Categories
A Victory! All About Guns California Cops

California woman shoots intruder day after getting her gun By Cam Edwards

AP Photo/ Rick Bowmer
Buying a gun in California isn’t a simple or fast process thanks to the numerous gun control measures that anti-gun politicians have put in place over the past few decades, but thankfully the state’s draconian restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms didn’t interfere with one woman’s ability to use a firearm to defend herself and her husband from a stranger who tried to come inside their home.

According to authorities, the woman in question had just picked up her pistol the day before, after waiting the 10 days required under California law between the time of purchase and when gun owners can actually take possession of their newly-bought firearm. Little did she realize that she would soon end up using the gun to fend off an attack on her husband in their own home.

A Patterson woman who had gotten a handgun just the previous day fatally shot a stranger who was grappling with her husband Saturday night at the door of their home, the Stanislaus County sheriff’s office said.

In a 911 call at 10:20 p.m., a resident of the Wilding Ranch subdivision on the city’s east edge reported that a neighbor had called and said she had just shot an intruder at her house.

When deputies arrived, they found a dead man near the home’s front entry. The residents — a 50-year-old woman and her 45-year-old husband — said that the apparently intoxicated stranger had tried to force his way into their home.

According to the sheriff’s report, as the husband fought with the intruder near the front door, his wife ran to the bedroom to get a revolver, which she said she had brought home on Friday. Returning to the entry, she fired all its rounds into the intruder.

According to authorities, 22-year old Angelo Santana tried to force entry into the home while he was “heavily intoxicated,” leading to him fighting with the 45-year old resident. Police say that, according to interviews with those who knew him, Santana had a history of alcohol abuse and would “regularly show-up unannounced trying to find friends and acquaintances of his in the same neighborhood.”

In a Facebook post, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office announced that a preliminary investigation indicates the shooting was “strictly self-defense,” and while the investigation continues the details that the sheriff has released publicly appear to back up the woman’s claim that she was acting to protect her husband and herself from a combative stranger.

The house belonged to 50-year-old Yuhui Zheng and her husband, 45-year-old Yang Luan. The husband attempted to physically restrain Santana and was involved in a significant fight near the threshold of the front-door.
Luan sustained minimal physical injuries, to include abrasions and scratches to the back, while fighting with Santana and trying to defend his home. Yuhui Zheng retrieved a revolver from the upstairs bedroom, which she had acquired only one-day prior, and in self-defense of her husband, fired all rounds into Angelo Santana.
Santana wasn’t armed, but neither Zheng nor Luan knew that at the time. All they knew for sure is that a strange man was trying to get inside their home and began attacking Luan as he tried to keep the would-be intruder at bay. I’d say that they had a reasonable fear that the stranger was trying to do them harm, but we’ll have to wait and see what the D.A. in Stanislaus County decides to do with the case.
Categories
All About Guns Cops

Self Defense Myths Knowing the laws of the land is just as important as knowing how to shoot. by ED HEAD

Self Defense Myths

Teaching folks to defend themselves with a firearm goes way beyond the mechanics of shooting. And, while I’m not a lawyer and don’t have expertise in the details of the law in every jurisdiction, I also teach general principles of self-defense.

Sadly, some people have a poor understanding of the legal issues related to the use of deadly force or have fallen prey to myths and urban legends. Here are some of them, with advice – my opinion- on how they should be handled.

The Issue: Recently, I was told the law in a certain state allowed you to shoot anyone who had crossed the threshold into your home, with the advice if you were to shoot someone on the porch you should drag them into the house.

This is like the common misconception that arises from the idea you’re better off shooting someone in, rather than outside the home, and should rearrange the scene of the shooting to support this. The truth is, if you’re justified in defending yourself, why are you messing with the crime scene? That’s exactly the way the police will view it–a crimes scene–and any changes will cast doubt upon your innocence and destroy your credibility.

The issue: The Castle Doctrine allows me to shoot anyone in my home (or on my property).

No, you cannot. Merely being in your home or on your property does not justify responding with deadly force. There must be a deadly threat about which you can articulate the need for deadly force: He had a gun, he said he would kill me, I knew if I didn’t act I would die.

The issue: If I shoot someone, it’s best to empty the gun into them. Dead men tell no tales.

If you’re justified in using deadly force, you may do so only until you have ended the threat. Once your assailant ceases to be a threat you must stop shooting. “Finishing them off” all but assures you will land in prison and turns what may have been a legal use of self -defense into murder.

Here’s the bottom line: If you don’t know the laws where you live it’s your responsibility as an armed citizen to learn the law and act within it. Make an appointment to visit with a criminal defense attorney who can answer your questions and brief you on how self-defense matters are handled where you live. While you’re at it, you should establish a professional relationship.

As the boxing referee says, “Protect yourself at all times.” For us, that means before, during and after a deadly force encounter. You don’t want to wind up living in a cement room making new friends.

Categories
All About Guns

Minute of Mae: Russian Berdan II

Categories
All About Guns

Perfectly Balanced Deer Cartridge OBSOLETE

Categories
All About Guns

PSAK-47 GF3 Two Years Later | How Has It Held Up??

Categories
All About Guns

Colt 1873 Single Action Army Revolver Gun Review

Categories
All About Guns

Johnwayne 32-40 in action

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Gun Fearing Wussies

BREAKING: Judge Issues Ruling to Save Magazine Owners from Confiscation

Judge Benitez Issues Ruling to Save Magazine Owners from Government 
Confiscation and Prosecution

On Monday, September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez proved once again that he is ten steps ahead of the California government and its anti-gun leaders when he re-issued his ruling to protect “traditional” magazine owners from prosecution.

If you have been following the “merry-go-round” that has been the life of Duncan v Bonta (formerly Becerra), it’s entirely possible that you have been confused.

Let’s break this down:

Initially, the case of Duncan v Becerra (ban on 10+ round magazines which originated from legislation and an initiative) went before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez. He said that it violated the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment using the test that Justice Scalia established in Heller v DC and was therefore unconstitutional. Knowing that the crazy 9th would use a different standard, Benitez ruled that it would still be unconstitutional regardless of what standard was used.

This opened what became known as “Freedom Week” where Californians legally purchased between one and two million magazines.

California threatened to appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so Judge Benitez issued an order staying his decision from going into effect until all legal proceedings were completed, thus preventing the California government from banning any “Freedom Week” magazines.

The 9th assigned the case to a 3-judge panel who agreed with Judge Benitez that the mag ban was unconstitutional.

Angered by this defeat, the State immediately asked for an 11-judge en banc panel who as expected, reversed the previous pro 2A decisions and sided with the State.

The pro-gun forces – which included Gun Owners of California – appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). SCOTUS kept the case alive pending their decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. Once the court declared that the only rule that lower courts can use to test Second Amendment challenges, that being text, as informed by history and tradition and nothing else, the court accepted the case (granted Certiorari which means it could be heard), then vacated the anti-2A decision of the 9th Circuit and remanded the case back to them, with the instructions to reconsider the case with the new one-step standard.

At this point, the 9th Circuit en banc panel could have reversed its decision and declared the mag ban unconstitutional. Of course, they did not. Instead, they returned the case to Judge Benitez who had already declared the law unconstitutional.

Is your head swimming by now?

In doing so, the 9th essentially “erased” Judge Benitez’ original decision and directed him to start from scratch.

Given this turn of events, we are confident the State of California had been preparing to begin the confiscation of magazines and enforcing the ban because forcing Benitez start from scratch meant that his original order that protected “Freedom Week” magazine buyers from prosecution was no longer in place.

As we’ve said time and time again, Judge Benitez doesn’t pussy-foot around; he was one step ahead of the gun mag grabbers, and re-issued his order protecting magazine owners from prosecution by the state.

Bottomline? We are free to own, possess and in many cases use our 10+ magazines (as long as they are not used on “California Compliant Semi-Autos”).

What happens next? The entire convoluted process is set to begin again, but with one huge difference: lower courts MUST follow the rules for deciding Second Amendment case as established by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision.  This changes everything.  Both SCOTUS and Judge Benitez have come to the rescue, not only of citizens who abide by the law, but of the Constitution itself.

Get off the merry-go-round/rollercoaster of confusion and join Gun Owners of California;  we will keep you up-to-speed and continue to march ahead to fully restore, then defend and protect the Second Amendment. We will accept NO COMPROMISE!

Categories
All About Guns

Little Known CZ Alpha Project Revolver .38 .357 .32 .22 2″ 3″ 4″ 6″- New World Ordnance

Categories
All About Guns

Anvil 100: Remington 1100 PigStick