ID’ing ‘Potential Killers’, UK Gun Control in Action and Learning From California – TTAG Daily Digest

Doctors and gun clubs to report potential killers to the police under proposed firearms laws following the slaying of two teens by their father

And who will decide who the “potential killers” are? . . .

Doctors and gun clubs could soon be asked to report potential killers to stop a repeat of the brutal slaying of two teenagers carried out by their father.

John Edwards, 67, gunned down Jennifer, 13, and Jack, 15, at their West Pennant Hills home in Sydney’s north-west on Thursday.

Edwards had been turned away from three gun clubs just months before brutally shooting his children.

Despite those rejections, he was able to join St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre, where he kept two handguns before the murders.

A Month of Data Provides Ample Evidence for Why Law-Abiding Citizens Own Firearms

Shhh…don’t tell Gabby Giffords . . .

There is no denying that lawful gun owners use their firearms in self-defense far more often than those decrying the “myth” of a good guy with a gun would care to admit. Firearms are, in fact, used for self-defense often and effectively.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notorious for its anti-gun bias, acknowledges as much in its 2013 report on gun violence research.

There, in conjunction with the National Research Council, the CDC concludedthat almost all national, comprehensive studies on the subject find that firearms are used for lawful defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3.5 million times every year in the United States.

Even assuming that the actual number of defensive uses is on the low end of that range (and there’s good reason to believe that, in fact, it falls at the higher end), firearms are used to protect life and property more often than they are used to commit crimes, according to the CDC.

Gunman blasts car driven by woman, 51, three times as she sits stuck in morning rush hour traffic but amazingly she was not injured

Fortunately this kind of thing can’t happen in the UK . . .

Shocking footage shows a gunman running up to a car in a rush hour traffic jam in London and repeatedly shooting at a 51-year-old woman at the wheel.

In a clip which looks more like something from an American gangster film, the BMW is seen waiting in traffic at 8.40am before a man in a balaclava runs up to it from the pavement.

The dirver’s side window shatters at the first bullet strikes the car. The gunman then fires twice again into the car before fleeing the scene in Kingsbury, near Edgware, north London.

Thomas Zebulun Lewter Alabama Church Gun

He got up in church and talked about his divorce. Then he reached for a gun, Alabama cops say

This is why so many churches allow and even encourage concealed carry . . .

A group of quick-thinking churchgoers tackled an Alabama man to the ground after he tried to pull a handgun in the building, police said, according to the Decatur Daily.

The man, 34-year-old Thomas Zebulun Lewter, had reportedly gone up to the pulpit of the O’Neal Church of Christ in Athens, Ala., and had begun speaking about his pending divorce when people became uncomfortable, AL.com reported.

A spokesperson for the Limestone County Sheriff’s Office told WHNT Lewter “called out” his wife and father-in-law, who were at the service.

“His actions made congregants uneasy, and many of them left the sanctuary while he was speaking,” the spokesperson told The News Courier. “Other congregants approached the pulpit and tried to convince Lewter to stop talking and sit down, but he refused and attempted to grab a handgun he had on his person.”

 

California Supreme Court

California Supreme Court Just Gave Us a Timely Reminder of How Important Kennedy’s Replacement Is

The entire state is a pretty good reminder . . .

The California Supreme Court just gave people who believe in self-defense a timely reminder of the importance of who replaces Justice Anthony Kennedy. At the end of June, the California court banned the sale of any semi-automatic handgun models made since May 2013.  Since 2013, there are 50 percent fewer handgun models available for sale in California. It is just a matter of time until no more new semi-automatic handguns can be legally sold.

The California court decided that even if a gun control law is “impossible” to obey, that doesn’t invalidate it.  It ignored the state’s Civil Code that declared, “[t]he law never requires impossibilities.” The court raised no concerns about its decision eventually leading to gun bans.

In a closely related case in federal court California argued that “safety” regulations could ban all guns but one handgun and it would still be Constitutional.

Florida Gun Control Opinions

courtesy tcpalm.com

4 very different takes on gun reform from Florida gun owners

Southwest Florida gun owners’ opinions on gun control ran the gamut:

Restrict handguns, AR-15s

“Handguns should not be carried by civilians. They are not a legitimate means of self-defense, which would require years of training to be effective,” wrote Estero resident Bruce Castka, 71. He spent 30 years in the U.S. Army reserves. “It is an embarrassment to me that most of the civilized world has reasonable gun control laws but we must remain a nation of cowboys governed by the tyranny of the NRA.”

No new laws needed

“This country has thousands of gun laws on the books that would, if enforced, reduce somewhat the access to firearms by dangerous or bad people,” wrote David Southall, 73, a retired museum educator of Bonita Springs. “Why not enforce the existing rules fairly and strictly?”

comments

  1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the 'Good and Hard' Horns" PR says:

    It’s Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS!!!

    YES! YES! YES!

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the 'Good and Hard' Horns" PR says:

      Check out what Kavanaugh had to say about semi-automatic rifles and gun registration:

      https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-kavanaughs-record-on-second-amendment-gun-rights/

      “There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.”

      (Snip)

      “D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.”

      As Flounder said in ‘Animal House’ :

      “Oh, boy, is this GREAT!”…

      1. avatar ATTAGReader says:

        While he seems like a good choice, note the point made in the second opinion that licensing of gun owners does have a longstanding tradition and therefore would appear to be constitutional. I have a CHP in a shall issue state so I should not be bothered by that point, but I can see how a regime in a “liberal” state would try to expand the concept to any and every gun, with odious and expensive licensing regimes. These would obviously create the desired database if they had “long gun licenses” as well as “handgun licenses” and then subtracted from the former the names of hunting license holders. The remainder would be considered by the state to be owners of self defense shotguns and evil black rifles, subject to further restrictions, confiscations, etc. Where there is a gun-grabber will, there is always a weasely legal way to justify it.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          If you have to ask your ahole neighbors who needed a job (your government) for the permission and the means to overthrow them under Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence, then you’ve not killed the motherfuckers in a timely enough manner.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    The potential killers are easy to spot. They’re the ones threatening to rape and murder the families of hunters on social media.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      If only there was a simple, automated tool that could identify the originating IP address of where the threat came from over the internet. Then the police could charge and submit for prosecution to the DA who made the threat.

      Wait… IP logs are still a ‘thing’, aren’t they?

      1. avatar Kurt says:

        Well, yes, except when they’re useless, which is far more often then you might suppose.

        Think free wifi at various venues, cell phone tethering, and all of that.

        Kurt

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          The *account* has a name on it.

          You don’t think someone would think twice about doing it again if the FBI sat them down for a little ‘chat’?

          If the word gets out that making threats can have some real-world consequences, we might see a marked decline in that kind of crap…

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Geoff: “The *account* has a name on it.”
          Yes it does.
          So do car registrations.
          The problem is this: registration doesn’t mean the person named therein is the one driving.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      The potential killers are easy to spot, they vote POS (D). Or they have an MD after their name. Or their last name is Kennedy. Or they use scissors as birth control and sell the resultant parts for food. Or they espouse and applaud socialism, (as a means to) communism. Or they are muslim. Or they sell drugs. . .

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Firearms Registry told ONE club not to allow John Edwards access firearms but neglected to tell OTHER clubs of this ruling and didn’t match the name when he applied through another club.

      So the law abiding firearm owners have to be punished for bureaucratic bungling and incompetence.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah a murderous bastard wouldn’t get far at my Baptist church. Tackled?!? He’d get shot…happy about Brett! Close to perfect( until he’s NOT). Oh Geoff- this site is loosey goosey.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    “And who will decide who the “potential killers” are?”

    Easy. They’re the ones with the medical degrees.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html

    1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

      But it’s an article about Australia, which has socialized medicine… and so they have fewer medical errors and deaths, according to all the research published by liberal socialist leaning medical journals, so it must be true.

  5. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Speaking of Florida, we’re gonna need SCOTUS to advance anything pro gun here with those Fucking attitudes around.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      both sides have been leery of taking gun cases before the court because of the uncertainty of the outcome….expect that to change….

  6. avatar AZgunner says:

    That shooting in the UK seems very suspicious. Sounds very much like a targeted organized crime type killing.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Seems odd they would compare it to America when it clearly didn’t happen in America. As a matter of fact, if this happened in America in any other place than the ghetto, there is a high probability the assassin would be shot in short order. Either by armed citizens or armed police….. Especially an amature half ass assassin like this guy. Couldn’t even ambush an unarmed immobile 50 something woman.

  7. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    “In a closely related case in federal court California argued that “safety” regulations could ban all guns but one handgun and it would still be Constitutional.”
    I am guessing that the one and only pistol that Californians can use for self defense would be a single shot muzzle loading flintlock?
    According to Gabby:
    “The “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth meant to scare people into buying guns for self-defense.

    The truth? People rarely use guns for self-defense. Read more: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
    I am forced to assume that all those occasions when a victim uses a firearm to defend themselves and their families are just “myths”. Not that the anti-gun media would ever admit otherwise.

  8. avatar Jug says:

    BK is death on phone privacy though!
    Doesn’t believe in the fourth amendent!

  9. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You will lose your gun civil rights in California. But you can still walk around naked with strap on dildo, well fitted for public attire, on days the government gives you permission.

    And you have legal marijuana intoxication.

  10. avatar bryan1980 says:

    The “kitchen fire” is just another myth to sell more fire extinguishers. We’ll show those greedy fire extinguisher manufacturers, preying on people’s fears!

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    California regrets that it has but one ass to have shit broken off in.

  12. avatar Kyle says:

    Nothing really surprises me anymore. Anyone who REALLY wants to know whats going on should definitely check this out, its a pretty scary warning from a history and religion professor. Pretty damn eye opening: https://ancientprophecy.weebly.com/

  13. avatar Jim Bullock\ says:

    It’s almost like the activist anti’s are spun up that having textualist judges throws the policy issues back into the political branches where in a representative government, the people are represented.

    “Activists” have an agenda, not finding out what the represented people think, but imposing a pre-determined outcome on those people, through the appearance of representation. When they can’t control the legislature, they try to change the constitution. Since they failed with the ERA, they’ve been looking to legislate via the judiciary, and advocating judges that have the same opinion, and back the activists’ policies. They get extra pissed at textualists because that doesn’t just stall their program, but by throwing the issues into the political arms, the issues might get a hearing. While Mr. Hoag’s rumpspringer might stampede a judge or three, given enough time, even the CDC’s DGU analysis doesn’t stay suppressed. .5 to 3.5 million DGU’s a year? Now it’s a debate, even if you only credit consequentialist arguments.

    Sadly for us all, after the defeat of the ERA they learned the same lesson they learned when Herself’s overlord cabal-hatched health care takeover was stymied: skulk harder, shenanigan more. We can’t expect them to remember a quote from Lady Thatcher, no matter how improbably successful she was: “First you win the argument. Then you win the election.”

  14. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Bruce is betraying his oath.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email