On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that
"[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 16
I hope the link works.
It's high time we had someone on the bench that stands up for the rights of the law abiding citizens. Judge Black is to be commended for understanding what the Constitution means. He won't make the Supreme Court anytime soon. They are having this fight right now in Wisconsin. Open carry is legal there, yet there are police departments in some of the larger cities having a fit. The Wisconsin Attorney General even clarified the law for them and they are still harrassing citizens exercising thier rights. The only open carry allowed in Iowa is while hunting, fishing and trapping and then only in un-incorporated areas.
Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Open carry is legal in 42 states. Here'sm the map.
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
I know there will be some liberals that think it's horrendous that someone would exercise thier rights. Well, that's the way it goes. No is infringing thier rights. Last time I looked, the Bill of Rights was still in full force in this Country. That is unless you are exersiing your 2nd Amendment rights. Then you must be up to no good.
I have carried a handgun open and concealed for over 30 years. I have yet to commit a crime or even draw my weapon for any reason. I hope I go another 30 years. And to all the "guns are only for killing people", mine are defective, they haven't killed anyone.
2nd Amendment, Iowa carry laws and Veterans concerns. Also anything else we want to talk about.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Minority View
> A MINORITY VIEW
> > BY WALTER WILLIAMS
> > RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
> > 2, 2009
> >
> > Washington's
> > Lies
> >
> >
> > President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that
> > his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a
> > year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a
> > Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president
> > and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show
> > much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's
> > check out their past dishonesty.
> >
> > At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House
> > Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson,
> > estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12
> > billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion.
> > That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's
> > Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling
> > off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates
> > by the White House or Congress?
> >
> > Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of
> > the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this
> > title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or
> > employee to exercise any supervision or control over the
> > practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical
> > services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or
> > compensation of any officer, or employee, or any
> > institution, agency or person providing health care
> > services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is
> > true.
> >
> > Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern
> > times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification
> > of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and
> > congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever
> > pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1
> > percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning
> > $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and
> > those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7
> > percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income
> > taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and
> > dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.
> >
> > The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress
> > are proposing will probably pass. According to the
> > Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly
> > 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million
> > individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of
> > a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this
> > figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no
> > tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41
> > percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the
> > federal income tax system. These people represent a natural
> > constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have
> > no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about
> > higher taxes or tax cuts?
> >
> > Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's
> > what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said:
> > "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning
> > in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5
> > cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ...
> > beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your
> > employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years.
> > ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now,
> > you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar
> > you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's
> > Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you
> > will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence:
> > "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that
> > to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65
> > cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000,
> > which comes to $8,185.
> >
> > The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie:
> > "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States
> > government will set up a Social Security account for you ...
> > The checks will come to you as a right." First,
> > there's no Social Security account containing your
> > money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has
> > ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to
> > Social Security payments.
> >
> > We can thank public education for American
> > gullibility
> >
> > BY WALTER WILLIAMS
> > RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
> > 2, 2009
> >
> > Washington's
> > Lies
> >
> >
> > President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that
> > his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a
> > year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a
> > Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president
> > and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show
> > much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's
> > check out their past dishonesty.
> >
> > At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House
> > Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson,
> > estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12
> > billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion.
> > That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's
> > Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling
> > off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates
> > by the White House or Congress?
> >
> > Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of
> > the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this
> > title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or
> > employee to exercise any supervision or control over the
> > practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical
> > services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or
> > compensation of any officer, or employee, or any
> > institution, agency or person providing health care
> > services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is
> > true.
> >
> > Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern
> > times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification
> > of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and
> > congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever
> > pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1
> > percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning
> > $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and
> > those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7
> > percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income
> > taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and
> > dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.
> >
> > The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress
> > are proposing will probably pass. According to the
> > Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly
> > 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million
> > individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of
> > a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this
> > figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no
> > tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41
> > percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the
> > federal income tax system. These people represent a natural
> > constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have
> > no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about
> > higher taxes or tax cuts?
> >
> > Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's
> > what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said:
> > "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning
> > in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5
> > cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ...
> > beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your
> > employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years.
> > ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now,
> > you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar
> > you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's
> > Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you
> > will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence:
> > "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that
> > to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65
> > cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000,
> > which comes to $8,185.
> >
> > The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie:
> > "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States
> > government will set up a Social Security account for you ...
> > The checks will come to you as a right." First,
> > there's no Social Security account containing your
> > money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has
> > ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to
> > Social Security payments.
> >
> > We can thank public education for American
> > gullibility
> >
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'
Just when you think it can't get any weirder. I couldn't belive this when I first read it. Where do they find these nut cases?
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.
This time it's the proposed "Regulatory Czar" who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.
His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.
For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence. He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:
I think we should go further ... the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.
If that's all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.
In Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!
"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property," Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).
Well, that's a relief ... he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.
Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip ... only to find out that you've been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!
By the way, if you're wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won't be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.
In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:
Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.... [O]n the Constitution's text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.
Hmm, what part of "shall not be infringed" does Sunstein not understand?
Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.
As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life hell.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.
That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.
No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ... then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar ... now, there's an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.
It's time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.
ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this "Regulatory Czar" would have upon firearms and hunting.
Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, in Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!
Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
I wouldn't be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority -- 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O'Leary poll in August -- who opposes licensed concealed carry.
I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein's views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.
Sincerely,
I'm sending this to both Senators. Of course it may not do any good to send it to Harkin. With him being on the AG commitee it might help. Farm animals? Same rights as humans? Oh come on.
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.
This time it's the proposed "Regulatory Czar" who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.
His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.
For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence. He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:
I think we should go further ... the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.
If that's all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.
In Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!
"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property," Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).
Well, that's a relief ... he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.
Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip ... only to find out that you've been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!
By the way, if you're wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won't be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.
In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:
Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.... [O]n the Constitution's text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.
Hmm, what part of "shall not be infringed" does Sunstein not understand?
Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.
As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life hell.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.
That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.
No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ... then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar ... now, there's an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.
It's time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.
ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this "Regulatory Czar" would have upon firearms and hunting.
Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, in Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!
Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
I wouldn't be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority -- 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O'Leary poll in August -- who opposes licensed concealed carry.
I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein's views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.
Sincerely,
I'm sending this to both Senators. Of course it may not do any good to send it to Harkin. With him being on the AG commitee it might help. Farm animals? Same rights as humans? Oh come on.
Second Amendment March Coming to Des Moines
www.secondamendmentmarch.com
I am now the official state coordinator for Iowa. Between now and April of 2010, we are organizing Marches in every major city that we can. The big march, on Washington DC will be on April 19, 2010. I'm looking for volenteers to help bring the message to the people. We are going to have town hall meetings, meet and greets and maybe even a chili cook. Bring your favorite recipie. The point of this movement is to show our politicians that we have had enough of thier meddling with our rights. There are currently over 20,000 gun laws on the books and we still have a crime problem.
Gun control is not the answer. What we need is criminal control. We will put a kid in prison for 20 years over a little pot and yet murders and rapists walk our streets. There is not 1 single gun control law that has ever affected a criminal. That's why they are called criminals. The only place fro these violent offenders is behind bars. I had to take a test and be approved to carry a gun. Criminals don't have to take a test. They just carry a gun when and where they want to. Because I abide by the law, I have to disarm and secure my gun if I go to any school, state or federal office. Criminals don't follow such laws.
With all of the Ant-gunners in positions of power in DC, We are going to have to make our voices heard. People like Eric"we'll show those Davidians whose boss" Holder. One of the worst picks possible for AG. And Janet "they are all terrorists" Napolitano. Why do we need someone with this attitude in a position of power. President Obama's own record both in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate prove that there isn't a gun control law he doesn't like.
We would also like to teach the liberals among us that we do not own "automatic" weapons. In the state of Iowa the only ones that can own those are the military and law enforcement. There are a few states that allow citizens to own those types of weapons. But do to the cost, the taxes and the background check, they are not used in crimes. The cost alone is prohibitive to most people. And the ones that do are watched closly by ATF under NFA35. The law passed in the 30's outlawing ownership of machineguns except under strict guidelines.
When we start having oour meeting, hopefully soon, everyone, no matter political affiliation will be invited to attend and participate. We are willing to listen to any point of view. Hopefully I will be able to get some guest speakers to attend some of these. Including the founder Skip Coryell. I met skip a few years ago in Washington Iowa at a iowa Carry pheasent hunt. Skip is a autor and a great guy. I have read most of his books and can recomend them to everyone.
Anyone that would like to help can contact me here or at robertsgunshop@mchsi.com. Phone 641-831-4307. I hope to hear from some of you and hopefully we can work together in the near future. Let's show our politicians, our "employees" that they serve at our pleasure. They aren't there to rule over us and feather thier own nest.
This is also posted at; http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ and www.iowacarry.org
I am now the official state coordinator for Iowa. Between now and April of 2010, we are organizing Marches in every major city that we can. The big march, on Washington DC will be on April 19, 2010. I'm looking for volenteers to help bring the message to the people. We are going to have town hall meetings, meet and greets and maybe even a chili cook. Bring your favorite recipie. The point of this movement is to show our politicians that we have had enough of thier meddling with our rights. There are currently over 20,000 gun laws on the books and we still have a crime problem.
Gun control is not the answer. What we need is criminal control. We will put a kid in prison for 20 years over a little pot and yet murders and rapists walk our streets. There is not 1 single gun control law that has ever affected a criminal. That's why they are called criminals. The only place fro these violent offenders is behind bars. I had to take a test and be approved to carry a gun. Criminals don't have to take a test. They just carry a gun when and where they want to. Because I abide by the law, I have to disarm and secure my gun if I go to any school, state or federal office. Criminals don't follow such laws.
With all of the Ant-gunners in positions of power in DC, We are going to have to make our voices heard. People like Eric"we'll show those Davidians whose boss" Holder. One of the worst picks possible for AG. And Janet "they are all terrorists" Napolitano. Why do we need someone with this attitude in a position of power. President Obama's own record both in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate prove that there isn't a gun control law he doesn't like.
We would also like to teach the liberals among us that we do not own "automatic" weapons. In the state of Iowa the only ones that can own those are the military and law enforcement. There are a few states that allow citizens to own those types of weapons. But do to the cost, the taxes and the background check, they are not used in crimes. The cost alone is prohibitive to most people. And the ones that do are watched closly by ATF under NFA35. The law passed in the 30's outlawing ownership of machineguns except under strict guidelines.
When we start having oour meeting, hopefully soon, everyone, no matter political affiliation will be invited to attend and participate. We are willing to listen to any point of view. Hopefully I will be able to get some guest speakers to attend some of these. Including the founder Skip Coryell. I met skip a few years ago in Washington Iowa at a iowa Carry pheasent hunt. Skip is a autor and a great guy. I have read most of his books and can recomend them to everyone.
Anyone that would like to help can contact me here or at robertsgunshop@mchsi.com. Phone 641-831-4307. I hope to hear from some of you and hopefully we can work together in the near future. Let's show our politicians, our "employees" that they serve at our pleasure. They aren't there to rule over us and feather thier own nest.
This is also posted at; http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ and www.iowacarry.org
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Police: 2 teens killed trying to break into home
By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
Sept. 4, 2009, 3:40PM
SAN MARCOS, Texas — A man shot and killed two teenagers and wounded another when they tried breaking into his home early Friday, police said.
A fourth teenager was arrested and is expected to be charged with aggravated robbery.
Three of the four male teenagers who tried breaking into the home were armed, one with a handgun and two with pellet guns that looked like more powerful weapons, San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said.
One of the three college-aged people who lived in the rental home opened fire on the teens with a .40-caliber Glock pistol, killing two 16-year-olds and wounding another suspect. A 17-year-old suspect fled the scene but was captured and arrested after returning to the scene to check on his friends, police said. He's expected to be charged with aggravated robbery, Williams said.
The wounded suspect was taken to Brackenridge Hospital in Austin with non-life threatening injuries, Williams said. Officials say the wounded suspect is also expected to be charged.
Police did not identify the suspects or those who lived in the home. None of the residents were injured. One was a Texas State University student.
Williams said the shooter appeared to be acting in self-defense and "there doesn't appear to be a crime" related to the shooting.
The suspects are from Luling, about 20 miles southeast of San Marcos, Williams said. It does not appear they know those living at the home, he said.
The shooting happened shortly before 2 a.m. Friday. Police responded to a 911 call about a home invasion and shots fired.
"If you feel threatened, you certainly have a right to defend yourself," said Williams.
San Marcos is about 30 miles south of Austin.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6603195.html
This lesson needs to be taught to every teenager in every school in the country. More and more law abiding citizens are arming themselves against the thugs that are breaking into our homes to do who knows what. One of these thugs had a real gun. What was he going to do? Kill the occupants of the home? And what were 16 year olds doing out at 2 in the morning? Where were the parents?
I have a 16 year old grandson. I can tell you that his mother knows were he's at all the time. And at 2 AM he's home in bed. Not running up and down the street. He's also a responsible gun owner. For his 13th birthday I gave him a single shot 410 shotgun. I had already been teaching him gun saftey. I know where the gun is, it's locked up with mine. He's not allowed to take it out unless I am with him. It's called teaching responsability. Something that seems to be lacking in a lot of homes now days. When he turns 18 in a couple years, he can take his gun out of my house. He will be legal to do so, and he is responsible enough.
I belive basic gun saftey should be taught in every school. Things like guns aren't toys and if you see one laying around, leave it alone and find a adult. But instead, we think we need to shield our kids from "that sort of thing". That's one of the reason that when small children do find a gun, the shoot themselves or a playmate. They see that in movies and they know it's just "pretend". Then it's too late.
With the exception of the gun I carry every day, every gun in my house is locked up. the only time they are out is when I'm going to the range or hunting. The 3 small grandsons, ages 2 thru 6 have already been taught that they are not toys, don't touch. I reinforce this every time they are with me and we're in the shop. It's really a shame when a 2 year old is smarter than a lot of adults.
Teach your childern a valuble lesson and maybe you won't have to bury them before they reach adulthood. A lesson 2 16 year olds in Texas could have used. Instead, thier families will now miss them forever.
Sept. 4, 2009, 3:40PM
SAN MARCOS, Texas — A man shot and killed two teenagers and wounded another when they tried breaking into his home early Friday, police said.
A fourth teenager was arrested and is expected to be charged with aggravated robbery.
Three of the four male teenagers who tried breaking into the home were armed, one with a handgun and two with pellet guns that looked like more powerful weapons, San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said.
One of the three college-aged people who lived in the rental home opened fire on the teens with a .40-caliber Glock pistol, killing two 16-year-olds and wounding another suspect. A 17-year-old suspect fled the scene but was captured and arrested after returning to the scene to check on his friends, police said. He's expected to be charged with aggravated robbery, Williams said.
The wounded suspect was taken to Brackenridge Hospital in Austin with non-life threatening injuries, Williams said. Officials say the wounded suspect is also expected to be charged.
Police did not identify the suspects or those who lived in the home. None of the residents were injured. One was a Texas State University student.
Williams said the shooter appeared to be acting in self-defense and "there doesn't appear to be a crime" related to the shooting.
The suspects are from Luling, about 20 miles southeast of San Marcos, Williams said. It does not appear they know those living at the home, he said.
The shooting happened shortly before 2 a.m. Friday. Police responded to a 911 call about a home invasion and shots fired.
"If you feel threatened, you certainly have a right to defend yourself," said Williams.
San Marcos is about 30 miles south of Austin.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6603195.html
This lesson needs to be taught to every teenager in every school in the country. More and more law abiding citizens are arming themselves against the thugs that are breaking into our homes to do who knows what. One of these thugs had a real gun. What was he going to do? Kill the occupants of the home? And what were 16 year olds doing out at 2 in the morning? Where were the parents?
I have a 16 year old grandson. I can tell you that his mother knows were he's at all the time. And at 2 AM he's home in bed. Not running up and down the street. He's also a responsible gun owner. For his 13th birthday I gave him a single shot 410 shotgun. I had already been teaching him gun saftey. I know where the gun is, it's locked up with mine. He's not allowed to take it out unless I am with him. It's called teaching responsability. Something that seems to be lacking in a lot of homes now days. When he turns 18 in a couple years, he can take his gun out of my house. He will be legal to do so, and he is responsible enough.
I belive basic gun saftey should be taught in every school. Things like guns aren't toys and if you see one laying around, leave it alone and find a adult. But instead, we think we need to shield our kids from "that sort of thing". That's one of the reason that when small children do find a gun, the shoot themselves or a playmate. They see that in movies and they know it's just "pretend". Then it's too late.
With the exception of the gun I carry every day, every gun in my house is locked up. the only time they are out is when I'm going to the range or hunting. The 3 small grandsons, ages 2 thru 6 have already been taught that they are not toys, don't touch. I reinforce this every time they are with me and we're in the shop. It's really a shame when a 2 year old is smarter than a lot of adults.
Teach your childern a valuble lesson and maybe you won't have to bury them before they reach adulthood. A lesson 2 16 year olds in Texas could have used. Instead, thier families will now miss them forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
