Category: Cops
Tombstone, AZ – -(Ammoland.com)- The police killing of Amir Locke while executing a warrant in Minneapolis, has once again drawn attention to the dangerous and often deadly use of violent surprise tactics in the service of search and arrest warrants. While the common refrain is a call-to-end use of “no-knock” warrants, those are not the only warrants that are a problem. Some warrants authorize police to breach the door directly after knocking or announcing. Too often a warrant that authorizes “dynamic entry” creates more problems than it solves – for both police and the public.
Few details are available in the case of Amir Locke beyond the badge cam videos, but the basics are clear. Using a key from management, police quietly entered the apartment of Locke’s cousin to serve a warrant in a homicide case. The cousin was absent, but Locke, who was visiting, was asleep on the couch.
As officers entered, they began yelling their typical litany of contradictory commands:
- “Police – Warrant!”
- “Get on the Ground!”
- “Show your hands!”
- “Don’t move!”
…and so on, and kicked the couch where Locke was sleeping, the 22-year old emerged from beneath a blanket with a pistol in his right hand. At this point, an officer fired several shots, killing him.
The shooting was probably justifiable from the officer’s viewpoint, as he perceived the threat of a gun, but Locke was probably startled and confused, and also justified in grabbing a gun at the violent invasion.
Had Locke been in a less helpless position and somehow been able to fire at masked men coming into the apartment and rousting him from his sleep, there is ample precedent for a finding of self-defense. A dynamic entry puts the rights of the officers and the right of occupants of a home in direct conflict resulting in a situation where both sides can claim a justifiable use of deadly force.
In other words, a raid can create a free-fire zone. Also, for the record, it is not at all uncommon for criminal home invaders and drug rip-off crews to impersonate police as they are assaulting a home.
As mentioned, Locke was not a resident of the apartment, nor was he named in the warrant. Conflicting statements have come out regarding his possession of the pistol, but the consensus is that it was legally owned by Locke and that he might have had a concealed carry permit. Regardless of other details, unless Locke was a “prohibited person” under federal or state law – which it appears he was not – then his possession of a handgun in a home would be completely legal.
The police request for a “no-knock” warrant has not been published, and the reasoning for the alleged demand for one has not been made clear. A 17-year old cousin, brother to the tenant of the apartment where Locke was killed, was later arrested in connection with a January 10 homicide. That cousin lived in a different apartment in the same building but was known to frequent his older brother’s apartment, so police had warrants for both apartments.
The teen cousin is on probation for a previous shooting, raising questions about the efficacy of the Minneapolis justice system?
Protests calling for a ban on the use of “no-knock” warrants, erupted in Minneapolis as news of the killing spread. Of course, Minneapolis was the epicenter of the 2020 protests and riots after the death of George Floyd. During those protests, which went international, another name was frequently mentioned, that of Breonna Taylor, who, like Amir Locke, was killed by police serving a warrant regarding someone else.
Locke and Taylor are just the most prominent, recent examples among many around the country, several of which I have written about in the past. At about the same time that Breonna Taylor was killed, a 21-year old man named Duncan Lemp was also killed by police executing a “no-knock” warrant in Maryland. Lemp was the target of the warrant, based on suspicion that he might possess an illegal rifle. Not that there was any indication that he had, or intended to use the rifle in a crime, just that he was thought to be in possession of one that has been banned in Maryland.
Unlike the Amir Locke case, there is no body-cam footage of the incident, apparently because the police union demanded exemption from body-cam requirements during SWAT raids. Officials said this policy would be revised. They have also never released the name or record of the officer who actually pulled the trigger. A subsequent investigation (by the police) cleared the police of any wrongdoing.
The main difference between the killing of Breonna Taylor and Duncan Lemp, is that Lemp was a Caucasian from an upper-middle-class family, and an outspoken constitutionalist, while Taylor was Black and working class. Police killing a “rich White kid” did not feed the current narrative, so coverage of Lemp’s case never gained traction outside of “right-wing” circles. Had Duncan Lemp been a Black man, you can bet that his killing would have been headline news, and protests would have ensued. But that’s a discussion for a different time.
The key takeaway right now from these tragedies is not about race. It’s about critically flawed police procedures, and the lack of accountability, both for police who carry out the flawed raids, and the judges who authorize them.
It needs to be said that my default position is to support the police. Members of my family and several close friends have served and currently serve in law enforcement ranging from patrol officer to county sheriff to federal agent. No small part of my opposition to reckless warrant service stems from a concern for officer safety. As pointed out above, under Castle Doctrine rules, an officer serving a warrant in a dynamic entry can face an armed homeowner who can justify use of deadly force. Until a homeowner can verify that the people attacking him are law enforcement officers with a duly sworn warrant, he is under no obligation to allow them entry into his home.
Unfortunately, the number of “dynamic entries” is rising. According to Professor Peter Kraska, of Eastern Kentucky University, the number of “no-knock” and “quick-knock,” SWAT-style raids for serving warrants nationwide, soared from around 3,000 per year in 1981, to over 60,000 per year today.
While I believe there are some very limited circumstances where a “no-knock” or “announce and enter,” or similar “dynamic entry” type of warrant can be justified, those circumstances should be limited to situations where speed is essential because innocent lives are at risk. The risk of destruction of evidence is a specious argument. Commercial quantities of drugs or other contraband won’t flush, and smaller quantities aren’t worth the trouble or the risk.
Tightening rules around dynamic entry warrants is not the best solution. History shows that police can be very creative at working around such restrictions, while still obeying the letter – if not the spirit – of the law. I believe that a better solution is to inject a healthy helping of accountability into the mix. Those requesting, authorizing, and executing warrants in a high-risk manner need to take on a share of the civil risk.
The police officer who swears out the warrant, the senior officer who signs off on it, the judge who issues the warrant, and the officers who execute it, all need to lose some or all of their qualified immunity if the raid goes sideways. Everyone in the legal chain trail of a warrant authorizing high-risk tactics should bear personal, legal liability for anything that goes wrong. If an innocent or a police officer is killed or injured, if the wrong house is hit, the wrong door kicked, or a dog killed unnecessarily, there must be a personal price to pay by everyone involved. If each individual involved has his own skin in the game it might focus minds more on the possible dangers and risks involved in kicking in doors in the middle of the night.
This isn’t a Black thing, a White thing, or a Blue thing. It’s a right and wrong thing. It’s also a Constitution thing.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
While an argument can be made that these warrants are issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath,” it’s a safe bet that the framers wouldn’t consider battering rams and flash-bang grenades as “reasonable.” The vast majority of the time, there’s a better way, and police, judges, and prosecutors need to be motivated to find that better way, and stop these tragedies. The time has come for less adrenaline-charged tactics. What’s so urgent? Set a perimeter. Order pizza.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.
I’m baffled to have received a few messages from readers, suggesting that my article yesterday titled “Self-defense under a justice system that’s no longer on your side” went too far in suggesting that, in certain jurisdictions, we might need to be very careful to leave no evidence behind if we’re forced to defend ourselves, because the law enforcement and justice system authorities there are biased towards the lawless and against the law-abiding.
I don’t think it went too far at all. In fact, I think I pulled my punches too much, if people are still laboring under the misapprehension that the rule of law is still intact throughout these United States. I have news for them. It isn’t.
Please consider the impact of far-left-wing, progressive District Attorneys (DA’s) that have been elected to office in various urban centers (usually with the assistance of massive funding from George Soros and organizations that distribute his support). Consider Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; New York, NY; St. Louis, MO . . . it’s a long list. In those jurisdictions, how many rioters and violent demonstrators have been arrested by police, only to be released without charge by local DA’s? You can research the news reports and other sources for yourselves. I’m sure that by now, the total must run well into four figures across the country. They’re sending a very public message. If you do something illegal, but politically correct, you’ll get off scot-free.
Police forces across the country, particularly those in riot-plagued areas, are losing officers hand over fist as they hand in their retirement papers, or resign and seek employment in areas that appreciate law and order. However, the left-wing authorities in such areas are making it as difficult as possible for them to do so. In some cases, they’re trying to assert their authority over neighboring law enforcement agencies as well, to ensure that they control all police activity affecting their residents.
The latest example comes from Seattle, which is a city so large that it effectively controls King County in Washington state through its voters. Many Seattle PD police officers have resigned, and some have joined the King County Sheriff’s Office, where they continue to serve the people of their communities – but out from under the control of SPD and those in authority over it. Now comes news that the left-leaning King County Council is to ask voters in a referendum to give it greater authority over the Sheriff’s Office, including making the incumbent an appointed rather than an elected leader, abolishing checks and balances that prevent the Sheriff’s Office being politicized, and ignoring the role of the sheriff as defined in state law. It’s very clear why they’re doing this. The thought of a law enforcement agency that’s outside their control is anathema to them. They want to make sure that the KCSO becomes as politicized as the SPD is already. Would you feel “protected and served” in King County if they get their way? I know for sure I wouldn’t.
I agree that many of our police forces have overstepped the mark, and need to be reined in. I’ve said as much in these pages often enough. However, the “bad cops” who do that are, I think, outnumbered by the “good cops” who want to maintain law and order, and in doing so serve the communities where they live. How are those cops being treated by the authorities? In most cases, they’re being described publicly as part of the problem. Talk of “defunding the police” is a slap in the face to their law enforcement authority, and emboldens those who hate them. No, hate is not too strong a word. When BLM activists chant, on camera, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon!”, I submit there’s only one way to understand those words – and it’s not as an invitation to a peaceful neighborhood game of tiddlywinks.
Progressive, far-left-wing DA’s are openly siding with anti-police activists these days. Just look at Philadelphia, where the Soros-supported and -supporting DA has threatened criminal charges against federal law enforcement officers that the President is sending to his city. He’s trying to intimidate them before they even arrive. Look at the reaction of various progressive, far-left-wing mayors who’ve protested the (entirely lawful) actions of Federal officers in defending Federal property against rioters in their cities.
In many ways, such “in-justice system” officials are fouling their own nests, and the jurisdictions where they operate. Consider St. Louis, where it’s emerged that a senior prosecutor in the DA’s office actually instructed a police crime lab to tamper with evidence. He then allegedly used the altered evidence to bring charges. That’s a felony under color of law – but did he care? Like hell he did! If I were a defense attorney, I’d be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of calling for the dismissal of all charges against my client(s) on the grounds of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Whether or not that’ll happen is up to local courts, of course. One wonders how objective and non-partisan they are. I suspect we’ll soon see. Meanwhile, I can only refer readers to my article yesterday. Do these events in St. Louis help to illustrate why I wrote it? They should.
Consider a pro-police rally in Denver, CO last weekend that was attacked by anti-police activists. It’s now emerged that the police commander on scene gave a “stand down” order and allowed the attack to continue, rather than protect the peaceful demonstrators against the thugs. Impartial policing? Protecting and serving? Law and order? Well, so much for that . . .
Michelle Malkin was one of the speakers at that rally. She comments:
The America you grew up in is not the America we live in now.
One nation under God? Ha.
Land of the free? Ha.
Domestic tranquility? Ha.
Equal protection under the law? Ha.
The right to bear arms? Ha.
Freedom of speech? Association? Peaceable assembly? Ha. Ha. Ha.
It’s not “socialism” or “communism” under which we suffer. Our dangerously chaotic, selectively oppressive predicament is more accurately described as “anarcho-tyranny.”
. . .
The toxic combination of “pandemic panic” and “George Floyd derangement syndrome” has thoroughly destroyed the home of the brave. It is a paradise for the depraved and dictatorial.
Anarcho-tyranny is how hoodlums can toss statues into rivers with impunity, while citizens disgusted by Black Lives Matter street graffiti are charged with “hate crimes”—as David Nelson and Nicole Anderson in Martinez, California, were by a George Soros-funded district attorney two weeks ago.
Anarcho-tyranny is how rioters can shut down highways and byways on a whim without fear of arrest, while commuters trying to escape the window-smashing barbarians obstructing traffic are charged with “assault”—as poor Jennifer Watson of Denver, Colorado, was this week.
. . .
Anarcho-tyranny is how 1,000 black militia members can take over the streets in Georgia and point their guns at motorists as they demand reparations, while white citizen militia members in Idaho, Utah and New Mexico have been smeared publicly as racists and face injunctions for peacefully defending their neighborhoods.
Where do the police stand in this regime? It pains me to say it, but those of us who have backed the blue so loyally and vocally can no longer do so under the assumption that the blue will back us.
. . .
It was rank-and-file cops in Denver who watched as my patriotic friends and I tried to hold a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day this past Sunday and were besieged by Black Lives Matter and antifa thugs who had declared that their sole intent in invading our permitted celebration was to “shut us down.” I livestreamed the chaos as pro-police attendees were beaten, including the organizer Ron MacLachlan, who was bloodied in the face and head just a few feet from me by black-masked animals. One antifa actor wielded her collapsible baton just inches from me.
. . .
If we had brandished or used our weapons in self-defense, we’d be facing felony assault charges—as armed citizen Steven Baca is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the hands of another Soros-subsidized district attorney.
If any of our men had tried to peel the female antifa thugs off of MAGA ladies who were assaulted, they’d be charged with battery, too—just like Baca.
. . .
So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy. Those in uniform sworn to protect and serve will turn their backs on us because their bosses don’t answer to the public. They protect and serve the mob.
There’s more at the link.
Our justice system has, in far too many jurisdictions, become an Augean stable of corruption, disrespect for the law and partisan political prosecutions. In some cases, District Attorney’s offices may be so far gone that they can’t be cleaned up at all. The only solution may be to fire the entire staff en masse, and start from the beginning with new, non-partisan appointees.
Meanwhile, those of us who are law-abiding citizens and refuse to be intimidated by thugs, rioters and criminals, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. The letter of the law, and its spirit as traditionally understood, give us the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property (subject to greater or lesser restrictions, depending on where we live). The new, far-left-wing, progressive administrators of our justice system don’t give a damn about that. They want to intimidate us into abandoning our legal rights and allowing the mob to ride rough-shod over us.
If we refuse to permit or tolerate that, we will be targeted by such officials. They’ll try to make examples of us to intimidate others. Witness what’s happening to the McCloskeys in St. Louis. Their actions were entirely justifiable under law – so much so that the State’s Attorney-General has filed suit to quash the charges brought against them by the local DA. However, the DA didn’t care about the law, only about radicalizing the system of justice she administers and making the McCloskeys into an example to all those who object.
I repeat what I said in conclusion yesterday, and urge you to read that article in full if you haven’t already done so.
By observing [the] precautions [that I recommended], law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that’s become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that’s no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
If you live in a jurisdiction dominated by such left-wing parasites, you need to very seriously consider leaving before it’s too late. Some of them are, I think, already too far gone to save. Among them I’d include all the cities I cited in the third paragraph of this article, plus a large number of others. Is your life worth the risk that remaining there poses? Only you can answer that question. In my case and my wife’s, we voted with our feet, as have many others of our acquaintance. If you think you can’t afford to leave, due to lower salaries and other inconveniences, I can only ask . . . what makes you think you can afford to stay?
Peter
For anyone who believes in the rule of law, events over the past few months have been a horrifying eye-opener. It’s now very clear that in parts of our country, the rule of law no longer applies – or does so selectively, depending on your political views and/or the color of your skin. A few recent examples:
- Seattle police reportedly failed to respond to many calls for law enforcement support from in and around the so-called “CHOP” protest zone. When asked about this, the chief of police denied it, saying that if a call was an “important emergency 911 call” they would respond – but, in the absence of a responding officer, who’s to say what’s important or an emergency? It certainly appears that, if you were a law-abiding citizen in or near CHOP, you were on your own. However, if you used legitimate, legal force to defend yourself in the absence of law enforcement, would you care to guess who politically-correct local prosecutors would go after? Would it be the “protester” attacking you, or you for defending yourself? I think we all know the answer.
- A woman caught in a demonstration in Fredericksburg, VA called 911 for help after rioters jumped on her car. The 911 operator refused to send assistance, telling her the demonstration was a “sanctioned event” and advising her to call City Hall to complain.
- A couple in St. Louis, MO held firearms as they ordered protestors off their private property – fully in accordance with Missouri law. The local DA, a far-left-wing sympathizer elected with the massive financial assistance of George Soros, has now brought charges against the couple rather than those illegally on their property. The state’s Attorney-General immediately filed suit to dismiss the charges, acknowledging that they were politically motivated on the part of the local DA.
I could cite many more examples, but those will suffice to make the point. There are now parts of the USA where the rule of law is no longer in effect, or at best is selectively enforced. They tend to be (but are not always) areas dominated by left-wing, progressive politics. Sadly, that includes most of America’s larger cities.
In some such areas, if you legally and legitimately defend yourself against unjustified, illegal attack (particularly from “protesters” or “demonstrators”, no matter how criminal their conduct), you are at least as likely as your attacker to face charges. This is usually a politically motivated decision, aimed at discouraging others from defending themselves – or, as the progressive left views it, “taking the law into your own hands”. In many jurisdictions, the law explicitly recognizes our right to self-defense – but the left is determined to obscure that, and if possible nullify it through politically motivated lawsuits and criminal charges. (Hello, St. Louis.) If they can bankrupt enough honest citizens through court costs and lawyers’ fees, and whip up emotions against them through biased, one-sided press releases, they think they’ll intimidate others into shutting up and obeying them.
This is very bad news for all those of us who are determined not to be a victim; who are adamant that we will not be intimidated by the mob, and are prepared to defend ourselves against it if necessary. If “demonstrators” walk down our street, see our car parked in front of our home or a business, and trash it or set it on fire to “send a message”, in many areas we will be expected to let them get away with it, and leave any response to the authorities – even if the latter can’t be trusted to respond at all. (Hello, Seattle. Hello, Portland.) If something like this happens to you, and you defend yourself against your attackers, it’s likely you’ll be charged – not them.
Therefore, allow me to explain a few points about self-defense, and defense of your property, in areas where doing so might get you into trouble. I learned these lessons the hard way in areas of unrest, rioting and violence on another continent, as regular readers will understand. They kept many honest people alive and out of jail, and they may help you to do likewise.
In general, one can only be convicted of a crime on the basis of evidence. That may be eyewitness testimony, or surveillance video, or tests of bullets and cartridge cases found at the scene of a crime, or DNA evidence extracted from one’s clothing, or anything like that. In the absence of evidence, it’s very hard for the authorities to convict a suspect of anything. Therefore, if you suspect that efforts may be made to convict you of a crime even if you haven’t committed one, it’s a case of “the less evidence, the better”.
You can’t do much about eyewitnesses, particularly if they can’t be trusted to tell the truth. I won’t even try to address that problem here, except to note that false testimony is a very real risk, particularly in politicized, riotous areas. You should stay as far away from them as possible! Also, note that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Witnesses can be “coached” by law enforcement or prosecutors to say whatever they want them to say. We won’t be able to counter that in the absence of countervailing witness testimony – something that may not be available. A lot will also depend on how biased the jury may be. If they’re all politically correct locals, and we’re portrayed by the prosecution as an “outsider”, or painted as a “racist” or “reactionary” or “conservative” . . . you get the picture.
As far as other evidence is concerned, the first thing is to look for what might provide it in your neighborhood, or areas that you frequent. Are there security cameras on businesses or buildings overlooking where you might have to act? (Don’t forget innocuous-looking devices such as smart doorbells in residential areas – video from them has been used to catch criminals.) What about cameras mounted on light poles or buildings to cover the street? Many big cities now have thousands of them in law-enforcement-monitored networks, as well as gunfire location systems to detect when and where firearms are used, and send responding officers straight there. If you use a firearm to defend yourself, you may be recorded on video and audio by such systems, providing evidence that may be used to identify, arrest and convict you. Therefore, if you might have to take such action, you’ll need to take that into account – particularly by avoiding areas where those are major concerns, or remaining as concealed as possible, or making yourself hard to recognize, while doing what’s necessary and exiting the area.
(Law enforcement is already voicing concerns that face masks, mandatory in many areas thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, will stop facial recognition systems from working correctly. I imagine large, dark sunglasses in combination with a face mask will render one almost unrecognizable. See? Even pandemics have upsides! However, facial recognition isn’t the only risk. Gait analysis can also be used to identify you in security camera footage. There are ways to defeat such analysis, but we don’t have space or time to go into them here.)
Of course, you may be fortunate enough to find yourself in an area where someone has disabled such systems. A camera with paint sprayed on its lens can’t record anything. A gunfire location system with non-functional microphones can’t hear anything – particularly after silenced .22 rifles have been used to shoot the microphones. Gang-bangers in many inner-city areas, both in the USA and abroad, routinely use such measures to protect themselves from surveillance. Extraneous interference can also temporarily disable such systems. For example, during the recent July 4th celebrations, there were reports that fireworks going off in close proximity to gunfire location systems, and in large quantities, confused their sensors and operators so much that they could no longer perform their primary function.
If you’re forced to use a firearm to defend yourself, forensics experts can tie bullets at a crime scene to your weapon, and therefore to you. Bullets will have marks on them from the feed ramps and rifling of your weapon. However, bullets may not be recovered; or, even if they are, they may have deformed to such an extent that such marks are no longer clear (e.g. hollow- or soft-point ammo that expands and/or fragments in the body). Cartridge cases from semi-auto weapons are far more of a forensic threat. They will show the impact of the firing pin on the primer; scratches from steel magazine lips during the loading and feeding process; marks from the chamber walls; and more scratches and marks from the extractor and ejector after firing. Both bullets and cartridge cases may bear the fingerprints and/or skin oils and flakes of the person who loaded them into a firearm (although wiping the round carefully before it’s loaded, and using gloves while doing so, will remove most of those traces).
The obvious answer is not to leave cartridge cases behind. However, you may not have time to look for them before you have to leave. Revolvers don’t eject them automatically, which may be a useful advantage. AR-15’s and similar weapons can be fitted with so-called “brass catchers” to collect empty cases as they’re ejected, like this one.
Some models (see, for example, this one) don’t require a rail mount; they use a strap with a hook-and-loop fastener to secure themselves, allowing them to be used with almost any long gun, even some shotguns or lever-action rifles. I would regard brass catchers as an absolutely essential precaution in any area of the USA bedeviled by a “politically correct” law enforcement and/or prosecution environment. (They’re also very useful if you want to stop hot cartridge cases from hitting other people, for example at a shooting range with other shooters next to you, or if you may have to fire your weapon from within a vehicle and don’t want hot brass bouncing around inside.)
By observing such precautions, law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that’s become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that’s no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
(EDITED TO ADD: I’ve written a follow-up article answering readers’ questions and going into more detail. Please read it in conjunction with this one.)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the results of a 5-day sweep led by the California Department of Justice, or DOJ, that targeted 51 prohibited persons. The state arrested 13 people and seized 114 firearms and 49,148 rounds of ammunition during the sweep.
The sweep was focused on Los Angeles County using California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, or APPS.
“California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System is a critical tool that makes the work of cracking down on illegal gun ownership and possession possible,” said Bonta. “Last week, using APPS and working together with our law enforcement partners in Southern California, our teams removed 114 firearms from individuals who are no longer legally allowed to own or possess firearms or ammunition.”
“Collaborative efforts like these increase our success in taking guns out of potentially dangerous hands, reducing gun violence, and keeping our neighborhoods safe,” said Bonta.
“A great display of local and state partners coordinating and cooperating to ensure prohibited persons aren’t in possession of firearms,” said LAPD Chief Michel Moore. “The LAPD supports and maintains a relationship with our local partners as well as California DOJ to accomplish this mission on a daily basis.”
The California DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms, or BOF, worked with officers representing the Azusa Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the LAPD, the Pasadena Police Department, the Pomona Police Department, the Los Angeles County Probation Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
“We are thankful to all the partner agencies of the operation and proud to have been a part of getting dangerous guns off the streets,” said Los Angeles County Probation Chief Deputy Karen Fletcher. “Working together, we helped make Los Angeles safer thanks to all those who put their lives on the line daily and the hard-working members of our probation team.”
“Pasadena Police Department is excited about partnering with the California Department of Justice in an effort to stop gun violence,” said Interim Pasadena Police Chief Cheryl Moody. “This collaboration will certainly benefit those communities most impacted by individuals who illegally possess or use firearms.”
Following leads from 439 cases, agents and officers seized 55 handguns, 19 rifles, 15 shotguns, 17 “assault weapons” and eight “ghost guns” in addition to ammunition and magazines. The sweep follows an earlier operation in the Bay Area that netted 30 firearms, resulting in eight arrests.
Armed Good Samaritans Provided Cover Fire, Rescue Wounded Deputies
Sandy MalonePeaceful Valley, WA – The sheriff released more details about what led up to the shooting of two Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) deputies on Thursday and thanked the armed good Samaritans who came to the wounded heroes’ aid and kept them safe until backup arrived.
The Bellingham Police Department (BPD) said the incident began at about 3 p.m. on Feb. 10 when a homeowner started burning a trash pile outside their home and the smoke bothered a neighbor, 60-year-old Joel B. Young, KGMI reported.
Police said Young became enraged and went outside and yelled at the neighbor burning trash, claiming that smoked had blown through the windows into his home, the Bellingham Herald reported.
The neighbor responded with an expletive, according to police.
Young had been drinking and he became enraged, KGMI reported.
So he grabbed his shotgun and went outside and fired birdshot into the air near the neighbor who was burning trash, according to police.
Then he went back inside his home and had another beer.
Then he retreated to a position of cover nearby.
A neighbor called 911 and reported that Young was outside firing his 12-guage shotgun into the air, the Bellingham Herald reported.
Two Whatcom County sheriff’s deputies responded to the address near Peaceful Valley and State Route 247 in the Maple Falls area, KGMI reported.
Deputies arrived on the scene at about 4:30 p.m. and when Young heard them announce themselves, he went outside yelling and waving a gun, the Bellingham Herald reported.
“Sheriff’s Office — drop the gun!” the deputies ordered Young.
Young ignored the deputies’ commands and opened fire on them instead, the Bellingham Herald reported.
One deputy was shot in the head and fell to the ground.
The second deputy put himself between Young and the wounded deputy and returned fire, the Bellingham Herald reported.
Young opened fire on the second deputy and shot him, too.
Police said that was when good Samaritans armed with their own weapons stepped forward and fired multiple shots in the direction of Young to provide cover for and protect the wounded deputies, the Bellingham Herald reported.
The good Samaritans told KING that they were military veterans and they weren’t going to sit still and watch law enforcement officers be murdered so they took their children inside their homes and came back out with their own guns.
Other neighbors jumped in to assist the first good Samaritan and they were able to pull the wounded deputies into a garage and out of the line of fire.
The good Samaritans immediately began performing first aid on the wounded heroes as they waited for an ambulance to arrive, the Bellingham Herald reported.
Both wounded deputies were transported to nearby hospitals for treatment as soon as backup arrived.
One deputy remained under observation at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Bellingham and the other was transferred to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle for treatment by a specialist, the Bellingham Herald reported.
Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo said both deputies were in “stable” condition, KGMI reported.
Backup arrived from multiple law enforcement agencies and the Bellingham police called in the SWAT team and surrounded Young’s home.
Bellingham Police Department Spokesperson Claudia Murphy told the Bellingham Herald that Young surrendered to deputies just after 6 p.m. and was taken into custody without incident.
He was booked into the Skagit County Community Justice Center and charged with two counts of first-degree attempted murder.
The investigation is being headed up by the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Response Team (LEMART) and the Whatcom County Prosecutor’s Office.
“We are ever so grateful the WCSO deputies are in stable condition and that no residents were injured,” Bellingham Police Chief Flo Simon said in a statement. “The members of the LEMART team are working tirelessly to ensure there is a thorough and complete investigation delivered to the prosecutor’s office.”
“Our thoughts and prayers go out to the WCSO deputies, their families, and the entire Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office. We wish them a speedy recovery,” Chief Simon said.
Sheriff Elfo posted a statement to Facebook on Sunday that applauded his deputies’ bravery and the heroics of the good Samaritans that came to their aid.
The sheriff wrote that “despite being seriously wounded and impaired by their injuries, both deputies courageously followed their training, stayed in the fight and took care of each other and area residents.”
“Second, we are extraordinarily blessed that several armed citizens came to the deputies’ assistance at the critical moments when they were most vulnerable,” the sheriff continued. “I have contacted all three of the good Samaritans and expressed appreciation on behalf of myself and all members of law enforcement and their families. There will be a more formal recognition of these humble citizen heroes once more details of their actions can be released.”
 |
| Yesterday, the California State Legislature saw the introduction of two more anti-gun bills that continue the assault on lawful gun ownership in the Golden State. On the heels of passing legislation to violate gun owner privacy during the 2021 legislative session, for which the NRA has already filed a lawsuit, legislators have now introduced Senate Bill 906, to require disclosure of firearm ownership and storage methods for parents of school-age children. This is one more attack on the privacy of lawful gun owners in this state. NRA will fight this legislation during the session and will be prepared to pursue litigation in the event it receives the Governor’s signature. Additionally, Assembly Bill 1769 was introduced prohibiting the sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts at gun shows in the 31st Agricultural District. Both SB 906 and AB 1769 are still awaiting committee assignments and policy hearings. Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as these bills are scheduled.
Senate Bill 906, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), makes it mandatory that parents of students disclose firearm ownership status to the schools their children attend, including how they are stored. It requires that these questions be placed on the forms used to register or enroll students, and these forms may be made available to law-enforcement under certain conditions. Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District. This imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction to prevent officials from deciding how to use venues. |
Adam Kredo • January 31, 2022 1:10 pm
The ATF disclosed to lawmakers that it manages a database of 920,664,765 firearm purchase records, including both digital and hard copy versions of these transactions. When a licensed gun store goes out of business, its private records detailing gun transactions become ATF property and are stored at a federal site in West Virginia. The practice has contributed to the fears of gun advocacy groups and Second Amendment champions in Congress that the federal government is creating a national database of gun owners, which violates longstanding federal statutes.
Rep. Michael Cloud (R., Texas), who led an investigation into the ATF database following a November Free Beacon report that the Biden administration had stockpiled records of more than 54 million gun transactions in 2021, expressed shock at the number of gun records being kept by the federal government. Cloud maintains that the ATF’s database could be exploited by the Biden administration to surveil American gun owners as it pursues new restrictions on firearms.
“A federal firearm registry is explicitly banned by law. Yet, the Biden administration is again circumventing Congress and enabling the notably corrupt ATF to manage a database of nearly a billion gun transfer records,” Cloud told the Free Beacon. “Under the president’s watch, the ATF has increased surveillance on American gun owners at an abhorrent level. The Biden administration continues to empower criminals and foreign nationals while threatening the rights of law-abiding Americans. It’s shameful and this administration should reconsider its continued attacks on American gun owners.”
While the ATF denies that these records are used to track gun owners, it transfers hard copies of the information into a searchable digital database that it says is used to trace firearms tied to crimes. The ATF reported that 865,787,086 of the records are already in a digital format.
As the ATF stockpiles gun records, the Biden administration is seeking to alter a federal law that allows gun stores to destroy their records after 20 years, preventing the federal government from getting them. The Biden administration wants gun stores to maintain their records in perpetuity, meaning that when a store closes, the ATF receives all of its records. The ATF’s gun records database has long been a flashpoint between Second Amendment advocates and the federal government, with the latter claiming the ATF is exploiting legal loopholes to expand the database. The Biden administration’s push to ensure that all out-of-business records ultimately make their way to the ATF has sparked fierce pushback from 52 Republicans in Congress.
The proposed change, Cloud and his colleagues wrote to the ATF in a November letter, “means that 100 percent of all lawful commercial firearm transfers would eventually end up in an ATF computer system, thereby creating a permanent database”—in violation of the law.
The ATF maintained in its response to the 2021 investigation that the “sole purpose” of its database and ongoing efforts to digitize out-of-business records “is to trace firearms used in crimes.”
More than half-a-million traces were performed in 2021, according to the ATF, and just under half a million in 2020. The ATF, however, says it does not have the ability to determine if the database actually helps solve crimes. The ATF’s National Tracing Center “has no ability to determine the successful prosecution of hundreds of thousands of crime gun traces it completes annually, nor does it have any way to link a trace for a specific prosecution for a particular year,” the agency informed Congress.
Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, an advocacy group that has closely tracked the ATF’s database, told the Free Beacon that it is becoming clear the Biden administration is on its way to creating a national gun registry.
“Make no mistake—this is clear evidence that a partial national gun registry exists,” Johnston said. “If the American people don’t stand up for their rights now, Biden’s anti-gun ATF will be able to track gun owners, infringe on our rights, and potentially even confiscate our firearms.”
by Julie Kelly
When most Americans hear the term “Capitol Police,” they likely conjure visions of uniformed officers manning metal detectors at the numerous congressional buildings or helping tourists navigate the sprawling Capitol grounds: a D.C. version of a mall cop.
That imagery, however, is in stark contrast to reality as Democrats have weaponized yet another federal agency to target their political enemies on the Right.
After January 6, 2021, Capitol Police officials announced plans to expand beyond the legislatively authorized purview of the agency and open offices in Florida and California, as well as in other states. Congress overwhelmingly supported a bill last year to fork over $2.1 billion in new funding to the Capitol Police. Now flush with cash and immune from any serious public oversight, the agency is returning the favor by spying on dissidents of the Biden regime.
According to Politico, Capitol Police investigators are preparing secret dossiers on lawmakers, congressional staff, donors, and even constituents who visit their representatives in public or in private.
“After the Jan. 6 insurrection (sic), the Capitol Police’s intelligence unit quietly started scrutinizing the backgrounds of people who meet with lawmakers,” reporters Betsy Woodruff Swan and Daniel Lippman wrote. “Several Capitol Police intelligence analysts have already raised concerns about the practice to the department’s inspector general,” one source told Politico.
Investigators are asked to scour social media accounts and even examine “tax and real estate records to find out who owned the properties that lawmakers visited.” In one example, Capitol Police analyzed a fundraiser held in a private home for Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.). Donors to House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017, also are under Capitol police scrutiny.
Far from ensuring the safety of legislators and their staffs, the underlying political motive is obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention the past several years: the Capitol Police, acting as the Stasi of the Democratic Party, will collect dirt on Republicans under the pretense of national security then leak gossipy details to an always-compliant news media.
Journalists will then source the leaks to anonymous “intelligence officials” to legitimize any incriminating disclosures, which in turn will prompt Democrats to call for immediate investigations and criminal referrals—see the January 6 select committee for how this successful formula works.
In fact, an official from the Obama Administration, the birthplace of Russiagate and other political espionage efforts, is heading up the new endeavor.
“Major changes in the Capitol Police intelligence unit started in fall of 2020, when the department brought on former Department of Homeland Security official Julie Farnam to help run its intelligence unit, which is housed in its Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division,” Politico confirmed.
Who is Julie Farnam? In October 2014, Farnam was hired by the Obama Administration to serve as the acting chief of staff for the Homeland Security department’s field operations in Washington, D.C. The following year, Farnam was promoted to senior advisor on immigration issues. According to her LinkedIn profile, Farnam represented the Customs and Immigrations Services at “high-level meetings within the Agency, Department, other Federal agencies, and the White House.” She also “briefed senior officials on matters with national impact or controversy.”
One senior official with whom Farnam presumably worked at the White House would have been Lisa Monaco, Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor during his second term. Herself a key architect of Russiagate and an unabashed partisan, Monaco now serves as the deputy attorney general, responsible for the Justice Department’s sprawling and punitive investigation into January 6. Monaco’s prosecutors are handling at least 730 criminal cases related to the Capitol protest, with new arrests announced every week.
Monaco’s street cred as a political operative is stellar. Chief of staff to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, Monaco is moving at open throttle not just to round up trespassers who objected to Joe Biden’s election but to hand down criminal indictments against Trump loyalists such as Steve Bannon and investigate alleged “fake electoral slates” in seven states sent to the National Archives in December 2020
Farnam seems to be following in Monaco’s footsteps—or taking her marching orders—to whip up frenzy about the imaginary threat posed by Trump voters.
In an interview earlier this month with CBS News, Farnam revealed her agency prepared an “special event assessment” on January 3, 2021 that warned of potential violence during the Electoral College certification. “Supporters of the current president see January 6, 2021 as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election,” Farnam wrote. “This sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent. Unlike previous post-election protests . . . Congress itself is the target on the 6th.”
Erroneously claiming “protesters plan to be armed”—the only person who used a firearm inside the building that day, ironically, was a Capitol Police lieutenant who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt—Farnam’s report relied heavily on bogeyman terms such as “white supremacists” and “extremists.”
She questioned the issuance of January 6 permits for “Stop the Steal” rallies, which, according to Farnam, attract bad actors who “actively promote violence.” Farnam must have missed all the videographic and social media evidence of how leftist activists attacked Trump supporters and police after previous Stop the Steal events in Washington in November and December 2020.
Seven Republican congressmen sent a letter this week to both sergeants-at-arms, the Capitol Police chief, and the architect of the Capitol to demand answers, insisting the new spy initiative “constitutes a dramatic and troubling expansion of the USCP’s authority.”
Like all inquiries sent to Biden regime apparatchiks, the letter will go unanswered. Farnam, another Obama minion who learned from the best how to aim powerful government tools at political foes, will accelerate her unchecked surveillance operation to complement Monaco’s January 6 criminal investigation and House Democrats’ January 6 select committee—all intended to produce damaging headlines for Republicans during the 2022 midterm elections.
The rotten, unpunished legacy of Crossfire Hurricane continues.
– – –
Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. She is the author of January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right and Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried―And Failed―To Take Down the President. Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review. She also has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and Genetic Literacy Project. She is the co-host of the “Happy Hour Podcast with Julie and Liz.” She is a graduate of Eastern Illinois University and lives in suburban Chicago with her husband and two daughters.
Photo “Capitol Police” by Elvert Barnes CC BY-SA 2.0.