Armed Samaritan in California Takes Out Criminal who Shot at Police

Armed Samaritan in California Takes Out Criminal who Shot at Police (Dave Workman)

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Another Armed Samaritan came to the assistance of police during a gunfight. This example is somewhat unusual. It occurred in California, which routinely infringes on Second Amendment rights.

In Fresno, California, at about 5:30 p.m. on 24 March, 2020, near the area of Belmont and Valeria, officers noticed a 2006 Nissan which was speeding. They attempted to pull over the car. Instead of pulling over, the car accelerated.  Only a few blocks south, near Valeria and Grant, the car crashed.  Inside the car was a driver and one passenger. The driver exited. He was armed. From kmph.com:

After the crash, the driver hopped out of the car with a pump shotgun.

He then reportedly aimed it at the officers and began firing at them.

After firing a couple of rounds, he then turned around and started to run away from officers.

During this time, a good Samaritan was walking down the street and spotted the guy running toward him with a shotgun.

That good Samaritan turned out to be a CCW holder and pulled out his gun to defend himself.

He fired one time at the suspect, making him fall to the ground.

Fresno County has the most concealed carry permits of any county in California. The Fresno County Sheriff has about 15,000 permits which are active in the county, as of July of 2019. The Fresno Police Department had about 2,400 active in July. There are probably over 17,500 total permit holders in the county in 2020.

Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims says, in her opinion, personal protection is sufficient “good cause” to apply for and receive a concealed carry permit. Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer also says that personal protection is sufficient “good cause”.

Link to youtube of Sheriff Mims explaining her position on concealed carry.

Sheriff Mims also says the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry arms, for law-abiding citizens. She believes the Peruta decision will be appealed, and that, eventually, the Supreme Court will be called upon to settle the issue.

The concealed carrier wasn't the only person to aid the police. Another resident tackled the suspect after he dropped the shotgun and continued to attempt his getaway.

The driver was arrested. Police continue to search for the passenger.

The Supreme Court has failed to grant a writ of Certiorari on cases involving permits to carry outside the home, for about a decade. The Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of Certiorari (refused to hear the case) for Peruta.

With two Supreme Court justices appointed by President Trump, a Second Amendment case has been argued before the Supreme Court in October of 2019. The Court still has the option of finding the case was moot, but it seems unlikely.

We should have a decision on that case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC, by the end of June or in the first two weeks of July, 2020.

The case may be decided in numerous ways. Second Amendment supporters hope for a strong decision declaring the Second Amendment is a fundamental right which must be subject to strict scrutiny.

The appeals courts have, for the most part, adopted a two-part method of judging law under the Second Amendment, calling the level of scrutiny “intermediate scrutiny”, which, in practice, as applied to the Second Amendment, means almost no restrictions on the carry of arms are prohibited.

Examples such as this case, which shows the natural reinforcement of armed citizens and police, are likely to be used as arguments to restore Second Amendment rights.

Yes, the Second Amendment should not be judged by mere pragmatic rationals. A fundamental Constitutionally protected right should be above that.

But justices read the papers as well. They are only people, and fallible. Such is the time we live in.



About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

84
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
9 Comment threads
75 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
gflightWillochwillTionicoTheRevelator Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
ochwill
Member
ochwill

What ? ! No coverage of the Ahmed Aubrey shooting in Brunswick ,Georgia ? No coverage of the 140 plus gun suicides, gun homicides and accidental shooting deaths that happen DAILY in America ? And that ladies and gentlemen, is why we have the worst per capita gun violence rate in the world. You guys don’t want to know and you don’t care.

Will
Member
Will

Explain to me exactly what gun violence is ? You can’t because it’s a liberal bullshit talking point! Inanimate objects never have and never will commit any type of violence you idiot! You little snowflake sissy! Let the facts and evidence come out about the young black man who got killed!

gflight
Member
gflight

My rights are more important than your dead.

P.S. We are number 11 per capita, you can’t even get your numbers right…

Circle8
Member
Circle8

The brain dead governor will probably form a committee to investigate the person, jail his family and take away his breathing rights. Then Newsome’s Aunt Pelosi will be so happy she will write a 2 trillion dollar bill to award her family the money because her nephew violated someone constitutional rights.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Fresno County has a LOT of people, but stil, that’s a nice level of armed citizens. The crime rates there are far lower than they COULD be if so many were not armed. I happen to know about the next county to the south, Tulare. For decades their sheriff has always supported and cncouraged the citizens to get their Mother May I Card and arm themselves. This number is a few years old, but with a tiny population there were over 4,000 active Mother May I Cards. I know several locals ho have them. The only crimes with any signficant… Read more »

Gomezaddams51
Member
Gomezaddams51

In a perfect world our 2nd Amendment rights or for that matter any Constitutionally given right would not be questioned or taken away. Unfortunately this is NOT a perfect world. We can rant all we want about how the 2nd Amendment protects us and we have the right to do this and that, but there are to many enemies out there who would take our rights away in a heart beat and not think a thing about it. We have to fight for our rights and get down and dirty and use their own tactics against them.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@GA, Join a group that can support a Civil Rights law suit. Bring witnesses and camera, then exercise whichever Civil Right you choose.

Ryben Flynn
Member
Ryben Flynn

We shouldn’t be having to sue for our 2nd. Amendment Right in the States as the SCOTUS already ruled it applies to the States.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@RF – SCOTUS ruling should never have been necessary. Hard to write anything much clearer than the 2nd.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

Elitists in government at all levels are ignoring the Constitution, Constitutional precedents, federal statutes, State Constitutions, state precedents, and state law, until someone stops them all because there is no penalty or financial cost to them personally.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

and THAT RIGHT THERE is what MUST change. Until some politician, sheriff, head copper, gets slapped with CRIMINAL charges for abrogation of someone else’s rights under colour of law, and loses his cush career because felony charges stick, nothing will change. When the schoolyard bully controls the swing set, decides who gets to swing and who doesn’t AND collects a quarter from anyone who does ride, his reign is only as supreme and long lasting as ALL the rest will tolerate. One fine lunchtime six of the bigger boys who are fed up with his tyranny rush him from behind,… Read more »

Levelhead
Member
Levelhead

I hate pictures in gun related blogs, posts, magazine advertising and articles that show the wrong way to do something. There are lots of folks who look to these media outlets as sources for the right way to do something. Kind of thinking that “if it on TV, or in a magazine it must be right.” Is this really the way to get a grip on your handgun? Come on, you know better. Why not just do it right?

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Levelhead – Good catch, had to go back and look carefully. We all see what we expect, and I expect a proper grip during a draw. I’m not an instructor, as I’m sure experience would quickly have taught me to expect and quickly recognize improper grip.

Despite thumbs down you are receiving, I agree that getting that picture right would have taken minimal effort. Would think it takes effort for any trained shooter to grab a gun like that. Perhaps “hand actor” is not a shooter?

Tionico
Member
Tionico

such pictures are the creations of photographers who are more intent upon playing the viewer’s emotions than on technical accuracy. I did not even note the details, this one is a staged emotion grabber, designed for a quick read and a slight adrenline flush. Such images are carefully choreogrphed. Perhaps one of us who KNOW the gun and are skilled in such arts could produce a body of stock imates that would convey the emptioinal read quickly, AND be technicaly accurate.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

When I saw the picture I too thought it strange. Then I realized why it was taken the way it was. What they are trying to do is to show as much of the “EVIL” instrument as possible to make the maximum impact on the viewer. It is as simple as that.

Charles Nichols
Member

I predict that the County will prosecute him in order to demonstrate that he was not aiding them in the performance of their duties because if the police say that the concealed carrier assisted them then the concealed carrier becomes an agent of the state and under 9th circuit precedent, both the concealed carrier and the City of Fresno would lose in Federal court. And under California law, the fact that the concealed carrier was carrying a loaded, concealed firearm, even with a permit, can be used against him in a criminal prosecution because a license to carry a concealed… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

You are correct about one thing, one is not “allowed” to kill anyone, nor obtain a license to kill another human being. However, people do not obtain, nor can they legally, a CC permit/license for the purpose of killing anyone. In this story, the CC holder shot a man coming towards him holding a shotgun that he just used to shoot at police. That makes the shooting justified. Additionally, if you actually read the above story or the story provided by the embedded link, you would have read that the perp that shot at the police was not killed, but… Read more »

1776 Patriot
Member
1776 Patriot

Yes, there are idiot prosecutors who say some of what you say. Thank God, not many.

Given the statements by local law enforcement in Fresno concerning this case and citizens’ Second Amendment Rights, I don’t believe your prediction has much danger of coming true.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Pat, That troll is just making outrageous statements to get you to respond. That is how he fattens his paycheck. Everytime you respond he laughs all the way to the bank.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

I would bet that if this guy nad been armed and did NOT have his Mother May I Card, then conducted himself as he did, THAT county would STILL not prosecute him. They would probably at worst charge him with carryonc conceealed wihtout the permit, invite him to get his, then drop the cnarge. Anyone acting as this man did puts himself among the “good guys” running about in public. You have some funny ideas about how California works….. particulary that there are two different states going by the same name. Fresno COunty is part of the OTHER state, copared… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

The Supreme Court has not granted a cert petition because the morons who file them keep claiming that they have a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment even though the very first thing the Heller decision said in Section III was that concealed carry is not a right. Next, the decision said that felons and the mentally ill do not have a Second Amendment right. Justice Kavanaugh, in his confirmation hearing, said that concealed carry is not a right. Justice Alito condemned the possession of sawed-off shotguns because they are concealable. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are the two… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

Nice to see citations, but none of them supports your claim that concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment. The three-judge Peruta v. San Diego decision which was vacated by an en banc panel, did not say that concealed carry is a right. The en banc panel explicitly held that concealed carry is not a right. The three-judge Peruta panel said that there is a right to carry, but not in any particular manner. That conflicted with the Heller decision. The Peruta three-judge panel also held that we are not allowed to seek to carry in a particular… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with the fact that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. At best (or worst) the Tenth Amendment does not prohibit states from legalizing concealed carry. A state legalizing concealed carry does not make concealed carry a Second Amendment right.

Charles Nichols
Member

It is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. You should be thanking them.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols
Last time I checked, the states don’t have Constitutional authority to categorize or legislate how arms may or must be borne…

Regardless of what the Supreme Court’s opinion is…

Charles Nichols
Member

What did you check, a Ouija board?

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols

No, I just read a document… Its called the Constitution of the United states.. You should try it.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

OPINION. Nuff said.

The Constitutin IS the SUpreme Law of the :Land, not some gaggle of hooh hahs in black nighties most of whom have never gotten their hands dirty with real WORK.
If framers meant NO CONCEALMENT they;d have SAID SO. It is abundatnly clear they had the command of the english tongue to make their intent clear.

Charles Nichols
Member

Your ranting and raving does not make for a legal argument. The only Federal law I am aware of which makes concealed carry a crime (a crime of moral turpitude) is limited to the military. The military is not “The People” and as such, do not have a right to bear arms.

Neither the Heller, the McDonald nor the Caetano opinions said that states were not free to legalize concealed carry.

But thanks for playing and for demonstrating to any rational person who might stumble across your post why concealed carry should be banned..

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols
Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have authority to change or limit rights held by the people?

The Second amendment says people have a right to keep and to bear arms, and that the level of infringement Government has to control, restrict, limit, define, or impede upon is zero…. States are also limited under the Supremacy clause and the 14th and 9th amendments.

Then again, that is just reading out of the law which is over every other law in the country aside from God’s Law.

Charles Nichols
Member

The Federal courts do not recognize “God’s Law” regardless of which god you may be referring to. The US Supreme court has held explicitly since 1897 that concealed carry is not a right protected by the Second Amendment. If a state wants to make concealed carry a right under its state constitution then that state is free to do so. I am not aware of any state constitution which recognizes a right to concealed carry but that doesn’t really matter as every state could amend its state constitution to make concealed carry a fundamental right but that would not change… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols The Court doesn’t, but God’s law is the only one that isn’t restrained by the Constitution. To put it simpler so you might understand, The Constitution is the supreme law of the land… It is a charter under which all three branches of the federal Government are accountable, and all states signatory to it as well. “If a state wants to make concealed carry a right under its state constitution then that state is free to do so” Wrong.. States don’t have that authority. States don’t get to decide whether or not the 1st or 2nd amendments apply… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Ok again, notice what Charles is doing…. “The US Supreme court has held explicitly since 1897 that concealed carry is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.” Ok, but the WHERE in the Constitution does it give the supreme court the power to decide what is and is not a right? He has to jump all the way from 1789 and 1791, all the way to 1897, and not based on what is written in the Constitution but upon a judge’s “OPINION”….. Right……… And he still hasn’t cited where in the Constitution that a judge has this power which… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

As I said, file your lawsuit in a 9th circuit Federal district court or in a State of California trial court. Tell them why you are right and they and the supreme courts of the United States and California are wrong and you are right.

Tell us how that turns out.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles

Nice Dodge… I suppose then you also expect people to go explain to a thief that when they stole from their house it was wrong and to please give it back, then walk away when the thief looks at them and says no?

Again. Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court, federally or by state, have the authority to over rule the Constitution. Please cite. I’d love to see a link to it as well as a full quotation.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Rev, an outstanding point.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Wild Bill
I know right.. But it isn’t my point, its one the Founding Fathers made.

I have more than a few people upset at me right now and screaming “How dare you ask me for evidence!” simply because I’m quoting what the founding fathers had to say, what our Nations law says, and they cant stand that their opinions don’t over rule that.. 🙂

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Wild Bill
And now my little stalker has shown up to downvote without leaving a comment..

It’s sad to see what are supposed to be grown men behaving in such a cowardly and childish way simply because they were out argued and did not have any evidence to prove the person who out argued them wrong…

Took the downvote off your Comment, Hope you are having a great day.

Charles Nichols
Member

So file your own lawsuit in a 9th circuit Federal district court or in a California state court if you are so certain in your being right and the courts being wrong.

Let us know how that turns out for you.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Now here is a wonderful tactic.

Notice how Charles doesn’t want to cite the constitution. The problem I set before him is that the Courts have violated Constitutional Law…. His response is to demand that others go and beg for their rights back, and let the same people violating the law decide whether or not they violated it….

All because he wants to avoid directly quoting what is in the Constitution, a legal document which he seems unable to discuss… 🙂

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Since WHEN did the Supreme Court become the Supreme Being? They only”interpret” the lws as they see fit AT THE TIME. How wrong were they when they denied habeas corpus, or made the dred Scott decision? Are they omnipontnt or infallible? BEAR means BEAR, and IF the Framers had it in view to limit HOW or WHERE or WHEN one might BEAR their arms they had the words to say so. The FACT they did not means they had no such intention. Mommy says “go outside and play”. House ruls say you have to stay on YOUR street, and not… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

on what twisted basis to you insist that the MANNER of “bearing” arms is limited under that Second Article of Ammendment? If I cna pick up and carry a box, what does it matter whe=ther i carry it in both arms in fromt of me, on top of y head, behind me wiht a sling, or balancec on one hand as I walk across myyard? CARRY means to take it up and bring it along wherever I happen to be going. What, would balancing the pistol on the end of my nose as I walk down the street be illegal?How… Read more »

RoyD
Member
RoyD

“They thought that only cowards, criminals, and assassins carried concealed weapons.” And yet you will never see the “weapons” carried by the security detail of the President unless the shit has hit the fan. Guess they are: “only cowards, criminals, and assassins.” See how silly that premise is?

Charles Nichols
Member

I see you slept through your class in logic. The President’s security detail are agents of the state. As agents of the state they do not have a Second Amendment right. The Second Amendment is the right of “The People” not the state.

Yes, I see how silly your argument is.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

the state IS the PEOPLE and PEOPLE includes those guys that ride security fo rMr. Trump. Remember, there is only one class of PEOPLE in this nation…. not like in England, from which we seceeded. NO royalty, no classes. ONE nation. ONE class. If Trump’s security detail can, so can I. Now, let;s swtich the bame up a bit.. consider Little Mikey Bloomoburg and HIS security detail THEY are obviously not military or state actors. I could be one of them. (I never would not for HIM, anyway, but I COULD. THEY go everywhere theywant, even break laws with impuniuty… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Roy D
Keep in mind that the idiot saying “The military is not the people”, is the same one who left out that the only military branch originally established by the Constitution was the Navy, and that it was the people themselves with their private arms which would constitute an army when needed….

Yet he tells others their premise’s are flawed…

Charles Nichols
Member

The people with their private arms would never constitute an army, they would constitute militias from the various states. Obviously, you do not know the difference between a militia and the military.

And yet you believe this somehow makes you qualified to comment.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols

Under the Constitution, the President had authority to call for the raising of an Army in a time of war.. Congress retained the ability to fund and provide for enlisting Citizens from Militia’s into the army for a period limited to two years…

So…. Did you not know this basic part of US history before posting? Or perhaps you can quote where in the Constitution it originally defined the difference in roles between the militia and military?

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

For those curious, What I have just asked Charles Nichols to cite where in the Constitution it mandates a Military for our nation, as our Founders intended the people itself to be the defenders of their own lands and liberty. The section in particular I am waiting for him to use as Justification is Article 1, section 8, clause 12, which does not establish a ground military force. It only grants Congress authority to raise and fund an Army for a period of two years during times of war. Clause 13 however does specify that Congress must “Provide and maintain”… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

Everybody knows what you are saying. What some of them don’t understand is why you think you’re right when the US Supreme Court says you are wrong.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Again Charles, So far you have not been able to point to a single spot in the US Constitution where the Supreme court has that power…

The Constitution creates, defines, and limits the powers given to the Supreme Court. It is above the supreme court as law that the court must follow.

So no matter how much you want to say how I’m wrong, no Charles, because I’m quoting the Constitution instead of you quoting an opinion.

Charles Nichols
Member

Had you bothered to read the Heller decision, and had you the mental capacity to understand plain English, you would have discovered that the Second Amendment is an individual right unconnected to the Militia.

I base my legal arguments on the law, not on what you claim to have learned from history.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Had you bothered to read what I wrote, I never said the right was given to the militia, only that our founding fathers despised the idea of standing armies, and wanted our military force to come from individual citizens bearing their private arms.. Lets examine that.. “Had you bothered to read the Heller decision, and had you the mental capacity to understand plain English, you would have discovered that the Second Amendment is an individual right unconnected to the Militia.” Ok, so those are your words… Yes, the Second Amendment is a restriction against the Federal and State Governments… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Member

I don’t care what you wrote. The ramblings of a syphilitic cocksucker don’t interest me. I only care about what the US Supreme Court said about the Second Amendment and they said you are wrong.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles Nichols
So if the supreme court said the Second Amendment wasn’t a protection of an individual right, that would make it so?

No… Interestingly enough, Rights don’t come from our government, much less from one branch of it…

By the way, love the name calling since you cant quote the Constitution. Dead giveaway.

Charles Nichols
Member

If the United States Supreme Court were to ever say that the Heller and McDonald decisions were wrongly decided, that it is overruling the Heller and McDonald decisions then, as a matter of law, “that would make it so.”

That is the way our legal system works. That is the way it has always worked. It is folks such as yourself and your nonsensical, ignorant ramblings about the law who are the problem.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles
Wrong. Judges are unelected officials. The American system, and what the Constitution was written to protect is that Rights do not come from governments or men in power, but from “Nature or Nature’s Creator”

The court does not have power to grant or take away inalienable rights, no matter how much you want them to. That is why you cannot cite the Constitutional clause giving the court such power.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

you pass the Angry Reader Test.. devloving to ad hominam and potty language. and refusing/failing to address the CONTENT of his points. Back to the points at hand.. which you are carefully avoiding. Because what is asked of you cannot be found, thats why. What is the track record of those nine poohbahs in black nighties? Have they EVER been wrong, and FORCED to backtrack? Yes they have.. signficantly so. ONCE more.. WHERE in the Constitution are SCOTA granted or allowed authoirity to MAKE law,? Nowhere. They can only INTERPRET law, and THEN they hae the task of enforcing it.For… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

true, and we here all know that. Because the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS is named and protected, the militia IS the armed citizenry gathered together localy to “well regulate” themselves so as to be an effective force against any threats. THAT is whyHeller opined (righty) that the right to arms is an individual rught. Militia is possible becuase of that pre-existing individual right. Heller rightly potects that right. But NONE of that has aught to do with and Revelator has it spot in on that regard. There IS no lawful stanindg army to be raised and mainteined in AMerica. Not… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

you mean, that “standing army” that was PROHIBITED by the Constituton? THATn militar?

Yes, that’s what I thought.

Don’t forget that pesk Second Article begins with the militia, and declares TAT is what is necessary to preserve “the security of a free state”, NOT a standing army.
back to Basic Civics 101 for you, Charlie

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Roy – Depends upon what you mean by “see” or “concealed”. Was near the Whitehouse lawn once when a pretty young woman carrying her FAG-bag approached and asked us to walk the other way. While my sister argued, I made sure my hands were visible and backed away. While I could not specifically identify contents of the bag, as far as I was concerned I was seeing a completely visible assault rifle. That weapon is about as well concealed as a monster pimple on a teenagers face covered with a dab of powder.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Not to mention the thuosand of military officers, commissioned and non-com, who carried M 1911’s, M 1926’s, Sigs, Berattas, etc, as their duty weapons. Or, back in earlier times, Sam Colt’s fine Navy and ARmy revolvers. Were tjey all misfits, assassins, criiminss, etc? Not all of them……….

Tionico
Member
Tionico

quote: “Your fundamental premise that the Framers of the Second Amendment thought that concealed carry is a right, let alone a protected right is simply false.” If that were the case, WHY did they NOT use language to cleaelry deimit the overall right to arms? No, they got it right. WE seek to complicate, limit, pare down, etc. KEEP means to possess, own, control, buy, sell, store, secure, protect, BEAR means to carry about, but pease note, there is NO text to delimit HOW, WHEN, WHERE, MANNER, WHICH ONE, or any other such thing. That aspect of “BEAR” is left… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Tionico
That is exactly the argument that has been made to Charles by several here.

He is arguing the position that Rights are handed down or granted to citizens by the Government(Courts can give or take away), which is not what our founding documents and laws state.

Very well written and articulated argument. Thanks for posting it.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@USA, Do not waste time on the this charlie nucklehead. There is little you can do if he does not understand the word “bear”, except get him paid.

Charles Nichols
Member

Wild Bill is a cocksucker. Have you folks ever noticed that it is the cocksuckers who are the most vocal of opponents of Open Carry and the most vocal of proponents of concealed carry.

Don’t be like Wild Bill, don’t be a cocksucker.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Dave – Thanks for your response. Given continued profane insults from a certain individual, perhaps it is time to delete his account and all his commentary? He certainly seems to exist for purpose of making childish insults.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Finnky
That will be up to Ammoland… Personally, I think his comments should stay up to show exactly who and what he is.

Why help the enemy cover up their actions and more importantly, their blunders? I say keep them visible, like a never fading black eye.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

now cCharles, have yhou ever WITNESSED Wild Bill performing th act of which you accuse him? WHem, where and who else saw it? Whose body part was he sucking upon?

Come ON man, you are devloving to the state of a slave… ca’t win on facts OR logic, so you start throting rotten eggs? Ha, you fail to realise most of us here have already had cases of rotten eggs thrown our way, and survived. SUch potty mouth despicalbe and demonstrably flase school boy loo comments have no lace here. Leave them back in your own potty room.

Charles Nichols
Member

Will here is such an experienced cocksucker, he can post comments while at the same time sucking Wild Bill’s cock.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles..

Have a lot of experience with that do you? Seems to be an area you like to focus on.

Charles Nichols
Member

@TheRevelator, this is the last time I will tell you, “No! You cannot suck my dick. Stop asking.”

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles
Never asked you that before…. I just figured you must be an expert since you wrote about the act twice in less than two minutes to two different people..

You seem to have a preoccupation with it, like you think everyone around you wants to do it. So what is it about male genitalia is it that makes you think about it so much?

Charles Nichols
Member

I told you to stop asking to suck my dick you asswipe.

Jonesy
Member
Jonesy

The refuge of a scoundrel is name calling and virtue signaling.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charles
No one ever asked to. 🙂 Again, male phallic activity seems to be something which you are preoccupied with.

SEMPAI
Member
SEMPAI

@Charles Nichols
C’mon man no need for ALLLL THAT I have found these guys are pretty damn smart when it comes to the laws so voice your opinion but if they know more than you sit back do your research and if they are wrong come back strong but if you are wrong learn something don’t just start calling people names like a 13 yr old.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@SEMPAI
Indeed. Citation of evidence is what wins arguments.. It is when an individual has lost an argument, has engaged in lies, and knows there is nothing they can show to out argue the other individual that they devolve into this state.

I gave Charles plenty of opportunities to cite Constitutional law, but he runs away from it as soon as it is mentioned.. Opinions don’t over rule facts.

Great comment.

SEMPAI
Member
SEMPAI

@TheRevelator
Yes
Yes you did sir..

willyd
Member
willyd

We only need one more mindless voice on this conversation: Clark Kent, he will fill that void!!!!!!

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@CN; What you have stated here is a current political fact. However, SHOW me where in the Constitution it states HOW a gun can or should be carried. The American Constitution I have and have read does NOT state whether to carry “concealed” or to carry “openly”, is described or written about with any details.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

So, the next time I find myself in California I should make sure that I am in Fresno. Oh, wait a minute….…..

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Roy D, most of the counties up and down the Central Vellley from Bakersfield north to Oregon are far safer than the rest of the state. Nearly every sheriff in those counties LOVES to issue Mother May I Cards, many get on the local TeeVee stations and say so. Check the numbers of Mother May I Cards per thousand in those counties along US 99 and you will get a very different view of “California”< this area is still very much the OLD Calfirnoa in which I grew up