|
A home invasion in San Antonio, Texas, ended when the invader, James Adam Garcia, was killed by the homeowner, Richard Gomez, Sr. Gomez's son, Richard, Jr., told police he had been in the living room watching TV when someone knocked at the door. When Gomez answered, a man pushed his way inside saying, "This is a jack." The intruder, later identified as Garcia, then repeated the phrase before shooting the younger Gomez in the leg. Garcia then ordered the wounded man toward the back of the house. The elder Gomez was in a bedroom with his wife when he heard the gunshot. He grabbed a .357-cal. revolver and left the bedroom to investigate. When Garcia saw Gomez, Sr., he fired at him, striking the elder Gomez in the chest. The homeowner then raised his gun and fired two shots at Garcia, killing him. (San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, TX, 08/28/03)
A Fort Wayne, Ind., liquor store clerk did more than cover for a coworker when he worked an extra shift one Monday night. He may have saved the lives of everyone in the store. The employee had come to work at the Cap 'n Cork liquor store armed with a gun he carries for personal protection as he rides a bike to and from the job. According to police reports, a man entered the liquor store carrying a rifle, which he then fired into the air in an apparent robbery attempt. The armed employee then pulled his own gun and fatally shot the would-be robber. A possible accomplice of the gunman fled the store after the shooting. (The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN, 08/27/03)
A Pompano Beach, Fla., jewelry store owner, Alfredo Guido, was buzzing in a customer when four masked men pushed their way into the store. The owner's son, Meliton Guido grabbed a handgun from under the counter and hid behind the cash register. One of the masked intruders then pointed a gun at the store owner's head. Another of the armed bandits saw that the younger Guido was armed and fired at him. The owner's son fired back and struck one of the assailants. The son then yelled for his father to jump over the counter and, as he did, the four robbers tried to leave the store; but the door was locked. The younger Guido hit the buzzer, and the men fled empty-handed. The wounded robber collapsed outside the store and later died. Police were still searching for the other suspects. (Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 07/31/03)
Three ne'er-do-wells in Louisiana found it didn't pay to be greedy when robbing an elderly Pine, La., resident. The three men broke into the 79-year-old woman's home about 4 a.m. The resident was awakened by her barking dog and then realized there was a masked man standing near her bed. When the robber demanded money and jewelry, she shook her metal walker at him. He grabbed her purse and a jewelry box and left, but then returned with an accomplice. By then the resident had retrieved her handgun from under her mattress and aimed it at the returning intruders, who ran from the home. Three suspects were arrested and charged with armed robbery. (The Era-Leader, Franklinton, LA, 07/30/03)
A fugitive fleeing from sheriff's deputies, broke into a Gilchrist, Ore., home and was shot dead by the homeowner. David Crider had been notified by Oregon State Police earlier in the evening that a fugitive they had been chasing on the highway had left his broken-down vehicle and was spotted near the Criders' home. Around 4 a.m., the Criders heard the sounds of someone breaking in and Mr. Crider armed himself with a rifle. When he saw the intruder, later identified as Mark Nelson, he thought the man was holding something in his hand. When Nelson then raised his arm, Crider shot him. Investigators at the scene later discovered a 2-ft. piece of pipe near Nelson's body. (Register-Guard, Eugene, OR, 09/05/03)
A 76-year-old Newberry Springs, Calif., man was awakened by the sounds of someone breaking into his home in the early morning hours. The resident retrieved a handgun and confronted the intruder. As he held the would-be robber at gunpoint and dialed 9-1- I, the interloper made a threatening move toward the homeowner who then shot him once in the chest, killing him. "He was definitely there to steal from or rob the victim," reported San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sgt. Gerrit Tesselaar. (Desert Dispatch, Barstow, CA, 08/16/03)
Louis Caporaletti was sleeping in his Studio City apartment in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, when he was awakened at 12:45 a.m. by two men breaking into his home. Caporaletti confronted the intruders, and during the ensuing fight, pulled out a 9 mm handgun and fired at his assailants, wounding one. The resident then held the men at gunpoint until officers arrived. The two suspects were charged with aggravated burglary and robbery, according to police Lt. Tom Pozza. (The Beacon Journal, Akron, OH, 09/03/03) |
|
In separate cases brought by the same cabal of the activist plaintiff bar and gun-ban groups, Judge Weinstein has twice embraced "Alice-in-Wonderland" legal theories based on the notion that the federally regulated American firearm industry- from manufacturers to retailers-must be held accountable for totally unrelated acts of violence by armed criminals who obtained their illegal guns through black market criminal commerce or through theft. The first case, Hamilton vs. Accu-tek, which the media hailed as a "landmark" for "sensible gun control," was brought in 1999 on behalf of seven New York murder victims, five of whom had been shot by criminal assailants using handguns of unknown make or model and on behalf of a juvenile wounded by a friend using a .25-cal. handgun, which was also never identified. Brought by "progressive" trial attorney Elisa Barnes and funded by billionaire George Soros and Handgun Control, Inc., (now the Brady Campaign) the suit claimed that industry-wide firearm marketing practices "fostered an illegal underground market." After a lengthy trial, in which Judge Weinstein badgered the jury and led witnesses, $4 million was awarded to the wounded juvenile and his mother against three gun companies. Since the gun used in that shooting was never identified, the judge felt it was only fair to split the damages among the manufacturers that could have made such a firearm. That legal insanity was called "market share liability." In explaining her legal theory to Congress during testimony opposing NRA-backed tort reform, Barnes said, "The negligence and public nuisance cases targeted here involve the marketing, distribution and sale of underground market guns ... guns acquired outside of legal channels by persons who could not get them legally.... these guns are acquired: on street corners, out of the trunks of cars, traded for drugs." She claimed these unlawful black market guns "constitute a substantial market segment for the gun industry." (emphasis added) The Washington Post loved the case, and in a profile of the mother said, "She does not blame the child who accidentally fired the gun or the adult who bought it illegally or the gun trafficker who sold it out of a car trunk. Instead her rage is aimed at the firearms industry ...." Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals-after getting a unanimous opinion from the New York State Supreme Court that the legal theory was bogus under state law-unanimously reversed Judge Weinstein. No matter. Having had her crackpot legal theories demolished by two appeals courts, Barnes came back at the industry, again filing a case before Judge Weinstein- this time with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as the plaintiff. The trial lasted six weeks and was based on the notion that the marketing and sales practices of the firearm industry nationwide created a "public nuisance" in New York. The "nuisance?" Here's how Weinstein summed it up: "... large numbers of handguns are available to criminals, juveniles and other people prohibited by law from possessing and using them in New York State ...." It's crazy. The firearm industry is among the most highly regulated in the nation, from manufacture to distribution to the retail sales involving individuals who must pass through the National Instant Check System (NICS). On top of that, every aspect of criminal commerce in guns-from illegal strawman sales to falsifying identification to licensed dealers to illegal interstate transportation to illegal sales to convicted felons or fugitives to violating state laws-is covered by federal criminal statutes that call for harsh penalties. None of that mattered in the show-trial world of Judge Weinstein. In the end-in his decision-he embraced the entire bizarre "public nuisance" theory, and placed the blame for New York's illegally armed criminals on the firearm industry. He even wrote as part of his proof in support of the collective guilt of the industry that legal guns "were diverted into the illegal market through theft from a retailer ...." (emphasis added) Though Weinstein endorsed every element of Barnes' wacky claim, he nonetheless could not find that NAACP was uniquely harmed and was forced to dismiss the lawsuit. Yet Judge Weinstein's 1 76-page decision issued a plain invitation to try again. It was a decision in search of a future lawsuit. In the meantime, the industry, and ultimately consumers, have paid the price, with. millions upon millions of dollars spent in costs to defend against this legal insanity alone. Those skyrocketing costs demonstrate the real purpose of such malignant lawsuits-what Handgun Control, Inc., called "a death of a thousand cuts" in which the exorbitant costs of legal defense would liquidate the industry. Only when President George W. Bush signs S. 659 into law will this backdoor gun ban be stopped. |
If Americans and the U.S. Congress needed overwhelming
proof of the corruption of the judicial system by greedy trial lawyers,
New York Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein proved a poster-boy for
reform to end the evils of endless malicious tort claims.
|
And since September 11, more and more of them are shooting firearms, owning firearms, considering the option, or at least standing up for the rights of others to make that decision for themselves. Before September 11, anti-gun Democrats cynically tried to exploit mothers' concerns about their children's' safety by pushing anti-gun gimmicks. Al Gore tried to pander to so-called "soccer mom" voters by donning his Donahue persona and pushing gun-owner licensing, gun registration and various other feel-good but phony sound bite "solutions." Anti-gun Democrats around the country tried the same stunt. But American voters, and especially American women, saw the charade for what it was. They realized that anti-gun laws couldn't protect children-but could leave parents defenseless to protect their families themselves. The events of September 11 just drove that reality home. After surveying Americans' views on the merits of arming airline pilots, pollster David Winston found that married women with children-the so-called "soccer moms" who anti-gun Democrats tried to woo with gun bans-were some of the strongest advocates of firearms in the cockpit. Anti-gun Democrats tried to camouflage their true colors in the 2002 elections, but voters who value their freedoms detected the disguise and responded with a backlash. In elections where NRA-ILA endorsed one candidate over another in 2002, we won 82 percent of them at the state level,84 percent of them in the U.S. Senate, and 94 percent of them in the House of Representatives-the most successful election cycle in NRA-ILA's history. In fact, George W. Bush became the first Republican president in 100 years to see his party gain seats in a mid-term election-thanks, in large measure, to the anti-gun stance of many Democrats and the pro-freedom conviction of the women voters who helped defeat them. American women don't want bureaucrats and politicians to dictate what they may and may not do to protect themselves and their families. They don't want to be told "you're not safe enough" or "you're not responsible enough" or "you have to get our permission first" to exercise the fundamental human right of self-preservation. They don't want to depend on overtaxed, under funded police, fire and emergency services to protect them. Increasingly, American women are relying upon themselves for that. After September 11, the number of women enrolling in firearm safety courses doubled. Meanwhile, more and more women are taking up recreational shooting, competitive shooting and hunting. The "Million Mom March" has dwindled and been absorbed by the Brady bunch. In the first debate between the 2004 Democrat presidential hopefuls, when the question of gun control was raised, it floated away almost untouched, like an off-color joke at the company picnic. From one end of the political spectrum to the other, anti-gun Democrats are staying silent on the Second Amendment. But don't let their silence deceive you. When it comes to your freedoms, actions mean much more than words. No matter what they say on the stage, many of these politicians have voted time and again to ban your guns and banish your freedoms. So when you're considering how to cast your vote in next year's elections, forget the rhetoric and look at their records. Forget what they say, and look at what they've done. With more and more "soccer moms" becoming "shooter moms'" anti-gun politicians may be losing a crucial swing vote' and that's good for our firearms and our freedom. But it's only good if we, as gun owners, continue to expose those anti-gun lawmakers to the will of American voters. Only then can we remind them-just as millions of American women are realizing today-that when all else fails, the right to choose to own the means of self-defense is a right that no one can deny, and that no other freedom can replace. |
September 11,2001, they say, changed everything.
But out of the horror and tragedy of that day, a new army may
have emerged for liberty. Our freedoms now have a new legion
of guardians: American women concerned for their families' safety.