Defying the Order, Another Hostage Shot and Slamming the DOJ – TTAG Daily Digest

Gun rights activists post plans for 3D firearms after judge’s order blocking them

Who would do such a thing? . . .

In response, five gun-rights activist groups based in California and Washington state posted a website called Code Is Free Speech, along with what it advertised were CAD blueprints for several high-powered firearms, including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, the AR-10 battle rifle and the Beretta 92FS semiautomatic pistol.

The site could be in violation of Lasnik’s order, which barred the federal government from enforcing the settlement with Defense Distributed “as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued.”

Actually no. No, they’re not in violation of the judge’s order at all.

Aurora Colorado Home Invasion Police Shooting

courtesy thedailybeast.com

He Saved His Grandson From a Naked Intruder, Then Police Shot Him Dead

Monday’s Aurora, Colorado police-involved shooting . . .

It all began early Monday morning, when a naked man pushed through Black’s front door and entered the Aurora home. The intruder pulled the sleeping 11-year-old off the couch, then attempted to strangle him and drown him in a bathtub.

Black, a 73-year-old decorated war veteran, fought back with his stepson, and they struck the intruder on the head with a vase, but the naked man refused to back down and continued attacking the boy. The grandfather, who had a concealed-carry permit, then fatally shot the intruder with his 9mm pistol, an attorney for his family told The Denver Post.

The situation then took an unthinkably tragic turn. When Aurora Police Department officers arrived at the scene at about 1:30 a.m., a cop shot and killed Black, whom authorities said was still armed. The department later issued a statement saying the scene was “chaotic and violent” when cops arrived.

LAPD body-cam footage shows shooting that killed hostage, armed suspect

That’s two dead hostages in the last two weeks . . .

Police released graphic body-cam footage on Tuesday in connection to an shooting in Los Angeles that left an armed suspect and a hostage dead last month.

The video, recorded on June 16, showed Los Angeles Police Department officers as they responded to a call about a suspect, later identified as Guillermo Perez, who had reportedly stabbed his ex-girlfriend moments earlier, according to police.

Responding officers arrived to the scene in Los Angeles’ Van Nuys area at around 1 p.m. to find Perez standing outside a church with a metal folding chair and a large kitchen knife in his hands, according to the footage.

Sarah Sanders Trump Slams DOJ 3D Guns Settlement

courtesy Washington Times and AP

White House slams Justice over 3D-printed guns

Pay attention to what they do, not what they say . . .

The White House is slamming the Department of Justice for dropping litigation that would have prevented the posting of instructions on how to make 3D-printed guns.

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday that DOJ “made a deal without the president’s approval.”

She said the president was “glad this efforts was delayed” so he can review the material. Sanders added that the administration supports the longstanding law against owning plastic guns.

3 Things People Don’t Get About the Homemade Gun Making Story

That’s because they make no attempt to understand it . . .

1) Nothing of any new significance to anyone but Defense Distributed really happened. That company, founded by Cody Wilson, a provocateur who designed the first functional 3D-printed plastic gun, is now out from under an expensive multi-year lawsuit against the federal government. The suit challenged the feds for using arcane International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) rules to restrain his group from distributing potentially gun-making software. The organization can now pursue its business/cause of distributing hardware and software for home gun use freely. …

2) This is not about the Trump administration being wild pro-gun ideologues. Despite speculations spread, for example, in a Wired story on the settlement, the decision was a specific technical decision based on ITAR, not about feeding or appeasing some imagined Second Amendment fanaticism on Trump’s part. …

3) The case is as much about free speech as it is about gun rights. Since the case ended via settlement and not a decision, no explicit precedent has been set that these specific computer instructional files count as expression protected under the First Amendment. But that was the core of the legal argument Defense Distributed was making, and is still having to make against all the new authorities trying to restrain it.

Have you been wondering how hoplophobic havens like Massachusetts come up with the laws they do?

Maura Healey Alyssa Milano Massachusetts Gun Laws

courtsy facebook.com

Kodiak, Alaska from DucksUnlimited on Vimeo.

comments

  1. avatar DaveL says:

    It’s occurred to me that this whole fiasco is basically a perfect storm of lots of things the press knows less than nothing about: the law, guns, freedom of speech, the internet, manufacturing…

    I mean, do you think there might be some angle to cram farming and mathematics in there somehow, just for the entertainment value?

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      Like actual statistics on gun deaths, and the legitimate use of firearms to prevent crop and livestock loss? Sure, if you work at it.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      The corporate media know exactly what they are doing. Those that write the scripts are no fools. The useful idiots are the ones that read the teleprompter and claim to be journalists/reporters.

      Most people are aware the media is the enemy of the people. Hence why they refuse to watch it like they did in the early 2000s. Now the propagandists have to adapt by controlling the social media sphere.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      “a perfect storm of lots of things the press knows less than nothing about . . . ”

      Can we all get off the square that says the media is trying to do anything but support tyrannical communist MFn POS (D) and their communism?

      That was rhetorical.

  2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    WTF was that woman doing within reach of that creep with a knife? The cops are there, a nonlethal is fired and still she’s hanging around?

    As for the LAPD, giving NYPD a run for the money on shots fired vs target hits.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s one of those places where homeless drug users hangout. She had a walker too.

      LAPD has been a horrible department since forever. Leadership and qualified immunity has made sure that it stays that way. You can’t depend on them to save your life, you can expect them to take your life. It’s not entirely their fault though, the voters share some of the blame too.

      I remember when there was a women who was shot by a cop as she was being held hostage. A lot of people were arguing that it was a good shoot just because she survived. Was this latest LAPD killing of an innocent woman a good shoot too or is it different because the hostage died this time? I said that one was wrong and I will say this one is wrong too.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Vapor lock. People freeze up in these kinds of situations all the time.

    3. avatar Nacho Camacho says:

      Blame the victim… well done Ranger Rick. Well done.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Yes I do “blame the victim”, she had a duty to protect herself, everyone does. If you see a mope with a knife behaving erratically and threatening people, if you see the police show up with lights, sirens and guns drawn and then you see and hear them fire a nonlethal THAT’s a CLUE to unass that area. But no, she couldn’t even do that. That doesn’t excuse the poor shooting, but “the victim” contributed to her predicament.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Remember the young woman who was killed at Trader Joe’s?

          During the shootout, I saw what I thought was a man in a white T-shirt, walking in the doors that the cops were actively shooting at. Now I wonder if it was the dead store employee, who is said to have been going through the door when she was killed.

          Seriously, folks, if you hear gunfire, seek cover or at least concealment immediately.

          In the case at hand, I do wonder where she was when the cops were shooting at him with shotguns full of bean bags, and what, if anything, she was doing to hobble away from him. That in no way excuses shooting at her 18 times rapid fire, but if she wasn’t there where the subject could grab her faster than the cops could shoot him, she would have been substantially less likely to get shot.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          Nope. It was a bad shoot. Plain and simple. I default to supporting the cops and I love citing case and statutory law to inform ill informed people, but this was just bad. You don’t shoot, if your shooting puts someone’s life in unreasonable risk…. if she got stabbed to death by the bad guy, then I would say “horse on her for being there”, but she got shot to death by cops who were shooting because the bad guy put her life at risk (?)… sorry, that doesn’t fly. Maybe if she was inside the house behind the suspect and an errant bullet found her, I would write it off as a horrible tragedy, but this was strait up incompetence/negligence….. And “hostage shots” aren’t firing squad activities. See how the ERIW guy gained control of the other cops to warn off sympathic fire? How much more important is that when it comes to a hostage shot? (Hint:: it’s really damn important). Horrible OIS. Negligent homicide.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, cop story that I got was that cops were responding to her being stabbed, so she may not have been very mobile. Enjoy blaming cops, but if that “beanbag” round had been 00 buck, she’d be alive now.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        California statutory law draws a legal distinction between an ERIW (bean bag gun) and a firearm. While there’s really no technical distinction, shooting someone with an ERIW is LEGALLY the same as hitting them with a baton/ASP/ etc…. shooting someone with a shotgun is a use of deadly force and has to be justified…. in this case it probably would have been better if they shot him with 00 buck before he got to the old woman in the walker. Policy (usually in big cities) tends toward reasonably exhausting all lessor uses of available force before resorting to deadly force. Also, there is a bill being pushed in the California state legislature that would require cops to meet force with equal force and not “reasonable” force. L.A. cops (again, like a lot of big city cops in CA) are already instituting department orders in this vein. These cops were probably technically required to knife fight him before resorting to the use of firearms. I’m sure the “Ferguson Effect”, Millenial cop syndrome, and “time and distance” training played a role too…. it was still a bad shoot, but there are more fundamental problems involved here.

    5. avatar Oliver says:

      By that logic why dont we just arm all cops with m203s with HEDP rounds with a blast radius of 15 meters or so and call it a day. After all, if you’re close to a perp odds are better than average that you are one too. If not, well, God can sort out the guilty ones later. Less paperwork and the creme de la creme of humanity get to go home happily in one piece to eventually enjoy their publicly funded pension plans which are helping to bankrupt our towns and cities actoss the US.

      Don’t get me wrong though, in the city I live I really do “need” the police. You see, it is illegal for me to carry a weapon, even a stick, which is a misdemeanor offence, for self defense. If I carried something more substantial and got caught, which is likely as in my city probable cause is not required for personal searches, for my own saftey of course, I will get a mandatory 3 year sentence at a maximum security prison. That would be most unfortunate as there would then be no one left to care for my mother with dementia. So yes, I really do “need” the services of the police. Because if I chose not to use their services I would either go to prison or be summarily executed. I get it. Really, I do.

      And another thing, it pisses me off to see my flag with a stupid blue line through it. I served as a Marine for the US flag. Not some childish grey amd white flag with a blue line through it that is a mockery of our Country’s flag. Last I checked it was still red, white and blue. And that my friends is the only flag I will swear allegiance to.

  3. avatar Robert Powell says:

    when we have cockroaches in the drivers seat in the just us department and the f.b.i. headed by the lying idiots that obama put in the department there is a very large chance of one or more of them paying someone to start this civil war. all at the orders of soros,the clintons the communist new york commissars and THE REPUBLICRATS IN THE NEVER-TRUMPERS.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Don’t forget that assholes that Obama had appointed to military supervisory roles, and whose POS communist flunkies in the military, advanced to dangerous ranks.

      Even in the NAVY SEALS.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        The SEALs went down the tubes long before O’bomba. Just read the “Rogue Warrior” books by Dick Marchenko.
        Its not in his books, but when he was Captain of Red Cell back in the 80’s they never failed to take an objective(training, OFC). That embarrassed the Admirals who were supposed to stop that sort of thing, so they got rid of him by trumping up false charges, and then reversing that and retiring him with full pension. Then Red Cell started scripting its exercises, with the home troops writing the script.
        Coincidentally, the home team started winning every exercise(DUH!). The Admirals looked good, Red Cell always lost as instructed, and all was right with the world. Except for when all that useless (and expensive) ‘training’ comes home to roost, as in they don’t know what to do without a script.

        1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          Always thought the Red Cell concept was amazing, but the military in general at the staff officer level and up is too bureaucratic and CYA invested to actually run an effective OPFOR training program. The closest thing I’ve seen was the 509th Airborne as the OPFOR at JRTC. But specifically force on force operational theatre training, not insider or terrorist threat training for installations. When I was getting out the Army EOD community was looking to colleges for electrical engineering and chemistry students to sort of “freelance” as bad guy bombers. EOD guys always run other EOD guys training devices and scenarios, but the problem was we all though the same and had the same training. Going outside the field would make for more useful and authentic experience.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    Cops love killing hostages. It quickly ends hostage situations without all that boring negotiation stuff, and then all the cops get to go home safe. Because, after all, that’s the only thing that matters. Right? Oh, except for the paid time off to nurse the cops through such a traumatic event.

    Poor little piggies.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Remind me why they still have SWAT.

      Maybe they should take that money for SWAT and train their patrol officers how not to shoot innocent people.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      *BANG (kneecap). BANG (kneecap).* “There, now I determine who’s who at my leisure”

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There’s an old joke about what was worse than being hijacked by Palestinians?

      It was being rescued by the Egyptians.

  5. avatar FedUp says:

    LAPD: when you’d rather see an 18 round fusillade launched at a hostage than carefully aimed shots…give them a call.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Sadly the Keystone Cops seem to be in charge…I don’t know what’s worse. The poor lady shot at knifepoint or this VET. PATHETIC…as a 64 year old guy I find the gunprinting thing quite amusing.But that’s just me…

  7. avatar Brewski says:

    Back in the day you pretty much had to yell a verbal threat while pointing a gun an officer or actively shoot at them for them to shoot back.

    Nowadays just having a gun, hearing the word “gun” or holding a gun (regardless of where it is pointed) is an invitation to be shot by the police.

    Context is key and the police policy is turning a blind eye to assessing before taking any action.

    I mean, seriously, any civilian would go straight to jail if they shot any person without them presenting a viable threat to their life, not a perceived threat.

    1. avatar Brewski says:

      Are Rules of Engagement no longer followed by the police? How hard is it to assess a situation and/or issue verbal commands to de-escalate a confusing and volatile situation? How hard is it to not fire your damn weapon unless you are fired upon?

      I mean, we have managed to capture known bombers and terrorists without killing them, but apparently local citizens in a “confusing situation” are too much to handle?

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        Police don’t operate under any rules of engagement. The “law” is whatever they say it is…
        Let’s look at the differences in the way police are treated after a questionable shooting:
        A citizen that uses deadly force, even justifiably, will be immediately handcuffed and arrested, until the situation is “sorted out”. He will most likely be “detained” in a holding cell at the police station until the prosecutor makes a decision whether to prosecute. Questioning by police will most certainly be forceful and immediate, with police interrogators purposely trying to “trip up” the citizen by attempting to elicit contradictory statements–standard police interrogation tactics.
        A police officer in an identical situation will NOT be handcuffed or arrested. The police officer will be afforded a union attorney and will have 72 hours in which to “get his story straight”. In addition, a police-friendly prosecutor will most likely hesitate to prefer charges, as “they are on the same team”. Most likely an extended taxpayer-paid “vacation” (administrative leave) will result.
        Not so for the ordinary citizen.
        Double standard?
        You bet…

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        “How hard is it to not fire your damn weapon unless you are fired upon?”

        I dunno how many times are you willing to get shot first? With a modern semi-auto and standard magazine I hope the answer is: “a lot” if you plan to let someone fire first.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Requiring government employees to wait until there is an actual threat is not unreasonable. They are quite well paid to take risks. If they don’t like it, they can find other work. I am sure most cops might almost be qualified to pick up cans on the side of the road.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Really? I mean, really?? Sounds like a good rationale for cops shooting everyone they see. 300-400 a day, each, perhaps. Is that OK? Will the department pay for all that ammo?

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      They have ballistic shields for a reason. Shields are rarely utilized to their full potential.

      The French appear to be many times better at dealing with crazy situations. They have to deal with AK-47s and Muslim terrorists, not old white veterans defending their grandkids.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Where are you getting your ideas on ye old time policing from? Are these experiments you’ve conducted yourself ‘back in the day’? How many times did you try pointing a gun at a cop without verbalizing?

      If you think that police shoot people too much today and want to ‘go back’ to another time, you better go WAY back… like WWI. Police shooting up to around the 1960s was almost unregulated. In the 20s, 30s and 40s they would regularly set up ambushes to take out suspects without so much as giving them a chance to surrender. Ever see what they did to Bonnie and Clyde’s car? Pretty common way to “capture” (suspected!) criminals.

      Even after the 1950s it was common and legal to shoot criminals in the back if they tried to run, even into the 1980s and the rules requiring an imminent threat were… well, mostly non-existent. And if you want to know where the trope of most cops carrying around ‘drop guns’ came from, look no further than the 1960s. The idea of prosecuting a cop for a “bad shoot” was almost foreign. And there sure as hell weren’t the sort of codified rules on use of force that developed since the 90s.

      The only thing that has changed is that there is a spotlight on it. A few decades ago you would never have heard about these shootings unless you lived nearby or it happened to someone famous. The Rodney King incident (may he rest in pool) was probably the beginning of major media attention to how police used force. Looking back far before then you’re just not going to know much of the story.

      That’s not to say that it’s not worth examining current practices, but I always laugh when people act like cops were all Mayberry fellas back in the day. Anyone arrested by the LAPD in 1950 would probably beg to have 2018 cops instead.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Going back to 1950s or pre WWII policing would be a mess for most Americans. Cops shot down gangsters and people that might steal a little food to eat….. yes, that is the kind of thing that happened. If you got picked up for something and denied doing it, you were in for a beating. Police would arrest someone because someone known to them would suggest it. A man might get put in jail, not have the $30 fine and he would get a month chopping weeds and his wife and kids would never know what happened to him, they could easily get put on the street.
        Before WWII, felons of color rarely made it to the penitentiary, they were shot “while attempting escape”. Plenty of people of color were rounded up in late spring to chop weeds and build roads – government sponsored slavery. The good ol’ days weren’t that great, if you didn’t have money.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Yeah I didn’t even mention the race issue. One of my favorite photos for pointing out how police in the ‘olden days’ were not the kind andy griffin characters we all like to believe is the one of a city cop in mirrored glasses letting his K9 chomp down on some black guy who appears not to be resisting at all.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        I see what you’re getting at, as we still have a lot of old fashioned ‘just follow my orders at lightning speed and I won’t fuck you up’ cops in my rural county. In fact, when I was young, I tried to verbally assert my rights, and they took it upon themselves to beat the crap out of me and charge me with attacking them. Yep, you can be a felon for not lifting a finger to defend yourself from violent perjuring felons. And if you do try to defend yourself, they can kill you, and they could have killed you in 1950 too,

        But I think this guy has a point too, mainly a point about the massive overuse of paramilitary death squads S*W*A*T:
        http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/how-to-serve-a-warrant-1972-versus-today-by-lt-harry-thomas/

    4. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Got to agree with Hannibal here. This constant theme posted here about “the good old days” of policing where some big burly Irishman “just walked around and easily clubbed bad guys without having to fire a shot” is myth. Unless your talking about 1800s policing. And back then police were far more corrupt then they are today, being apart of political machines that regularly broke laws to stay in power. Also, in the good old days, the bill of rights didn’t even apply to the states, and each state flat out ignored the BOR up until the SCOTUS ruling in the 60s. Police probably kill less innocents today then they ever did, but, like with crime, you just hear about every single instance of it, and assume that’s the norm, due to social media.

    5. avatar DaveL says:

      Nowadays just having a gun, hearing the word “gun” or holding a gun (regardless of where it is pointed) is an invitation to be shot by the police.

      No, now it’s “reaching” or allowing your hand to be in the vicinity of some other place where a gun might conceivably be hidden.

      Try going through your day without either hand ever being in there vicinity of your waistband sometime.

  8. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Cody is insane or insanely smart for doing what he’s doing which is tying the first amendment and the second together. It makes it harder for it to be isolated and treated like a second class citizen.

  9. avatar New Continental Army says:

    “supports the longstanding law against owning plastic guns.”

    Huh? Since when were plastic guns banned?

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Well Shit. Now I remember. I honestly forgot all about that.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Don’t feel bad, it was silly and unconstitutional law then, and it is silly and unconstitutional law now. And unenforceable, by definition. If it’s undetectable, how did you know I had one?

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “And unenforceable, by definition. If it’s undetectable, how did you know I had one?”

          When it falls out of your pants leg, that’s a pretty good clue, right there.
          Another is when they pat you down “for their protection.”

          But the law is dumb. Unless they start going through a lot of paperwork at LGS’s, they have little idea of what’s in my safe. And it takes a warrant to go there.
          “Ghost guns”? I’ve seen a lot of articles where some person with an inflated idea of self-importance tells me how many gun traces were done in the last (pick a number between 2 and 24) years, with absolutely no indication of how any of those traces actually helped an investigation. (It’s very similar to Shotspotter; lots of reported gunshots, very few arrests.) I see no indication of how serial numbers actually help prevent violent crime.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        No such thing as an “undetectable gun”, assholes. Unless we’re talking about a one-shot wonder that will likely do more damage to the user than the target, in which case (like assholes that’ll make a pipe out of a [mostly dried] dog-turd if it means smoking free weed) then ANYTHING IS AN UNDETECTABLE GUN.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      1988, with the Undetectable Firearms Act, which stipulates that it is illegal to manufacture or possess a gun that does not activate a metal detector.

      What we think of as a “plastic gun”, a Glock or similar, has way more than enough to do that. Defense Distributed’s Liberator design includes metal parts specifically not to run afoul of the act. I believe all of the designs involved in the suit are compliant with the act. It’s really red herring, meant to stir an emotional response.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        The designs call for metal but that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t just take it out, I guess is the point.

        But it’s a moot point.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          In addition to containing nearly a pound of metal, the Glock frame has enough material (Barium I’ve heard) to make a clear gun shaped shadow when put through a X-ray machine.

    2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      why i only own porcelain Glock 7s

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      FAIRFAX, Va.— Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, released the following statement on Tuesday:

      “Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.”

      1. avatar Jason says:

        What’s that even supposed to mean? All weapons are undetectable don’t you know…

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851

        1. avatar Donkey Lips says:

          Maybe they’re talking about the finger gun? Remember the mime in National Lampoon’s Loaded Weapon One? Scary business.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Remember when the NRA insisted that law wouldn’t impact existing firearms and included an expiration date on it so it wouldn’t? Looks like this is (at least) the second time in less than a year Wayne has admitted he outright lied to the membership when Reagan was President.

        Government, Hollywood and the NRA are the only places where you can do literally the exact opposite of your job and get paid millions.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Remember when the NRA insisted that law wouldn’t impact existing firearms and included an expiration date on it so it wouldn’t? Looks like this is (at least) the second time in less than a year Wayne has admitted he outright lied to the membership when Reagan was President.”

          Well, the law didn’t affect existing marketed guns, so there’s no lie there.
          The law did have an expiration date, just like the AWB. That is was extended (forever) doesn’t make this a lie.
          So, no, he didn’t lie about that.

  10. avatar Big Joe says:

    Like the off-duty cop who pulled his gun on a customer after he had put a pack of mentos in his pocket thinking he hadn’t paid for it…but he had. What a jackwagon and I think he didn’t even get in trouble for it…wtf.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      How about the female Chicago cop who pulled her gun on a barrista at Starbuck’s because he wouldn’t give her free stuff?

  11. avatar MKV says:

    Is the CAD file site down for anyone else?

  12. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “The site could be in violation of Lasnik’s order, which barred the federal government from enforcing the settlement with Defense Distributed “as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued.”

    As the order is UnConstitutional,No.

  13. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “She said the president was “glad this efforts was delayed” so he can review the material. Sanders added that the administration supports the longstanding law against owning plastic guns.”

    Ah just a bit too late as in the mid 1970’s too late.

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    3-things-people-dont-get-about-the-homemade firearms

    That’s because they make no attempt to understand it,that or they are Marxist Morons.

  15. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Watching the LAPD cam footage, you have an officer in front of the man holding the knife to the woman’s throat. You have other officers off to the side. It looks like everyone opens fire, I know it is easy to armchair quarterback but the body cam officer had an easy headshot at the knife wielding man. I can’t recall but they fired something like 15 total rounds? Two of which struck the hostage.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Three cops fired. I think it was the cop on the side that shot the lady (what appears to be in her head).

      The LAPD make it sound like the lady died from a knife wound to the throat. They don’t want to mention where the old lady was shot. They say it will take months to figure things out.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        I agree. With three officers firing the two on the side were least likely to have a clear shot.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        When one cop shoots all cops shoot.

        They don’t want to miss out on the opportunity.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          That’s the way you beat them. Like Randy Weaver. When surrounded by Feds(it works even better on them. the higher up, the stupider they get) take good cover, pop off a couple rounds, and then duck deep while they all open up on each other. Nobody wants to let a good gunfight good to waste. They’re all mainlining on adrenaline, they’re shaking, and they all want desperately to shoot something.
          That is a profitable situation for someone who understands cover.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Communication and lines of fire fubared

      Difficult for regular patrol officers who arrive on scene haphazardly to determine a designated shooter like a tactical response would dictate

      Contagious fire also a problem. Guy has a knife, if you haven’t got a shot, you shouldn’t be shooting. Contagious fire is also a problem on ranges! Ever been in training or a competition where one person jumps the gun, so to speak, and fires before the command? Suddenly half the line is firing? Then the whole line, except for the one confused idiot standing there with his sidearm in one hand and pecker in the other (the only guy that heard the instructions right)?

      Contagious fire is a significant factor in a lot of these shootings and should be dealt with better in training. But there are a millions useless classes that take its place instead. Gotta make sure you have the state mandated 20 hours of sensitivity training a year, after all, that stuff’s important.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    What someone SAYS matters when it comes to this stuff, not just what they do. For example, Trump’s boneheaded (anti-2nd) tweets were used by the anti-2nd lawyers and AGs in this latest push against the 1st and 2nd Amendment and helped convince the judge. Winning!

  17. avatar CZJay says:

    When Is It OK To Violate The Four Rules?

    Shooting in scenario #1 could kill the hostage and innocent people in the line of fire. One of the innocent people you shoot dead could be a child and the hostage could have already lived a long life. The best thing you could do is train for closing the distance and contact shots, so you can stop the killer without harming anyone else and save the hostage. If you can’t save the hostage because of the restrictive circumstances, you shouldn’t be blamed for the death of the hostage; that is the fault of the murderer not the person who didn’t want to kill innocent people.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Me, too. Closest cop could have taken 2 steps and fired contact shot to the head. Perp had a knife, not a machine gun, just SHOOT the mofo. But don’t miss! Don’t wait and wait, passing on easy shots and using beanbags until he starts sawing an old lady’s head off. WTF were they thinking?

      1. avatar Matt(TX) says:

        Larry’s got it right. Walk up point and shoot. One shot, no collateral damage.

  18. avatar Hermione says:

    Too many of you here think you are SWAT or special forces because you own 15 firearms, 10k rounds of ammo, tacticool gear, you punch holes on a piece of paper at the range, and you carry a flashlight, a knife, and some paracord. Take it easy princess!

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      We know we’re not S*W*A*T.
      We don’t have negligent discharges and we don’t shoot innocent people.

      Nice attempt at trolling.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I know I’m not SWAT. How do I know I’m not SWAT?

      Because I don’t go around shooting random dogs for fun, that’s how I know I’m not SWAT. I know I’m not SWAT because I don’t go tossing flash-bangs into a baby’s crib. I know I’m not SWAT because when my pager goes off, I respond to a scene and do something other than stand around with my thumb up my ass, posing in tacti-cool gear.

      Goddamn right, I’m not SWAT.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Touche’…
        or… geez, that was a good shot there!

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      For a second there I thought you were talking about cops.

  19. avatar JW says:

    “Pay attention to what they do, not what they say . . .”

    So – when left wing gun grabbers trash gun rights and free speech rights I should believe them and be concerned, but when right wing gun grabbers like Trump do, I should ignore them? No thanks.

    The administration that won’t speak up to defend my rights today will be trying to infringe them tomorrow.

  20. avatar Jari says:

    When I read keyboard commandos on the shots fired/targets hit of the NYPD or LAPD it makes me laugh. Most of you never shot anything else than a turkey or a target at the range, give me a break! I’d like to see how bad you all are with tunnel vision etc.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I`ve never shot a paper deliverywoman in the back either…

    2. avatar arc says:

      Retired 0311 / USMC grunt… a lot of the people on this website have plenty room to call out cops on their shit aim. Especially for incidents that would be career ending for anyone else.

      Fire and maneuver ranges, firing on the move, night shoots, Huffing it half a mile with ammo cans full of sand and shooting from each yard line, starting at the 500, etc. Are all common training. Cops aim sucks because they aren’t liable for the bullets they send down range and its irrelevant to them if they hit innocence.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        A few times I have seen a cop (at least he looks like the stereotypical rendition) come into the range to fire a few rounds, he looks at his target and decides it’s time to go home. I was there before and after him to fire off a bunch of mags.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      This gang member is a pretty good shot regardless of dozens of bullets flying his direction, although he did have a couple of negligent discharges when his buddy scared him. The other gang members think mag dumping like the police will bring success, which lead to 2 of the 3 dying by the hands of one man who has no training.

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    LAPD cop #1: “Damn, I can’t hit nothin’ today!”
    LAPD cop #2: “Hell, you hit a couple of paper deliverywomen!”
    (With apologies to Freebie and the Bean.)

  22. avatar Adam says:

    I love when pro gun people try to defend Trump. Outside of picking pro gun justices, he sucks on the second amendment. Complete Republican control of all branches of the government and he has not pushed for national concealed carry, he has not pushed for a repeal of state gun control, he has not pushed for legalization of suppressors.

    What he HAS done though is say he wants to ban bump stocks and 3D printed guns. People need to face facts, Trump is an anti-gun Republican and the only reason he has not pushed for gun control is because 1. He is too stupid to know how to even do that. 2. The Republican house Majority will never allow anti gun bills to get through to him. and 3. He knows his base would eat him alive come 2020 if he did so.

    Trump is terrible on guns. I’ll vote for him in 2020 purely to get more pro gun justices in the courts but in no way do I ever expect congress to pass a pro gun bill which will be signed by him. He’s a coastal elite and we all know that those people only want guns for themselves, not for us “Southern white rednecks”.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Trump thinks reflexively, and his knee jerks whichever direction the media is pointing today.
      Then one of his staffers, or one of his sons who actually knows something about guns, has to straighten him out.

      In the Republican primaries, we had our choice of some RINOs promising the same old slow boat to socialism and presenting it as superior to the Dem’s fast boat to socialism or a knee jerk idiot who said a lot of the things we’d been wanting to hear from the Republicans since Reagan left office and who promised to reverse the course of the country.

      In the general election, we had a choice between a well meaning Trump or a vicious self proclaimed enemy. No choice at all there.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        People could have supported Rand Paul…

        Instead of Ron Paul we got Obama. Instead of Rand Paul we got Trump. When will the old people learn? You can’t teach an old dog new tricks?

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      National license for concealed carry is a bad idea. It gives more power to the feds, which would make it easier to take away all concealed rights with another Obama. What we need are rulings from the Supreme court saying that concealed carry licenses issued by any state are good in any state or Federal district or possession.
      Better yet, a ruling that concealed carry is legal in all theses places would be even better. Making the fed stronger makes US citizens weaker. Once the supreme court makes a ruling, it is very hard to get around said ruling

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We’ve had a national CC license in effect since 1791.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          I know, right! People play too many political games to figure that out. They be caught up in the drama.

    3. avatar Gralnok says:

      Trump was the best possible outcome. Could it have gone better, sure! However, Trump didn’t have to use other people’s money to finance his campaign. He was least likely to listen to outside influence. I still stand by him because he’s still our biggest ally. Unless you’d like to pony up the millions of campaign dollars and run as a better candidate in 2020. Trump is a blowhard and a loud mouth. He acts and says things on the spur of the moment. However, he hasn’t been against the Second Amendment. His progress is slow, but it’s still better than nothing, and despite what the dumbocrats keep saying, he hasn’t yet run the country into the ground.

  23. avatar Kap says:

    this case was about non American law IE: (UN) being used as American law nothing more nothing less!
    this is a precedent setter in that it rejects UN law from becoming law of land! and provides a basis for defeating other Anti -American UN laws by treaty!

  24. avatar Rick Hess says:

    Tried to access the code is free speech website and this is what I get. This is the default H-Sphere server page. From here you are able to access the following services:

    Web Utilities:
    WebShell4—file manager
    If this page is not what you wanted to get, most probably, one of the one of the following situations occured:

    Domain name refers to H-Sphere logical server, e.g., web.service-domain.com
    Third-level domain name does not exist. Maybe, you typed it incorrectly, e.g., valeed-domain .example.com instead of valid-domain.example.com
    Domain incorrectly points to this H-Sphere server.

    Does anyone have any idea how to get around this? I wanted to copy the domain and post it on my FB page in hopes that others would do the same. Trying to exercise my 1st Amendment rights like I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. Thanks, Rick. [email protected]

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      What you really want to do is learn how to get into the dark web.
      Any decent search engine will lead you to sites that explain it very well.
      Unless you’re in a place that censors the web, then you’ll need to make better friends.

  25. avatar 22winmag says:

    “We had to destroy the village/hostage to save the hostage”.

  26. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    From the 2 police incidents…The US Constitutional Bill of Rights are incompatible with the police officer’s actions…Means that U.S. citizens are going to die while in contact with Paramilitarized Police with mentalities of Commandos…Homeowners exercising THEIR 2nd Amendment RIGHT…And innocent bystanders in the line of fire, held hostage, or in the wrong place at the wrong time….

  27. avatar Sian says:

    “The officer who killed Black is on administrative reassignment with pay. He is currently under investigation for another fatal shooting that occurred about a month ago, Rathod told The Daily Beast. The lawyer added that typically, officers under investigation are placed on administrative duty, but this one was back in the field.”

    HANG ON.

    So this officer shot someone to death, a month ago, a shooting still under investigation, and they put him back in the field?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      We need a law:
      After you have cost your employer more than one year’s worth of your pay in lawsuits, you can never be a LEO again.

  28. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    So it’s supposed to be dangerous to post the instructions on how to build an AR-15.

    But it’s not dangerous to publish the addresses and names of people with gun permits in New York state and several others.

  29. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Another homeowner gunned down by confused responding police.

    I’m not saying it happens every day. It doesn’t.
    I’m not saying it justifies disarming the public. It doesn’t. What I am saying is that it can and does happen. The antis do at least have a valid point when they argue that “police won’t know who the bad guy is” when they talk about armed citizens defending themselves against spree shooters or other armes attackers.

    It’s a flimsy point and one overwhelming outweighed and refuted by other factors, but it is still a point. When the POTG simply dismiss it as so much piffle, they present themselves exactly as the antis consider them: a bunch of fact-phobic zealots unable to address a valid point.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Seems to happen often enough.

    2. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Won’t know, or don’t CARE?

      The LAPD’s and Torrance PD’s attempts to slaughter a couple of paper deliverywomen and a surfer respectively provide the answer.

  30. avatar Gralnok says:

    Sadly, the Colorado homeowner represents the exact reason I bought body armor. I want to be able to defend myself, even against trigger happy pigs. So far, the best option, when involved in a DGU, is to scram. Get out of the area, notify your lawyer, then notify the authorities and say you will return only to a well lit, camera heavy, public location like a newer gas station, hotel lobby, or maybe even a local news station, then hope for the best. Also, wear body armor.

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