D.C. Court of Appeals Gets It Right on Unconstitutional Conceal Carry Ban

The residents of Washington, D.C., proper may soon be able to conceal carry given the good news this week. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the enforcement of DC’s existing onerous anti-gun law which criminalizes concealed carry by law-abiding gun owners.

Here’s more context behind the legal battle over gun rights in the nation’s capital:

The city’s law had required gun owners to prove they have a “good reason to fear injury” or another “proper reason,” such as a job that requires carrying large amounts of cash or valuables, in order to get a concealed carry permit. Under the city’s law, living in a high-crime neighborhood was not reason enough to justify approval of a concealed carry permit.

Second Amendment advocates who brought the lawsuit said the city’s law was so restrictive that most law-abiding citizens would be unable to obtain permits. As of June, the Metropolitan Police Department reported having granted just 125 concealed carry permits since the law took effect in 2014.

The city’s strict concealed carry laws have remained in effect while the D.C. Circuit was considering whether to rehear the case, so the ruling marks the first time the “good reason” requirements will be cast aside.

In July, the same court upheld the 2016 ruling that Washington, D.C., must issue handgun licenses to law-abiding D.C. residents in the same fashion that other states issue carry permits too. More specifically, this ruling means that an applicant for a concealed handgun permit (CHP) won’t have to prove a special need or request (may issue) to obtain a CHP. Instead, permits should be issued on a shall-issue basis for adults who pass background checks and successfully complete a gun safety training course.

This derives from a May 2016 ruling in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard J. Leon issued a 46-page opinion stating the Second Amendment not only applies to owning guns in homes, but also legal carry in the streets via concealed carry–writing that presenting a “good reason” for carrying in the nation’s capital is unconstitutional. The 2008 Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the constitutionality of law-abiding gun owners to keep and bear arms inside their homes. However, D.C. residents are unable to carry outside their homes–leaving many defenseless and vulnerable to attack in one of the nation’s most dangerous cities.

Law-abiding Americans who wish to conceal carry shouldn’t have to prove a “good reason” to do so–especially in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.

Washington, D.C. has been famously nicknamed the “murder capital of the U.S.” given its bloody track record.  Neighborhood Scout named it the #30 most murderous city in all of the U.S. in 2017. In 2016, WTOP listed DC as the 10th top murderous city  in all of the U.S. Why don’t city lawmakers see that onerous laws that leave people defenseless only empower gangs and murderous thugs to perpetuate crimes on unsuspecting residents?

In April 2013, a D.C. hate crime victim told NBC Washington the following in response to his assault:

“I’m going to get a license and get a 9mm,” he said. “That’s the truth.”

In the case of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, who just returned to Congress yesterday, had it not been for his bodyguards, him and other lawmakers would likely not be alive today. However, preventing concealed carry or concealed carry reciprocity for D.C. residents to also carry in nearby territories or other states could make shootings like the June 2017–which left Scalise seriously injured–happen again if their Draconian gun laws are not overturned.

Experts say this case will move to the Supreme Court soon. As in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, let’s hope the highest court in the land rules in favor of the constitutionality of concealed carry for law-abiding Americans. This shouldn’t be an issue: gun rights are human rights.

Testimony: Planned Parenthood Doctor Said She Would “Break the Neck” of Baby Born Alive

A former patient at the Planned Parenthood butchery in St. Paul, Minnesota has come forward with shocking (but is it really at this point?) testimony that staff abortionists informed her that should her baby be born alive, somehow surviving the abortion attempt, they would “break the baby’s neck.”

This isn’t a hidden camera sting operation like those conducted by the Center for Medical Progress that have exposed the abortion giant for some ghastly, horrific practices beyond just murdering viable infants. Instead, this video released by Pro-Life Action Ministries is conducted as a testimonial of a former patient. The patient, whose identity is not disclosed in the video apparently visited the St. Paul clinic when her baby was 22 weeks and a day along in the gestation process.

As LifeNews noted,

This would be a clear violation of Minnesota’s “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” which, similar to federal law, requires that, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice . . .   shall be taken . . . . to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

That would be the same Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that Barack Obama vehemently opposed when he was a state senator in Illinois. The Illinois law was a near carbon copy of federal legislation that not one U.S. Senator (Democrat or Republican) voted against. When called on this horror, Obama lied claiming he opposed the law because it didn’t contain language that guaranteed it would not infringe on the right to abortion. The law did contain that language.

Not even the radicals at NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) opposed the Born Alive acts.

Barack Obama was a different breed of abortion radical, and if the testimony in this video is to be believed, it seems Planned Parenthood is right there with him. To be fair to both, perhaps they are being more intellectually honest than their fellow leftists. Precisely what is different about the human being one second before it emerges from the birth canal and one second after?

If you can legally snap her neck the moment before she is delivered, why couldn’t you do the same the moment after? When you’re Constitutionally oblivious, scientifically impaired, and morally absent, apparently you feel you can. Pure evil.

FL Man Kills Roommates in Bizarre Islam/Neo-Nazi Twist

A Florida man was arrested for murdering his two roommates after holding up a smoke shop and admitting his crime to three hostages. While the murders themselves are shocking it is the motivation that provides a bizarre, stunning twist.

Devon Arthurs, 18 told police he shot and killed Jeremy Himmelman, 22, and Andrew Oneschuk, 18 because he was angry about Islamophobia. Arthurs had originally moved in with Himmelman and Oneschuk because he shared their neo-Nazi views. At some point, Arthurs converted to Islam and decided his roommates were too disrespectful of his faith.

In an interview with investigators, Arthurs provided specific details about the shooting, including the rifle he used, the order in which he killed the men and which part of their bodies he targeted.

 

Arthurs stated that, prior to the killings, “he had been privy to neo-Nazi internet sites threatening to kill people, and he had developed a thinking that he should take some of the neo-Nazis with him.”

 

The police report obtained by the Tampa Bay Times says after the murders Arthurs held up a local smoke shop. He threatened 2 employees and a customer with a semiautomatic pistol.

Arthurs, 18, entered the smoke shop at 15325 Amberly Drive about 5:30 p.m. and removed a semiautomatic pistol from his waistband.

 

“Do me a favor and get the f— on the ground!” he yelled to a female employee and male customer, the report states. Arthurs asked the customer, “Why shouldn’t I kill you?”

 

A few minutes later, another customer entered the store and Arthurs ordered him to get on the ground. He told all three people in the store that he had already killed someone.

 

“He further informed all three victims that he was upset due to America bombing his Muslim countries,” the report by police Detective Kenneth Nightlinger.

 

Two Tampa police officers arrived about five minutes after the second customer entered the store. One of the hostages ran out of the store, and the officers were able to persuade Arthurs to let the other two leave. After several more minutes of negotiating, he surrendered and allowed the officers to place him in handcuffs.

 

Radical Islam and neo-Nazism are definitely kissin’ cousins but it truly a bizarre twist to see a nazi convert to Islam only to murder his former compatriots. It seems doubtful many tears will be shed for either the alleged murderer or his victims.

Fat, Murderous Nutcase Kim Jong Un’s Brother Assassinated (By Kim?)

There’s no limit to the awful when it comes to North Korean lines of succession and authority.

Kim Jong-nam, the older half-brother of Kim Jong Un, was ruthlessly murdered at the airport in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, purportedly by North Korean agents wielding “poison needles,” the Telegraph reported Tuesday.

At one time, the older Kim was in line to succeed his father, Kim Jong Il, but apparently he developed too great a taste for Western life (aka “freedom”) and possibly some seed of a conscience. In 2001, he was arrested trying to smuggle himself into Japan on a forged passport–he said to police he wanted to take his family to Disneyland.

Kim Jong-nam lived in Macau after he was booted from the hermit kingdom, until his younger brother brought him in to help resolve disputes with Japan, according to the Telegraph. Regardless, it’s now apparent that the older brother outlived his usefulness, and may even have represented a threat to the corpulent Juche zealot who rules North Korea for his benefit alone.

According to South Korea’s Institute for National Security, as of December 2016, Kim (the younger) has personally ordered 340 people executed since December 2011, when he assumed power.

Though most of them were killed mobster-style, with a gunshot to the head, others were given more gruesome deaths.

Some have been executed by anti-aircraft weapons. On other occasions, flame-throwers were used.

 

And in at least one case, it seems, a mortar round was put to use on the execution grounds.

 

The most senior member of the present dictator was his own uncle, Jang Song-thaek, who was executed in December 2013 after being found guilty of a raft of crimes against the state, including “gnawing at the unity and cohesion of the party” and “dreaming different dreams”.

Some reports in 2014 indicated that Jang was fed to a pack of starving dogs. Those reports were later debunked (although “probably not true” is the best we can determine), but the fact that they were so widely believed lends weight to the bloodthirsty and cruel nature of the Nork regime.

Although Kim Jong-nam’s death hasn’t officially been ruled a murder, I think there’s sufficient evidence that his younger brother would, could, and did order his assassination. Dealing with the Norks is orders of magnitude more dangerous than other rogue killer regimes. Allowing them to possess a combination of nuclear weapons (which they have) and long-range ICBM’s is simply foolhardy.

Read what retired Admiral James Stavridis wrote in TIME on this.

North Korea is a team sport. Our allies and friends — South Korea, Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia and others — all agree on the challenges. We should leverage their participation in diplomatic and economic initiatives to deal with the North. And we’ll need to conduct frequent allied exercises to leverage joint operational capability in things like missile defense.

Whatever President Trump does, he needs to recognize that there’s no “deal” with the Norks. Eventually, stone cold murderers and thugs must lose.

How Mentally Ill Esteban Santiago Flew His Gun Across the Country… Legally

After Esteban Santiago murdered five people in the Fort Lauderdale airport last week, the obvious question to emerge is how Santiago managed to get a gun through airport security. The question of Santiago’s weapon is two-fold since there are reports that he had shown signs of mental illness as well as the fact that the shooting occurred in an airport, normally considered to be a gun-free zone.

Santiago, an Iraq War veteran who served with the Puerto Rico National Guard, reportedly visited the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska and complained, according to an FBI spokesman, “that his mind was being controlled by US intelligence agencies. During the interview, Mr. Santiago appeared agitated, incoherent and made disjointed statements. Although, he stated he did not wish to harm anyone, as a result of his erratic behavior, our [FBI] agents contacted local authorities who took custody of Mr. Santiago and transported him a local medical facility for evaluation.”

The spokesman said that Mr. Santiago, who had lived in Alaska for several years and worked there as a security guard and a member of the Alaska National Guard, was not placed on a no-fly list. “During our initial investigation, we found no ties to terrorism. There is currently no indication that Mr. Santiago was working with other individuals when he planned and carried out yesterday’s attack.”

With respect to Santiago’s mental health, a spokesman noted, “There is a federal law with regard to having a gun by somebody who is mentally ill, but the law requires that the person be ‘adjudicated mentally ill,’ which is a difficult standard. This is not someone who would have been prohibited [from owning or possessing a gun] based on the laws that they had. I think that law enforcement acted within the laws that they had. We’re a country of laws and they operated within them.”

There are laws that prevent the mentally ill from possessing guns, but the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and due process must be followed to restrict that right. Federal and Alaska law state that firearms ownership and possession are prohibited if a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.” Neither seems to have applied to Santiago, whose gun was returned after a mental health screening in connection with his statements at the FBI office according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“Unless there was some sort of a court order requiring involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, under existing gun control legislation, he could not be deprived of his constitutional right to possess a weapon,” Paul Callan, former New York homicide prosecutor told CNN. “People who submit to voluntary mental health treatment don’t lose their right to possess firearms under current US law.”

Health care workers are required to notify authorities if they believe a patient may pose a danger to themselves or others. Privacy laws may conflict with this duty to warn, however. With many mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators have exhibited signs of mental illness before their shooting sprees. Until a law is broken, such as making a threat, people who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous must voluntarily seek treatment.

Since Santiago was not committed or judged to be mentally ill, he had broken no laws and was free to travel. Esteban placed his weapon in a checked bag for his flight to Florida. NBC News reports that the Glock 9mm pistol was in a gun case that was carried in the baggage compartment of the airliners that flew Esteban from Anchorage to Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale.

According to TSA rules, guns and ammunition are allowed on airliners if they are placed in a checked bag that is hard-sided and kept locked. Passengers cannot carry guns, ammunition or parts of guns such as magazines or clips in the cabin of the airliner. Ammunition can be placed in the same locked container as the gun.

Esteban would have checked his gun case and declared his firearm when he checked in at the airport. He would then have gone through the TSA security screening and traveled unarmed. Baggage claim areas are outside of the secure area of the airport.

Esteban reported left the secure area of the airport and retrieved his gun case at baggage claim upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale. At that point, he took the gun and ammunition out of the case and killed five people.

At this point, it seems that gun laws were followed in the case of Esteban Santiago. The gun was legal, Santiago owned and possessed it legally and he legally transported it across the country.

The failure in Fort Lauderdale seems to the same failure that contributed to so many shootings in the past few years. Law enforcement and the mental health system failed to identify a troubled individual who was in need of treatment. Perhaps instead of calling for more gun control, we should revisit privacy laws that prevent doctors, employers and law enforcement agencies from sharing information about potential killers. Consideration should also be given to reforming commitment laws so that potentially dangerous people can be given treatment without their consent.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is not a gun control issue. It is a public safety issue. If mass shootings continue unabated, the left’s outcry for more gun control may lead to sweeping laws like those of New York that restrict all gun ownership, rather than sensible laws that target the real problem.