level of government. We must use all of our resources and collaborate at the federal, state, and local levels to find innovative, evidence-based, and holistic solutions to help keep American communities safe.”

Measures such as ERPOs have been opposed by conservative groups, who argue that they are abused to deprive individuals of rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which establishes that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“So-called ‘Red Flag’ orders, or Emergency Risk Protection Orders, are designed to empower the government to confiscate Americans’ firearms without due process of law,” the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote in 2022. “Aside from allowing run-of-the-mill malicious actors to indulge personal grudges against law-abiding gun owners, in the current politically-charged environment, these laws enable the government to target those with First Amendment-protected political views the government disfavors.”

– – –

Arjun Singh is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation.
Photo “Merrick Garland” by The United States Department of Justice.

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

RAREST GUN EVER: Buffalo Bill’s 1838 Colt Paterson

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

All I can say to Midway, which is a great outfit based on personal experience. Is WHY did they do this!?!

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

4 BORE Rifle vs Body Armor (The Biggest Rifle Ever !!!)

Categories
Art The Horror! War You have to be kidding, right!?!

For some reason I have been looking at the Late Roman Empire

As a historian, I  see just way too many similairites to our times. Anybody else out there with the same scary thoughts? Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

What I would call a great Xmas or Birthday Present!

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Some idiot named me had a chance to buy one of these and did’nt!!!

Background sound of man kicking himself in buttocks!

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Gun Ban for Non-Violent Illegal Immigrant Found Unconstitutional by Stephen Gutowski

The Second Amendment protects people’s ability to own a gun even if they’ve entered the…

The Reload THE RELOAD

The Second Amendment protects people’s ability to own a gun even if they’ve entered the country illegally.

That’s the ruling handed down by US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday. She found the federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning guns is unconstitutional, at least as applied to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. She ruled the ban did not fit with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation as required under the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Colman wrote in US v. Carbajal-Flores. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

The ruling is the latest fallout from the new standard for Second Amendment cases set in Bruen. Since the landmark case was decided in 2022, a wide swath of state and federal gun restrictions have come under increased scrutiny in the courts. Among the most commonly recurring questions raised by the new standard is who can be barred from owning guns, and the Carbajal-Flores case is among the first to examine whether people who entered the country illegally are among them.

Judge Coleman, a Barack Obama appointee, initially found the gun ban for illegal immigrants was constitutional back in April 2022. However, she agreed to reconsider the case in light of rulings from the federal appeals courts in the Third and Seventh Circuit that questioned whether those convicted of non-violent crimes could be permanently disarmed after the High Court handed down Bruen in June 2022. She concluded breaking misdemeanor immigration laws alone is not enough justification to strip somebody of their gun rights under the new test.

“[C]arbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued the modern ban was akin to historical bans on loyalists owning guns during the Founding Era and should stand. However, Judge Coleman found that historical ban included exceptions that imply the ban was based on the actions of individual loyalists.

“The Court also determined that based on the government’s historical analogue, where exceptions were made that allowed formerly ‘untrustworthy’ British loyalists to possess weapons, the individuals who fell within the exception were determined to be non-violent during their individual assessments, permitting them to carry firearms,” she wrote. “Thus, to the extent the exception shows that some British loyalists were permitted to carry firearms despite the general prohibition, the Court interprets this history as supporting an individualized assessment for Section 922(g)(5) as this Court previously found with Section 922(g)(1).”

She said there was no reason to think Carbajal-Flores was dangerous. So, applying the ban to him did not follow historical tradition.

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

The ruling deepens the divide in the lower courts over how to interpret historical gun laws and compare them to modern restrictions. Several courts have come down on either side of whether permanent federal prohibitions on gun ownership by groups of people convicted of varying crimes are constitutional. For example, in US v. Jackson, a three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit upheld the same law at issue in US v. Carbajal-Flores. But the panel also foreclosed challenges to that law based on how it was applied to specific non-violent offenders.

“In sum, we conclude that legislatures traditionally employed status-based restrictions to disqualify categories of persons from possessing firearms,” Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. “Whether those actions are best characterized as restrictions on persons who deviated from legal norms or persons who presented an unacceptable risk of dangerousness, Congress acted within the historical tradition when it enacted § 922(g)(1) and the prohibition on possession of firearms by felons.”…

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… | The Reload

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

What Your Rifle Says About You