The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
According to attorney Evan Nappen, the Atlantic County Prosecutor has suddenly decided that Shaneen Allen is now eligible for the pre-trial diversion program. It would seem he has decided that she is no longer a bigger danger to society than Ray Rice.
UPDATE: Here’s the story in the press.
The Express-Times in Lehigh Valley area decided to attack those concerned about potential constitutional violations in an op-ed, saying that those who have had their rights violated and want to stand up for them are merely “opportunistic” and too concerned with themselves to put up with a “temporary intrusion” that has lasted at least a week.
They even highlight a quote from the Pennsylvania State Police’s PR guy that assures us that not all people are completely cut off from their homes. Citizens can trust that if the police think you actually have a good reason to go to your home, then they will be the ones to decide if/when you get access, and only under escort if they like your reasons for wanting to go home.
So, I’d like to know how the Express-Times staff would react to the news that the state police argue that their coverage of the events is helping the suspect evade law enforcement. Sure, they have no actual evidence that the suspect has access to their papers, but it’s a possibility that he might be in the area and using the resources to evade them – like he might possibly be hiding out in every single car in the area or every home in the area.
Therefore, the police ask that the Express-Times stop publishing their paper during this “temporary intrusion” and that any efforts to argue that they have a First Amendment right that must be respected is a case of them being “opportunistic” and overly greedy with their Constitution rights claims.
Some public relations officer will remind their editors that they aren’t really blocking all access to their publishing equipment – because if the police determine there’s any message worth hearing, then they will provide an armed escort to any reporter or editor they hand select to supervise their limited visit to the printer.
I find it hard to believe that the Express-Times staff wouldn’t be on the phone to lawyers trying to argue for their Constitutional rights. Why are they condemning anyone else who is concerned that in specific instances, perhaps law enforcement have gone too far and actually crossed the line into violating someone’s rights?
According to another report on the situation, attorney Josh Prince has already talked to someone who was forced out of their home, despite having three dogs there, and has been refused access to care for them since Sunday. It was Tuesday when that story was posted. The New York Times found a man who was thrown to the ground and detained in handcuffs just for going to his own home.
Regardless of what the public relations officer is telling the media, it’s clear that there are reports from those forced to leave that the police are keeping people away from their homes. If they aren’t keeping them away from their homes, it’s clear that at least some officers have gotten a little too quick to act against local citizens. Any lawyer who is helping someone understand their rights – and whether or not they have been violated – should be applauded.
There were dueling amendments proposed in the Pennsylvania House this week, and yesterday afternoon, the votes came down.
Gun owners should definitely say a word of thanks to the state representatives who voted to support pre-emption reforms and thanks to those who voted against the Bloomberg-backed effort to add more restrictions (and expenses) to long gun sales. In fact, an election year is a great time to remind our lawmakers that we’re watching their votes. Even better, if they voted with us on the bills, track down their campaign and get a yard sign or volunteer to lend a hand. That’s a huge thank you that will be remembered.
NRA is asking folks to pester their senators about getting this bill moving in the Pennsylvania Senate.
It seems that as long as you have the right political views, you can break gun laws and get a slap on the wrist. If you don’t, you’ll end up facing serious charges and years in prison.
Compare these two situations:
1) In New York, an activist who promoted the SAFE Act that made carrying a gun on school property a felony even if the person has a license to carry, decided to carry his gun to a school after the gun control law took effect.
When the school was raided by SWAT officers and went on lockdown for a call about a man with a gun in the building, Dwayne Ferguson did not disclose that he had his gun. It was only when officers started patting down every person in the school did they find his gun. The school noted in their statement that he had an opportunity to disclose his possession to officers, and he chose not to do so, forcing everyone else to face a search.
For his refusal to disclose his accidentally carried, and otherwise licensed, firearm into a prohibited place, Ferguson’s charges were dropped from felonies and he received community service with a conditional discharge.
2) In New Jersey, a single mother from Philadelphia crossed a bridge with her license to carry a gun issued by Pennsylvania thinking that it applied across the border. It did not. When she was pulled over for a vaguely state violation, she willfully disclosed to the officer that she was a licensed gun owner.
For her cooperative attitude during her accidental carry situation, he had her arrested and the prosecutor considers her, as an otherwise lawful gun owner, such a danger to the community that he refuses to even consider the idea of a diversion program because it would mean she would not be put behind bars for years.
It would appear that having the right political views can go a long way in convincing a prosecutor not to press charges in these gun control cases.
John Richardson noted that the ATF is now asking all C&R FFL holders about whether or not they sell any of their collections online.
I can’t tell you how much I loved seeing a post from Pennsylvania attorney Josh Prince asking anyone in Pike and Monroe Counties to contact him if their rights have been violated based on an article linked here earlier today. I would love to see more people considering legal challenges to behavior like this from law enforcement when they cross the line and violate someone’s rights.
UPDATE: And, he actually provides tips on how to document everything regarding the violation of rights that one would need to create a good case.
Also, check the comments of both posts and note the people who are horrified at the idea that some lawyer is trying to let people know what to do to prepare a legal case if their rights are violated. They don’t understand why anyone has an issue with rights being violated as long as they are told someone is keeping them “safe.”
With Washington ready for a ballot initiative fight this November and the accompanying debate over who is and isn’t showing up, I thought it would be important to look at a couple of historical votes relevant to the subject of ballot initiatives.
One is recent history. Very recent. As in, yesterday. There were were many polls showing that the Yes and No votes on Scottish Independence were in a dead heat, and even some showing that Yes was taking the lead in the days prior to the vote. The real result was a 10 point vote against independence with massive turnout.
Another, more relevant example, is from Massachusetts in 1976. I’ve posted about how important it is for gun owners to read about and learn from this example before. It shows why we keep fighting, even in sometimes clearly uphill fights. From Dave Kopel’s article on the ballot initiative fight:
Early polling suggested that a handgun ban would pass handily. Further, in the 1974 election, voters in several state legislative districts had overwhelmingly supported measures instructing their state legislators to vote for strict anti-gun legislation. …
The final poll, a few days before, had showed Question 5 with a 10-point lead. Everyone anticipated a long night waiting for the election results. Everyone was wrong.
Handgun confiscation was crushed by a vote of 69 percent to 31 percent. Of the approximately 500 towns in Massachusetts, only about a dozen (including Cambridge, Brookline, Newton and Amherst) voted for the ban. Even Boston rejected the ban by a wide margin.
There are notable differences in that it was certainly a far more extreme policy than Washington. However, it still shows that what people feel they “should” tell a pollster may not match how they vote in a closed voting booth. That’s the kind of tendency that Washington activists need to appeal to there.
Now, NRA cannot, even if they empty their entire campaign war chest into Washington State and completely ignore the rest of the country, outspend Bloomberg and Bill Gates. They can’t. Just accept it right now that you cannot look at this situation strictly through the lens of campaign finance reports. I’m not in Washington, but I do see some evidence of NRA work. There’s a Facebook page they’ve created that partially documents some of their work, and I can also say that from the moment I met our new EVC coordinator back in March, she’s been aware of this and trying to work with local activists to make sure they have what they need and help them out. Even in our Friends of NRA program that isn’t political, we saw record turnout for people showing up to participate, even though they couldn’t quite open their wallets as much as last year. Fights like this aren’t accurately portrayed in financial reports.
These issues are complex, and there’s a chance that we may lose. However, if gun owners study their history on ballot initiatives, they’ll know these things are won with volunteers on the ground and that sometimes polls on policy efforts to support more gun control are very, very wrong when you actually stick a ballot with that issue in front of someone’s face.
Back in 1938, a Texas hunter decided to get ready for his hunting trip by posing for cameras in DC. That Texas hunter was Senator Tom Connally.
The caption from the Library of Congress: Looking forward to a hunting trip in his native state as soon as Congress adjourns this week, Senator Tom Connally, Democrat of Texas, checked his guns and did a little fancy shooting for the benefit of the cameramen at the Capitol today, 6/14/38.
I can’t even fathom how that would go over today.
I don’t know about you, but it’s already a point in the week where I just need to admire some pretty guns. So how about these?
Smith and Wesson New Model No. 3, .44 Caliber Double-Action Navy Revolver, serial no. 23060.
I was sure that one time or another I had blogged about the Tiffany decorated guns before. However, I can’t seem to find any reference in the archives. But who really cares? Pretty guns are pretty guns worth sharing.
Regardless, these are works of art, which probably explains why they are on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. I am actually not much of a fan of the other Tiffany guns. They are beautiful in their own way, but they just seem a little blah compared to the colors and flair of these two.
I was reminded of this great display by a link to this article.
The NFL & their anti-gun partners in the Atlantic County, NJ (feel free to post your displeasure on their FB page) prosecutors office would like to provide this illustrated to how to stay out of too much trouble:
That’s what a two game suspension looks like in the NFL. (Now, I’m sure the NFL would like to point out that if they taking a “beating” in the media and from fans over the incident, they may claim that the “discovery” that the victim is/was pregnant increases the suspension to six whole games, gosh darn it!) This is also the illustrated guide for how the Atlantic County prosecutors view not-so-innocent mistakes worthy of pre-trial diversion programs so that you never have to see the inside of a jail cell once you’ve lawyered up.
However, if you’re a black woman arrested after being pulled over for a vaguely claimed “unsafe lane change,” then you’re going to rot in jail for daring to believe that New Jersey recognizes your Second Amendment right to defend yourself.
We hope this illustrative guide was helpful to help you understand the slaps on the wrist standards for these two anti-gun groups. If you’re a man strong enough to take down a woman in one punch – and decide to do it against your pregnant fianceé – that’s no biggie, as long as you have a lucrative sports contract since you need to be out of jail to protect your image and support your family. However, if you’re a single mother whose children rely on you to provide for them without the comforts of a sports career, then you’re clearly a true danger to all around you and deserve to sit in jail while your kids are left to family and/or the system.
