An exclusive neighborhood near Houston, Texas, was the scene of an early morning shooting, as an armed homeowner fought off three attackers.
Just after midnight on Tuesday, police responded to a house in the affluent Afton Oaks subdivision, where the owner of the home said he was approached by three male teenagers who punched him in the face. The homeowner then shot at the teens, who fired back as they fled the scene.
Later, the teens showed up at a nearby hospital, with one of the three bleeding from a bullet wound. The police were then notified by hospital security, and each of the teens were linked to the earlier shootout. Officers at the hospital said the teenagers gave differing stories, but they now believe robbery was the motivation behind the crime. An investigation into the shooting is still ongoing.
House “Sitters” Face Ethics Complaint For Fundraising Violations
Last week, A1F.org wrote that the so-called “sit-in” by House Democrats was actually a fundraiser in disguise. Now, House Dems face an ethics complaint for violating House rules barring fundraising around specific legislation—and for using House resources to do so.
According to an article in USA TODAY, the Foundation For Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the House Office of Congressional Ethics that House Dems violated the House ethics manual: “the House buildings, and House rooms and offices—including district offices … may not be used for the conduct of campaign or political activities … a member may not film a campaign commercial or have campaign photos taken in a congressional office.”
During the sit-in, Jared Huffman, D-Calif., Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., sent fundraising emails, images and videos from the House floor, in violation of rules barring photos and video (Schakowsky is not named in the complaint). House Democrats also sent fundraising emails referencing Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and John Lewis, D-Ga., demanding a vote on gun control, violating the ban on fundraising tied to specific legislation.
Cinemark Seeks $700,000 In Legal Fees
In September 2012, more than two dozen survivors of the Aurora, Colo., shooting sued theater owner Cinemark for alleged security flaws that they believed helped enable the deadly attack. “I think they contributed to an environment where they didn’t have the deterrence or prevention necessary to protect the patrons in their theater,” said expert witness Gil Fried, a University of New Haven professor.
A six-person state jury determined in May that Cinemark was not to blame for the attack. And last week, a similar case in federal court—filed by a different group of victims—also ruled in favor of Cinemark, with a judge ordering that the company be “awarded reasonable costs.”
Out nearly $700,000 in legal fees, Cinemark is fighting back. The theater chain is now seeking $699,198 in legal fees from those who filed the failed lawsuits.
Gunpocalypse Now: CA Gov. Signs Anti-Gun Bills Into Law
On Friday, less than three weeks after the deadly Orlando terror attack, California Gov. Jerry Brown delivered a major blow to California gun owners when he signed six of the so-called “Gunpocalypse” bills into law. Because the activities ostensibly targeted by this bill are already illegal under state and federal laws, and criminals in the future aren’t expected to care any more than they have in the past, this move can only be seen as a direct blow to the state’s Second Amendment rights.
NRA-ILA California spokesperson Amy Hunter, who called the bills “a draconian gun-control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens,” took the state’s elected officials to task over their use of both the recent tragedy and December’s attack in San Bernardino to help ramrod through their gun-control agenda.
“The governor and legislature exploited a terrorist attack to push these measures through, even though the state’s already restrictive laws did nothing to stop the attack in San Bernardino," she said.
-A.B.1135/S.B.880, which will reclassify hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons”; -A.B.1511, which will effectively end the practice of temporarily loaning a firearm to anyone other than a family member without going through a dealer; -S.B.1235, which will mandate registration of ammunition purchases; and -S.B.1446, which will ban the possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.
While bills redefining “firearms” to include unfinished frames/receivers; significantly expanding who’s eligible to seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order; mandating crime victims report theft of a firearm within five days; and expanding the one-gun-a-month law to all guns were vetoed, the impact on California’s gun owners of the laws that were signed will enormous and cannot be overstated.
“These bills make no one safer; they only add another layer of laws that criminals will continue to break. The National Rifle Association is prepared to pursue all options moving forward—legal, legislative and political,” Hunter said.
Seattle Council: Selling Guns To Law-Abiding Citizens Is Putting Them “Into The Wrong Hands”
Judging from the Seattle City Council’s decision earlier this week to destroy old police firearms to “keep them out of the wrong hands,” those “wrong hands” they refer to must belong to law-abiding citizens who pass an FBI background check.
The ignorance of the council’s action is easy to see: In the past, the city has sold old police firearms to licensed dealers. Anybody who bought one of these guns from a dealer would go through a background check before the purchase was approved. Additionally, Mayor Ed Murray, who pushed the plan, couldn’t cite a specific example when a retired Seattle police gun got into the “wrong hands,” according to a story in the Washington Times. Seattle Police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb also couldn’t recall a single instance of a retired Seattle police gun being used in a crime.
This bogus, feel-good move by the council is not only a slap in the face to citizens looking for a good deal on guns, but also to taxpayers, who will lose $30,000 a year over the decision.