Tag: gun control

This Elderly Man Was Arrested After Shooting a Burglar in Self-Defense—Because His Gun Was Unlicensed

Dennis Powanda and Vincent Yakaitis are bound together by a common experience: They were both criminally charged in connection with an attempted burglary. Powanda was the burglar, and Yakaitis was the property owner.

Ah, justice.

Indeed, that’s not a misprint, parody, or a bad joke (although I wish it were the latter). Powanda was arrested and charged with criminal trespass and burglary, along with other related offenses, for executing the botched raid a little before 2:00 a.m. in February 2023 at Yakaitis’ property in Port Carbon, Pennsylvania. The government charged Yakaitis, who is in his mid-70s, with using a firearm without a license after he shot Powanda, despite that it appears prosecutors agree Yakaitis justifiably used that same firearm in self-defense.

Whatever your vantage point—whether you care about criminal justice reform and a fair legal system, or gun rights, or all of the above—it is difficult to make sense of arresting and potentially imprisoning someone over what essentially amounts to a paperwork violation. That injustice is even more glaring when considering that Powanda, 40, allegedly charged at Yakaitis, who happens to be about three and a half decades older than Powanda.

Pennsylvania’s permitting regime does carve out a couple of exceptions, one of which would seem to highly favor Yakaitis. Someone does not need a license to carry, according to the law, “in his place of abode or fixed place of business.” Yakaitis owned the home Powanda attempted to burglarize. The catch: He didn’t live there—it reportedly had no tenants at the time of the crime—opening a window for law enforcement to charge him essentially on a technicality.

If convicted, Yakaitis faces up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Quite the price to pay for protecting your life on your own property. The misdemeanor charge also implies that Yakaitis has no history of using his weapon inappropriately, or any criminal record at all, as Pennsylvania law classifies his particular crime—carrying a firearm without a license—as a felony if the defendant has prior criminal convictions and would be disqualified from obtaining such a license. In other words, we can deduce that Yakaitis was a law-abiding citizen and eligible for a permit, which means he is staring down five years in a cell for not turning in a form and paying a fee to local law enforcement. OK.

Yakaitis is not the first such case. In June, law enforcement in New York charged Charles Foehner with so many gun possession crimes that if convicted on all of them he would face life in prison. Police came to be aware of his unlicensed firearms when Foehner defended himself against an attempted mugger—the surveillance footage is here—after which they searched Foehner’s home and found that only some of his weapons were licensed with the state.

Keep reading

NYC Man Convicted Over Gunsmithing Hobby After Judge Says 2nd Amendment ‘Doesn’t Exist in This Courtroom’

A Brooklyn man has been convicted of 13 weapons charges after having been arrested and charged in 2022 for building his own firearms. Dexter Taylor’s ordeal could become a landmark Second Amendment case in light of the Bruen ruling handed down in the same year.

The jury found Taylor guilty of second-degree criminal possession of a loaded weapon, four counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, five counts of criminal possession of a firearm, second-degree criminal possession of five or more firearms, unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, violation of certificate of registration, prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers. Two lesser charges, including third-degree criminal possession of three or more firearms and third-degree possession of a weapon, were not voted on.

Taylor, a 52-year-old New York native and a software engineer, discovered the world of gunsmithing years ago. He decided to take it up as a hobby and possibly turn it into a business later. However, when a joint ATF/NYPD task force discovered he was legally buying parts from various companies, they opened up an investigation that led to a SWAT raid and arrest. 

He is currently being jailed on Rikers Island as he awaits sentencing. Taylor’s conviction highlights the ongoing battle for gun rights. During an interview with Vinoo Varghese, Taylor’s defense lawyer, he detailed how Taylor’s trial proceeded and highlighted a distinct bias in favor of the prosecution.

Varghese described how Taylor became fascinated by weapon science during the COVID-19 lockdowns, which inspired him to take up his gunsmithing hobby. “He ended up building, I believe it was eight pistols and five rifles or six rifles, AR-style rifles, and then eight or nine Glock pistols that he built,” Varghese said.

Keep reading

Biden announces largest expansion of gun background checks in decades

The Biden administration has finalized the largest expansion of gun-sales background checks since the advent of the federal check system in the 1990s, moving to close the “gun show loophole” and online sales that have avoided checks in the past.

The new rule being announced Thursday expands the definition of who is considered a firearms dealer and says every dealer must conduct a background check regardless of the sale venue. That means sales at gun shows or conducted over the internet must now be included.

It is not a universal background check, meaning some transactions such as gifts or occasional sales are still exempt. But administration officials said they expect the rule will cover tens of thousands of sales each year that currently escape background checks.

Keep reading

ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA), Vol. III, undermines the left’s long-standing hysteria over a so-called “gun show loophole.”

The NFCTA examines gun trafficking and gun trafficking channels, both domestic and international.

The ATF uploaded the NFCTA in various parts or segments, and part four looks at “source-to-market” trafficking.

From the NFCTA:

The term source-to-market type captures the geographic scope of firearm trafficking cases, which include intrastate, interstate, and international trafficking. Within the U.S., intrastate trafficking involves the movement of firearms in markets within states, while interstate trafficking occurs between states. International trafficking involves the movement of firearms in markets between the U.S. and a foreign country. For interstate and international trafficking, the term ‘source’ is used to identify the state or country that is the supplier of illicit firearms, while the term ‘market’ is used to identify the state or country that is the recipient of illicit firearms. In the case of international trafficking, the U.S. may serve as the source country while a foreign country serves as the market country, referred to as U.S. to foreign trafficking. Conversely, a foreign country may serve as the source country while the U.S. serves as the market country, referred to as foreign to U.S. trafficking.

Following decades of hysteria from the left resulting in gun control push after gun control push based on the so-called “gun show loophole,” one would think such shows to play a dominant role in intrastate and interstate trafficking. However, the NFCTA numbers show only 3.2 percent of ATF intrastate trafficking cases involve “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions.”

Moreover, only 4.3 percent of ATF interstate trafficking cases involve “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions.”

The percentage of international ATF trafficking cases from the United States to a foreign country involving “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions” is 4.5 percent.

Keep reading

Wyoming Governor Signs Law Prohibiting State Enforcement of Federal Red Flag Laws

On Friday, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that bars state and local officials from enforcing federal “extreme risk” protective orders – sometimes referred to as red flag laws. The bill will not only protect liberty in Wyoming; it will also hinder federal efforts to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Rep. Bill Allemand and 12 other cosponsors filed Senate Bill 109 (SF109) on Feb. 13. Titled “Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act,” the new law prohibits any state or local agency “from implementing or enforcing any federal statute, rule, executive order, judicial order or judicial findings or any state statute, rule, executive order, judicial order or judicial findings that would enforce a red flag gun seizure order against or upon a resident of Wyoming” who is legally allowed to possess a firearm under state law. It also prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from using personnel or funds for enforcement of the same.

No governmental entities in the state are allowed to accept federal grant funding to implement any federal red flag law. Anyone found in violation of the law by a court will now be subject to a civil penalty of up to $50,000 fifty per violation, and the court “may order any injunctive or other equitable relief as permitted by law.”

On March 6, the House passed SF109 by a 54-8 vote with some technical amendments. The following day, the Senate concurred with the House amendments by a 30-0 vote. With Gov. Gordon’s signature, the law went into immediate effect.

Keep reading

Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center

The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which  will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

ERPO laws, which are modeled off domestic violence protection orders, create a civil process allowing law enforcement, family members (in most states), and medical professionals or other groups (in some states) to petition a court to temporarily prohibit someone at risk of harming themselves or others from purchasing and possessing firearms for the duration of the order.

In 2023, the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded $238 million to states, territories, and the District of Columbia under the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP), which was created by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and is designed to help jurisdictions implement crisis intervention strategies, including ERPO programs. In addition, OJP awarded $4 million to support training and technical assistance under Byrne SCIP, including $2 million that was awarded to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions to establish the ERPO Resource Center. In collaboration with OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Center will support states, local governments, law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service providers, and behavioral health and other social service providers in their efforts to implement ERPO programs to fit local needs, share resources and promising practices with the field, and help ensure that funding received through Byrne SCIP is effectively utilized.

“Supporting our law enforcement and community partners in curbing the scourge of gun violence is more critical than ever,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “In addition to other resources leveraged across the Justice Department, this Center will provide communities with new tools and technical assistance to help them implement effective crisis intervention strategies and reduce gun violence.”

Keep reading

Another Judge Says Illegal Immigrants Have Second Amendment Rights

In a decision earlier this month in U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman concluded that you can’t always and under every circumstance prohibit people in the country illegally from legally possessing weapons.

The factual background of the prosecution of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, as explained in Judge Coleman’s decision: “On June 1, 2020, Carbajal-Flores possessed a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois. Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun for self-protection and protection of property. Because of Carbajal-Flores’ citizenship status, he was charged with violating of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the United States from ‘possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.'”

Judge Coleman granted a motion to dismiss the charges against Carbajal-Flores, by declaring that such a blanket prohibition against weapons possession for a category of people can’t withstand scrutiny under current Second Amendment doctrine.

Carbajal-Flores has been on pre-trial release and “has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release,” the decision explains. “Pretrial Services has conducted numerous employment visits at various sites, and Carbajal-Flores consistently provides the necessary documentation to verify his income when requested. A criminal record check conducted through the National Crime Information Center reflects no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Firearm Restrictions on Defendants Awaiting Trial Are Constitutional

A federal court has ruled it is constitutional to block a defendant’s Second Amendment rights while they are awaiting trial.

On March 18, the three-judge panel in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the restriction on the rights of Jesus Perez-Garcia and John Thomas Fencl to bear firearms is constitutional because it is consistent with historic legal precedent.

While these are two separate cases, with Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel ruling on Mr. Perez-Garcia’s case on Dec. 2, 2022, and Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino ruling on Mr. Fencl’s case on Dec. 7, 2022, both men brought their legal challenge before the federal appeals court on Jan. 26, 2023.

In the 47-page appellate court opinion (pdf), Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez said, “Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and broad history of legislatures exercising authority to disarm people whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others.

“The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-Garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition,” Judge Sanchez wrote further, adding that the court found that restricting the defendants’ right to own firearms is “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”

Judge Sanchez wrote that the decision to confiscate the guns owned by Mr. Perez-Garcia and Mr. Fencl was “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”

Keep reading

Gun Ban for Illegal Immigrants Ruled Unconstitutional

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, meaning all free men and women have that right, regardless of where they are on the planet. It’s part of why so many of us find other nations’ gun laws so insulting. It’s a repression of people’s right to have weapons to defend themselves and their nation.

A repression that goes out the window in the face of invasion, it should be noted.

But that brings about the question of illegal immigrants. Do they forfeit their rights when they enter the United States illegally, or do they maintain their rights as they’ve not actually been convicted of a felony or anything else?

For a long time, the official line is that they don’t get to have guns. Period.

Yet a federal court has decided something quite differently.

The Second Amendment protects people’s ability to own a gun even if they’ve entered the country illegally.

That’s the ruling handed down by US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday. She found the federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning guns is unconstitutional, at least as applied to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. She ruled the ban did not fit with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation as required under the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Colman wrote in US v. Carbajal-Flores. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

The ruling is the latest fallout from the new standard for Second Amendment cases set in Bruen. Since the landmark case was decided in 2022, a wide swath of state and federal gun restrictions have come under increased scrutiny in the courts. Among the most commonly recurring questions raised by the new standard is who can be barred from owning guns, and the Carbajal-Flores case is among the first to examine whether people who entered the country illegally are among them.

Keep reading

Washington lawmakers pass bill tightening restrictions on gun shops

Washington State lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday tightening restrictions on gun dealers’ business operations.

The bill,approved by both the state’s House and Senate, would require vendors to secure and monitor their stores at all times. Businesses would need to have bars, grates and security screens on all windows and commercial grade metal doors for each point of entry.

“The point really is about commonsense business regulation that will keep our communities more safe,” State Rep. Amy Walen, D-Kirkland, a sponsor of the bill, noted. “Those who buy and sell firearms have a responsibility to keep their firearms secure, to keep them safe, and there’s reasonable surveillance requirements within the bill.”

Vendors would also have to install a security alarm system monitored by a remote base capable of contacting law enforcement and observing all firearms, windows and doors. Detectors noticing entry, motion and sound are required elements of the systems.

“We need to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep us more safe,” State Rep. Walen argued. “This is a special area of vulnerability, and I think that requires special responsibilities.”

The legislation also requires businesses to mount surveillance systems able to record prospective purchasers and remain active for 24 hours. A visible sign would accompany the cameras and alert customers they, along with their conversations, may be recorded.

Keep reading