Since Friday, more than 2,000 people have RSVPed to the march to “put the government on notice.”
In a local news channel interview pointed out by Politico, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier explained that this is an open disregard for DC law:
[W]hen you cross with firearms and you’re not in compliance with the law now you’re talking about a criminal offense and there’s going to be some action by police. Obviously there has been no permit filed by the organizer and we’ve not made contact with the organizer yet. But we will, and we’ll make sure they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with loaded firearms as long as they are in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms to the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such.
The FBI says a potential terror attack that it believes was disrupted by a mobile home raid was in its “planning stages” and the target was believed to be in western Minnesota.
Buford Rogers was arrested Friday after a search of the 24-year-old’s Montevideo home turned up Molotov cocktails, suspected pipe bombs and firearms.
FBI spokesman Kyle Loven wouldn’t elaborate Monday about the nature or target of the alleged plot, but says authorities believe there “would have been a localized terror attack, and that’s why law enforcement moved quickly.”
The FBI says it believes authorities potentially saved the lives of several local residents. The investigation is ongoing.
Rogers is charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. It’s not clear if he has an attorney.
A convicted felon and alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer, who was arrested for illegally stockpiling an arsenal of assault weapons, was tracking Jewish and African American community leaders in the Detroit area, FBI agents warned.
Richard Schmidt, 47, was legally forbidden from owning firearms, ammunition or body armor after his spending 13 years in prison for manslaughter. But that is exactly what an FBI Joint terrorism Task Force found when it searched his home in Toledo, Ohio and his sporting goods store in nearby Bowling Green.
“These weapons were found in a shopping mall,” Steven M. Dettelbach, the U.S. Attorney in Cleveland, told the Daily News. “You have 40,000 rounds of ammunition, 18 firearms, body armor - obviously that is troubling because it begs the question ‘what does he want to do with it?’”
FBI agents also found Waffen-SS (Nazi military force) paraphernalia, a video of a National Socialist Movement meeting from 2005, a list of national Jewish-owned businesses and a notebook filled with names and addresses of community leaders in the Detroit area, reported Michael Isikoff of NBC News.
The NRA operates much like climate science and evolution denialists: their job is to throw so much almost plausible but really false chaff into the wind that nobody can see the truth without extraordinary efforts.
Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, it’s been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.
Second Amendment activists have long floated this theme, and now lawmakers across the nation are using it too. During a recent floor debate in the Colorado Legislature, Republican state Rep. Carole Murray put it this way: “Most of the mass killings that we talk about have been effected in gun-free zones. So when you have a gun-free zone, it’s like saying, ‘Come and get me.’”
The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no “good guy with a gun” will be on hand to stop the crime.
With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here’s the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America’s mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.
No foul play is suspected in what the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office called a “horrible family tragedy.”
Deputies: Pulaski Co. Man Accidentally Shoots And Kills Brother, Takes Own Life
Kody Thacker, 19, took his own life after accidentally shooting and killing his brother, Kyle, 24, with a shotgun, investigators said.
Deputies received a 911 call about two people who were shot at a home on Slate Branch Spur in the Slate Branch community before 10 Saturday morning.
Posted: Feb 23, 2013 10:58 PM
Updated: Feb 23, 2013 11:43 PM
The two brothers and a third friend had spent the night at the house, deputies said.
Investigators believe Kyle was asleep on a living room recliner when Kody, who was on a nearby couch, picked up a 12-gauge shotgun which accidentally discharged and struck his older brother in the head. Kody became distraught and turned the gun on himself after realizing what had happened, deputies said.
A roommate of Kyle’s, Nathan Hoskins, told LEX 18 Kyle had just moved into their Lexington townhouse last week and that he went back to Pulaski County this weekend to bring back more belongings.
The investigation into Schmidt was conducted by a FBI Joint terrorism Task Force whose agents said they discovered he was tracking African American and Jewish leaders in the Detroit area.
Schmidt, 47, is a convicted felon who spent 13 years in Ohio state prison for a homicide after being convicted of killing a man and wounding two others in a shooting during a traffic stop, according to state prison records. Under federal law, Schmidt, who was released on parole in 2003, is barred from possessing any firearms.
Yet when FBI agents last December searched his home and store, they discovered a cache of 18 weapons that included AR-15 assault rifles, 9 mm Ruger and Sig Sauer pistols, shotguns, high-capacity magazines and more than 40,000 rounds of ammunition. Schmidt was originally reported to have been arrested on charges of trafficking in counterfeit goods, but was indicted last month on four federal charges —including possessing illegal weapons, body armor and ammunition. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
“As a matter of policy, I don’t comment on pending cases,” his lawyer, Andy Hart, a federal public defender in Toledo, said when reached by telephone.
Dettelbach, who is overseeing the case, said that federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons, prompting officials to conclude he likely acquired them at gun shows or through private sales — where under federal law no background checks are required. .
“It’s scary,” he said about Schmidt’s arsenal of weapons. “It’s not … that I won’t say” where Schmidt got his guns. “It’s that sitting here today as a senior federal law enforcement official in northern Ohio, I can’t say.”
As lawmakers across the country and in the nation’s capital debate possible restrictions on high-capacity magazines, one question emerges: Are these ammunition feeding devices, which allow a shooter to fire many times without reloading, in fact commonly used by mass killers? We examined the data from Mother Jones’ continuing investigation into mass shootings and found that high-capacity magazines have been used in at least 31 of the 62 cases we analyzed. A half-dozen of these crimes occurred in the last two years alone. (With some of the cases we studied, it remains unclear whether high capacity magazines were used; for more details, jump to our data set below.)
In the shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Jared Loughner emptied a 33-round magazine in 30 seconds, killing 6 and injuring 13. Inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes used 40- and 100-round magazines to injure and kill an unprecedented 70 victims. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Adam Lanza used high-capacity magazines to fire upwards of 150 bullets as he slaughtered 20 kids and 6 adults.
“It turns a killer into a killing machine,” says David Chipman, who served for 25 years as a special agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Outlawing high capacity magazines won’t prevent gun crimes from happening, Chipman notes, but might well reduce the carnage: “Maybe three kids get killed instead of 20.”
According to the complaint, St. Paul Police responded to St. Paul Central High School on Jan. 17 after a report of an assault against a 15-year-old female student. A social worker at the school had received a report from a parent who had been monitoring her son’s electronic communications. The communications showed that Bartashevitch had sent the son a message that he had pointed an AK-47 rifle at the girl.
The complaint states that the girl and Bartashevitch were arguing at their residence on Jan. 13 about her grades in school. She was getting two Bs in school instead of two As. He swore at the girl, who then told him she hated him, and he grabbed a recently purchased AK-47 and pointed it at her.
According to the complaint, he bought the rifle because he knew it would soon be banned. The girl’s mother jumped between them when he pointed the gun, and the girl was eventually ordered to go to her room by Bartashevitch.
The girl’s mother told police that when she intervened, Bartasevitch threw her to the floor and that he pointed the gun at both of them, the complaint states.
Let’s look at that again.
The father buys an AK-47 because he thinks that Obama’s going to ban them. Then he decides to point them not only at his daughter because her grades sucked (and even then, they weren’t that bad), but at his wife who intervened because this guy decided that the proper firearms technique was to point them at his family members.
The father has been brought up on assault charges.
If convicted (and the charges include felony counts), it is quite likely that the father will no longer be able to possess firearms in the future. The irony is rich with that aspect.
While we should be thankful that no one was shot in this case, it inadvertently highlights the fact that the about half of all firearms fatalities involve family and acquaintances shooting each other.
In response to Skip Intro’s comments about that it depends on the jurisdiction as to whether the father might lose his firearms, here’s the specific Minnesota law that is applicable. Assault in the first to fourth degree is considered a crime of violence. A crime of violence is a crime that automatically prohibits that person from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm for the remainder of the person’s lifetime (Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.165(1a)).
It’s also possible he’s charged with a domestic assault, which can result in forfeiture of the firearms:
(b)If the court determines that the assault was of a family or household member, and that the offender owns or possesses a firearm and used it in any way during the commission of the assault, it shall order that the firearm be summarily forfeited under section 609.5316, subdivision 3.
(c) When a person is convicted of assaulting a family or household member and is determined by the court to have used a firearm in any way during commission of the assault, the court may order that the person is prohibited from possessing any type of firearm for any period longer than three years or for the remainder of the person’s life. A person who violates this paragraph is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. At the time of the conviction, the court shall inform the defendant whether and for how long the defendant is prohibited from possessing a firearm and that it is a gross misdemeanor to violate this paragraph. The failure of the court to provide this information to a defendant does not affect the applicability of the firearm possession prohibition or the gross misdemeanor penalty to that defendant.
So, yeah, I’d say the chances are quite likely that if convicted, he’d lose his guns.
I have to agree - even with the new demand for controls in the wake of the Newtown Massacre the only limits and regulations that possibly can pass will be minor ones that can also withstand the scrutiny of the Supremes.
It’s a sign of the legalization of American politics that activists worry about being thwarted by the Supreme Court even before they’ve managed to pass anything: Although they haven’t yet squeezed any new regulations through Congress or the state legislatures, gun-control advocates already fear that the Supreme Court will invalidate whatever progress they achieve.
They should stop sweating. Despite its turn to the right on gun control, the Supreme Court should almost certainly uphold any of the new regulations that have a chance of being enacted, according to the logic of its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Both liberal and conservative judges, from Justice John Paul Stevens on the left to Judges Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson on the right, denounced the decisions when they were handed down. But both decisions were relatively narrow, prohibiting states from imposing total bans on the firearms in the home. They shouldn’t be read to threaten the kinds of regulations that states and the federal government are currently debating—including an effective federal database for permit holders. The problem with the constitutional debate over guns, in other words, isn’t the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions but an over-reading of them by a handful of lower court judges—mostly notably, Posner himself.
Heller and McDonald struck down the two most restrictive gun regulations in the country—Chicago and D.C.’s total bans on gun possession in the home. No other state or municipality had similarly sweeping bans on private gun possession, and in this sense, the Court was playing a familiar role of bringing state and local outliers in line with a national consensus. Since the decisions came down, there have been hundreds of civil and criminal challenges to gun control laws, and the vast majority of them have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately, a few lower courts have seized on language in Heller and McDonald to strike down state laws that forbid felons from possessing firearms, for example, or that require applicants for concealed carry permits to show a “good and substantial reason.”