Man who pulled gun during late-night Coney Island melee had a concealed weapons permit
Security camera video footage of the Jan. 11 fight at Luca's Coney Island.
Courtesy of the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office
Editor's note: Information about Michigan's stand-your-ground law has been corrected in this article. Also the spelling of Trayvon Martin's first name has been corrected.
On Jan. 11, 32-year-old Ronjour Jacobs of Ann Arbor carried a gun into the Luca’s 24-hour Coney Island in Ypsilanti Township, as he is allowed to do with his concealed weapons permit.
But shortly after arriving, police say, he pulled the gun out, pointed it in a waitress's face, put it to the back of another victim’s head and brandished it during a melee involving two groups.
Luca's Coney Island at 2469 Washtenaw Ave. in Ypsilanti Township.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
Jacobs is being held on $100,000 cash bond. A pretrial hearing is set for Monday.
The incident comes as a national dialogue heats up over gun control following the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 children and six educators.
It also comes as Washtenaw County sees a spike in the number of CCW applicants and permit holders. Ernie Milligan, chairman of the Washtenaw County Gun Board, said the board received 189 applications for permits in February 2011. That figure rose to 444 applicants in February 2013.
There were 1,841 county residents with CCW permits in 2011, and Milligan expects that figure to at least double by the end of 2013.
The Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office does not keep statistics on how many people it arrests have a CCW permit. Since it isn't something that is noted in reports, it’s impossible to say how many CCW license holders are law abiding or not, spokesman Derrick Jackson said.
A concealed-carry permit allows someone to carry a gun in a holster, purse, under a coat or anywhere where it is concealed," Jackson said. It doesn’t allow anyone to brandish a gun or pull it out in a fistfight, as Jacobs did.
“At the point that he took it out and put in someone’s face; that’s where, in this particular case, the law began to be broken,” Jackson said.
Michigan has the so-called “stand your ground” law that allows residents to use a gun if they “honestly and reasonably” believe they or another person are being threatened with death, severe injury or rape. The laws have been controversial and are at the center of the Trayvon Martin shooting, in which a 17 year-old black male from Florida was fatally shot by a man who claimed he was threatened.
However, nothing in Michigan law addresses openly carrying a gun. Since there is no law against someone walking around with a gun out in the open, there technically is no way for law enforcement to stop someone from doing just that.
There are, however, some "no carry zones," like schools, hospitals and police stations.
Users obtain CCW permits through the Washtenaw County clerk’s office. Applicants must take a gun safety course and pass a federal background check. They are rejected if they have certain crimes on their record, like gun violence or domestic assault.
Jackson did not respond to inquiries about whether or not Jacobs had prior arrests before the incident at Luca’s. He said officers are aware that there is an increase in the number of people carrying guns in Washtenaw County, and they do regularly encounter people with permits.
“Deputies have to be mindful of the number of weapons out there now because of the dangers they pose,” he said.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter for AnnArbor.com. Contact the news desk at 734-623-2530.
Comments
whatsupwithMI
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
A good friend of mine who is a police officer states: if you pull a gun out, even with a permit-- you had best shoot someone.
Brenda Byrne
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 10:22 p.m.
If you get a CCW in Michigan, but you can't pull it out, what is the point? This man is employed as a bouncer. He is used to stopping fights with intimidation. It is impossible to understand the cause of the melee with no sound on the video. If you can't pull it out in a threatening situation, then we need better lawmakers. I guess you just tell the attackers that you have a gun? Not effective.
hail2thevict0r
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
Brenda, you're only allowed to use your firearm if your life is threatened and once that threat is gone you are no longer allowed to brandish it. In this case, putting the gun in a lady's face as she's cowering on the ground is the point at which he did something illegal. Pulling the gun out, originally, may not have been deemed an illegal use. As long as he did it to get himself out of danger, the problem is that he stayed around to threaten these people with the gun after the threat had already diminished.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:50 p.m.
A CPL is for protection, not intimidation.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:48 p.m.
If this man is a bouncer, he is terrible and reckless at what he does.
justcurious
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:13 p.m.
But Brenda, why did he threaten the woman on the floor with it? I'm wondering if she was part of the whole thing besides just being a waitress there, but that would not excuse his actions..she was obviously not armed.
Honest Abe
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:24 p.m.
I'm all for the 2nd Amendment and I'm as pro-firearm as you can get. However, in my opinion, Jacobs broke the law when he drew his weapon and began pointing it, especially in the girls face. Your CCW does not entitle you to pull out your gun to break up a fight, or to get everyone's 'attention', or to intimidate. I have a CCW also! Just because a brawl erupts does not give you a reason to pull out your pocket cannon and start pointing it! The video clearly indicates why this guy was rightfully charged and hopefully he loses all of his firearm rights and is convicted of all charges!
Honest Abe
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 4:14 a.m.
Nice tone there, Tru. I never indicated anyone defended Jacobs acts. By the way, I guess I stand corrected on the "CPL" - Not! The term was actually defined as "CCW" when I originally received mine. Just so you know. Perhaps you should try to find out a bit more from me, before spewing off. Then again, I probably don't know what I'm talking about! My time in the military, 6 years I spent as a counselor before I changed careers, not to mention the FFL license I have (I sell firearms as a hobby, by the way) mean absolutely nothing! Right!?
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:30 p.m.
He'll be tried on those charges, so what's your point? Also as pointed out: if you take the required course to obtain a Concealed Pistol License (not "CCW" that's a criminal charge, it's "CPL" according to lawmakers and the Michigan State Police), then you're informed by an attorney what's permitted and what's not vis a vis "displaying your gun." I guess from your post that you're thinking someone defended Jacob's action: no one did. :-)
Honest Abe
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.
Not trying to repeat myself in my original post, just upset this guy was so foolish!
Kitty
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
fishy fishy, he needs to go down, to jail that is
evenyoubrutus
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
And I'm sure if he HADN'T had a CCW he would not have been carrying a gun, right?
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:29 p.m.
" Since it isn't something that is noted in reports, it's impossible to say how many CCW license holders are law abiding or not, spokesman Derrick Jackson said." NOT TRUE! And typical of under informed segments of the law enforcement community. Fact is, the Michigan State Police is charged with keeping track of crimes committed by CPL (not "CCW") holders. This info (ironically) is available thru monthly/ yearly reports (by county!) on the MSP website. Hilarious that our sheriff's office isn't checking with MSP, isn't it? R. Jacobs' action was egregious and illegal - he should have known that if he'd been paying attention during the qualification class he is supposed to have taken to get a CPL. He could not have prior FELONIOUS arrests and still keep his CPL, period. And- if convicted on these charges, Jacobs will never get a CPL in any state again. (not even mentioning he's facing massive lawyer bills whether he gets convicted or not) The so-called "Travon Martin Shooting" is a bogus negative publicity stunt perpetrated by the sensationalist news media. That's ONE incident (still being tried) in an ENTIRE NATION which involves one S.Y.G.law (the Florida version). "Deputies have to be mindful of the number of weapons out there now because of the dangers they pose," – A generally true statement but still misleading. ALL law enforcement must be mindful of the number of weapons "out there." But they have to be MORE mindful of the illegally possessed guns in the hands of yet-to-be-captured criminals because they are a 50X greater threat than the average gun owner, concealed carry licensee. Advice for Mr. Perkins: try to spend a bit more time on reporting dispassionately rather than in Rabble Rouser Mode. If you're interested in getting factual, you can always check with the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO.org) or any of a number of reliable sources.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 10:39 p.m.
@Tyrone, of course you're right about the news "journalists" be they TV talking heads or free lance like Mr. Perkins. On my mind are two things: 1. is disassembling this divisive one-sided "mindset" on the part of journalists. In the Martin-Zimmerman case they sensationalized in an effort to undo the Stand Your Ground laws (aka, "Castle Doctrines") reform which is specifically designed to AVOID making those who take reasonable defensive action into wrong-doers subject to conviction. The central issue was ending the ridiculous legal requirement to ALWAYS RETREAT in the face of imminent threat. That requirement violated the right to self defense, which itself is inalienable. So an unjust legal requirement was ended and replaced with one based on a rational, realistic assessment of self defense situations. 2. I've also decided to become active on behalf of honesty and justice in general - particularly as applied to political parties and to elected officials. The Democrats' current effort to pile more blame and regulation upon honest, non-criminal gun owners is just that kind of dishonest, unjust attitude and action. So it might be said that working against anti-gun-owners is serving that essential area as well. Thanks for your comment and best wishes.
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:59 p.m.
Additionally, Zimmerman isn't even invoking SYG. He's claiming self defense. But that doesn't stop the media.
P. Marie Mason
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:06 p.m.
Did no one see the other guy with the gun??? What about the second gun on the scene?!
Tom Perkins
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.
As reported in the original story on the incident, police have yet to identify the man and he remains wanted.
justcurious
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:11 p.m.
We talked about that about a dozen comments up. I guess you missed it.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.
You oughta know by now: the newsies are gonna pick the most sensational aspect of any story and try to stir people into emotional reaction (whichever kind they favor). Take it from someone who's been misquoted even by "friendly journalists" and has seen others repeatedly misquoted over the past 50 years. It is funny that no one seems to have noticed the other guy pulling out his gun - but unless he did something "actionable" other than put it back out of sight - there's been no law broken. Maybe that's why it's been ignored - the rabble rousing news media knows it won't sell anti-gun-owner sentiments.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:38 p.m.
You're right, I never noticed that. The guy at the end in the upper left looks to have a gun in his left hand and looks to be trying to put it away towards the end of the video into his belt or pocket. Although, his actions may have been a little more justified given there was a guy waiving a gun around.
rm1
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:24 p.m.
"The last portion of the video, where the girl is being dragged away and he pulls his gun and points it directly at her face while she is on the ground" -- that starts at about 0:55 in the video. The impressive one in this drama is the guy in a purple shirt who shoves aside the guy with the gun and gets between the gun guy and the women he's pointing the gun at, so the gun is leveled at his chest, not at the woman. Takes some nerve. Although I'm guessing he knows the gun guy, and that this will cool him down. The Coney Island employees who show up with a clipboard to talk to the woman he'd pointed the gun at seem pretty calm -- maybe they see this sort of thing a lot?
Jay Thomas
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:06 p.m.
Apparently the same thing has happened there hundreds of times. So, yes, they must see it a lot.
Gerry
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:41 p.m.
Until the NRA lobbied to have the study's funding cut, university research indicated that firearms in homes were 43 times more likely to be used on a someone living in that home than on an intruder.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:09 p.m.
@Gerry: Interesting if what you say is true because -- the statistic you quote cannot exist because it was blocked by the NRA. So it's fair to ask, why are you quoting never confirmed information? Why would the NRA block such information? Judging from the endless campaign to misuse information like that for more gun owner control, it's only natural that somebody would act properly and defensively to prevent its wide misuse. :-) More power to the NRA!! This explains why the NRA gained 1 million new members in the 2 months after Obama's totally misleading gun-blaming speech to stir emotional reaction against the fundamental right to self defense. That's 43X more effective than progressively failing Democrats' efforts to annihilate the human right to self defense. And their efforts also caused a record high level in purchases of guns and ammunition, so I guess that's another Obama "stimulus plan" that worked. :-) Another thing 43 time more likely is that NRA haters are aiming at the wrong target. So go ahead, knock yourself out. :-)
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:26 p.m.
John, I'm not sure how what you posted relates to what I said? Gerry's numbers include suicides. If you want a reason as to why the NRA doesn't back things like you linked to, look no further than Gerry's comments. People use the numbers irresponsibly to back their own opinion.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.
Gerry....And I bet if you have knives in the home your'e more likely to be cut by one,if you drive a car you are more likely be hurt in one, if you have poison in your home you are more likely to be poisoned, if you have electricity in you home you are more likely to be electrocuted , if you have.....
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.
Did you know that 64% of all statistics are made up?
John
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
Nothing at all to do with "suicide" hail... Faced with government-funded research that contradicts NRA claims on gun safety, the gun lobby moved to defund the research and silence the researchers. When news reporters tried to learn which gun shops repeatedly supply violent criminals with firearms, the NRA lobbied to have gun-trace data exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. When advocates of transparency in campaign finance proposed the Disclose Act in Congress to require disclosure of top donors to political advertising campaigns, the NRA once again marched to the beat of its own 100-round drum: The organization obtained an exemption to keep its information secret. The list goes on. The NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendment requires the Justice Department to destroy records after gun-purchase background checks, making it harder to identify and catch straw buyers who work for criminals. As part of its war on information, the gun lobby has blocked efforts to put sales records into an integrated database, making the data more difficult for law enforcement officers to retrieve and organize, and complicating efforts to analyze gun trafficking patterns. After visiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Tracing Center in West Virginia, which is the nation's sole facility tracing guns used in crimes, Washington Post reporter James Grimaldi described the place as "something like out of the movie 'Brazil,' where you could literally see boxes and boxes of documents that pile up." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ 2012-12-20/why-does- the-nra-fear-the-truth- about-gun-violence-.html
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:45 p.m.
Because of suicide, which is not relevant to the discussion of gun control.
John
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
That is totally true, NRA...lobbying group for firearms dealers. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_ 162-57564599/nra-congress- stymied-cdc-gun-research-budget/
Gerry
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.
Improved public safety, concealed and carried right to the back of your neck!
DannnyA
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:13 p.m.
Tom, you're wrong. Michigan does have a stand-your-ground law. I can't believe annarbor dot com would assign a writer to cover a story who has zero knowledge of the subject.
Jay Thomas
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.
Tom is no different than any other reporter I've seen covering this issue. As a rule they know very little about guns or gun laws.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:57 p.m.
Still zero knowledge about gun laws and the actual "state" of gun use/gun ownership in Michigan or any other state. So you're right DannyA. "The story has already been corrected" – which brings up why wasn't it CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE, MR. PERKINS? Maybe I ought to be competing for your freelance writer position, Mr. Perkins. I have my authoritative resources bookmarked AND on speed dial. :-)
Tom Perkins
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.
The story has already been corrected. Thanks.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:50 p.m.
Could someone please tell me where I can get a crystal ball ( tarot cards ? ) so I can tell when someone with no criminal record will commit a crime ? that way I'll know who will drive drunk,rob, steal, assault someone, commit fraud etc....might come in handy
John
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.
I can help you out tdw: http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Crystal -Including-Wooden-Package/dp/ B004ZWMA3Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF 8&qid=1362422607&sr=8- 1&keywords=crystal+ball
sheepyd
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
Ann Arbor City Council Meeting?
chapmaja
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
After watching the video the only thing I can say is that this fool needs to lose his CPL and be charged with at least some of the list of crimes he is charged with. The last portion of the video, where the girl is being dragged away and he pulls his gun and points it directly at her face while she is on the ground, is not the action of a responsible gun owner, but someone on a major power trip provided by a couple pounds of metal in their hand. The difference between a responsible gun own and a clown like this is simple. A responsible gun owner with a CPL has the ability to defend themselves or others when needed, and takes that responsibility seriously without letting others know they have that ability. An irresponsible fool lets everyone know he has his weapon and uses it as a badge of honor (or dishonor). Personally I would much rather not know who has a weapon on them and who doesn't. Since I don't plan on being in a situation where a firearm is drawn anyway, I think it's safer to not know. With that said, if I ever was in a situation that someone was threatening me, my family, or others around me with a weapon, I sure would like to know it is possible that someone does have a firearm, since I know I can't count on the police for immediate protection. (Both legally and practically).
jcj
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
dsponini And I thought all those that post here were able to think for themselves, and not just repeat left wing rhetoric.Guess I was wrong!
chapmaja
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.
dsponini, The problem is the non-law abiding gun users are making it difficult for law abiding citizens to keep firearms. Sandy Hook was committed by someone who illegally stole firearms from the legal owner (his mom), after killing her. We don't outlaw cars because a few drivers get drunk and drive drunk do we? Why should we outlaw firearms because a few people can't follow the reasonable laws we have. Then again maybe we should get rid of all firearm laws and eventually all the idiots will kill off the other idiots and we will get rid of gun violence that way. Too bad to many innocents would be hurt first. That won't work, so, I guess We need reasonable gun laws to limit who can legally own a firearm. Beyond that, we need to make sure we can protect ourselves from people who wish us ill will and are illegally using a firearm.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:55 p.m.
dsponini..But I thought everyone who drives a car has a license and all priests are...no we are finding they're not?
dsponini
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
But I thought all gun owners were law abiding citizens just ready to take out the bad guys...no we are finding out they're not?
Thomas Jones
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
crazy video! glad they released it!
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
Good to know that anyone can get a CCW permit. I'll keep that in mind.
leaguebus
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 4:23 a.m.
Correct Jay, we have to wait till they kill someone illegally with the gun, then we take away their God given right to carry. Makes sense?
Jay Thomas
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:01 p.m.
I suppose we could hire "psychics" to vet the applications but that would probably fall short of the desired outcome. Until someone proves themselves to be incapable of exercising their rights by virtue of their behavior and actions we really have no way to judge who the bad apples will be.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.
Correct, anyone can get a CCW. However, there are multiple requirements one has to meet in order to get a CPL.
dsponini
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.
Pretty much true....
Tibonius
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
Deputies have to be mindful?? They have guns! Sounds like it is the public eho need to be concerned about licensed carriers.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:16 p.m.
Seems the public needs to be concerned about licensed concealed carriers?? Why?? This is ONE incident committed by an alleged offender. That make it one OUT OF 365,000!! The primary purpose and intent of the CPL law is to provide those who want it, the means to defend human life - and then only as a last ditch option. That's in support of the THE HUMAN RIGHT and CIVIL RIGHT to self defense and the defense of human life. One incident is too many? Well, just explain how that fits with the right to self defense. By your logic, NO ONE would have that legitimate effective means and that means complete elimination of a basic, necessary human right. All of that, based on a 1-in-365,000 incident. Seems a pretty far stretch of logic to make an entirely BOGUS point. :-)
John
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.
We all know only criminals break the law....so what's the really about? He was a legal CCW holder....this is nothing more than trying to take our guns away, stripping us of our 2nd amendment rights!! It's a travesty I tell ya!
chapmaja
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.
He was a legal gun owner until the point he committed a criminal act using that firearm. Once he used his firearm in a criminal manner he was no longer a legal CPL user. In a way it is no different than a drivers license. Someone with a legal drivers license can operate a car within the guidelines provided, but when you drive drunk, at that point you are committing a criminal act and are no longer a legal user of that license.
Mitch
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
RRRRR, Mr Derrick Jackson I hate to point out your ingornace, EVERY CPL holder is CERTIFIED and figer printed law abidinding citizen by the Federal governement and the Michigan State police at the time the CPL issued. According to the MSP, all 368,580 of us in Michigan and 3,391 in Washtenaw County todate. BTW you can also see how many were denied because and 1968 federal gun law and the 1995 amendment to that law. We are depending on every County Sherrif to register every felon to that list. Sorry, I take GREAT exception when you start lumping us good people in with the those that break the law. It reinforces the US against THEM mentality.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.
Mitch: that's a great post - thanks and congratulations from another (often smeared) gun owner /concealed carrier. Notice how the anti-gun-owner types run out of "facts" and end up resorting to snotty comments about your spelling? Funny - but also evidence we are up against a gang of human-rights-stealing trolls who won't give up regardless of countering facts and logic. Well, can't stick around here, got to strap on my Glock and go out on errands. As in all of the past 46 years, I don't expect to have to "brandish it" but know if I need it, I have it on my hip. Good luck to you, sir.
mady
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:34 p.m.
Mitch, you do have access to spell-check......?
Arboriginal
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
Who is the OTHER GUY in cammo with the Glock?
Ponycar
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:24 p.m.
It looks like he was a bystander who was on the other side of the restaurant when all this started and was just checking out the situation. I don't see the gun in his hand the first time you see him, but that's after the other dude pulled his gun. He's probably withing his rights to have it at the ready (if he too has a CPL) in case the guy started shooting. He showed intelligence and restraint in not brandishing his weapon. BTW Arboriginal: If you can tell for sure that that's a Glock, I'm impressed!! It's a bit too fuzzy for me!
justcurious
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
That is what I wanted to know when this video was first run on here.
a2cents
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.
get used to it, more to follow
GoNavy
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
...And now we know who he is, he'll be prosecuted, and won't ever be able to legally own a handgun again if indeed he is found guilty of a felony.
Crusader 53
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-10-07/business/36778976_1_gun-show-loophole-andrew-arulanandam-illegal-gun-sales http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-gun-shows/ yeah, he can get a gun illegally at a gun show.
Jay Thomas
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 10:53 p.m.
jusayin... when I went to the gun show in Mt. Clemens and bought a gun --> They called in a background check. A gun show here is no different than a gun store in that respect. If you think I'm wrong then try it. Boy, I wish you people would get your facts straight!
Mitch
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
Boy aren't you optimistic. Con's never hurt anyone...
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
crusader....any facts to back that up please ? Even so that just proves why law abiding citizens need their 2nd amendment rights
Crusader 53
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
Of course he can get a gun anytime , anyplace and to think otherwise is naive given our rabid gun culture.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
jusayin....He cannot and will not be able to get one at a gun show period.You should get your facts straight on gun shows.I bet you think he could get one on the internet
jusayin
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
no...he'll just buy one at a gun show. A miracle no one was killed...
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Big men with small minds thinking that just because they have the legal right to carry a weapon designed to kill and take human life in their pocket it is now their duty to play hero to all of society. This man wasn't threatened. He was trying to break up a fight and drew down on several people as a scare tactic to effect that end. Had he been a real so-called 'law abiding citizen' he would have known that it is illegal to use a gun for such purposes, even if one has a concealed carry permit. Simply because one has a permit to carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean that person is intelligent, controlled and ethical enough to safely carry the weapon.
leaguebus
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 4:15 a.m.
The only way we find out if a CCW carrier is someone who is responsible enough to have one is to wait for them to do something stupid with the weapon then take the CCW away? What happens when stupidity kills?
yourdad
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:51 a.m.
I sure hope you aren't lumping all CPL holders as having small minds. And I sure hope and pray that I never have to be a hero with a gun. But.... it is better to be judged by 12 (not including the blogs) than to be carried by six.
jcj
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
Matt "Simply because one has a permit to carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean that person is intelligent, controlled and ethical enough to safely carry the weapon." I agree But I could say the same thing about anyone who Drives or Drinks.
G. Orwell
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:34 p.m.
"There are self-defense laws in place if a resident is being attacked, but they are much stricter than the controversial "stand your ground" laws, which are at the center of the Treyvon Martin shooting, in which a 17 year-old black male from Florida was fatally shot by a man who claimed he was threatened." Evidence clearly shows that George Zimmerman was being beaten and his life was in danger. This is why the police did not charge him. The media hid all the photos for weeks. Zimmermann had a broke nose and several large bloody gashes on the back of his head. Google Zimmerman broken nose, bloody head. It was a tragic event but Zimmerman did the right thing. The media and our government should be ashame of themselves for using this event to push their agenda: gun control and racial divide.
yourdad
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:48 a.m.
Maybe we should just let the media determine all court cases. The reason that he shot the kid was that their conversation turned violent when the thug (yep, check the real thug pics he posted daily on his facebook page) didn't like to be questioned by the neighborhood watch person. He turned violent first and was winning the fight when the guy got to his gun. But if you want to look at the 3 year old pics that the media put out there with mom's help, feel free.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:40 p.m.
IF you follow someone around in your car at night and then stop your car and get out, YOU are being threatening and you don't then have the right to shoot the person you were stalking if they should choose to defend themselves.
dsponini
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
Puh-lease....Zimmerman is no victim, he killed an unarmed teenager in cold blood. I see the NRA shills have been donating to his legal defense fund. Really, really pathetic.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
"Nothing in Michigan law addresses openly carrying a gun. Since there is no law against someone walking around with a gun out in the open, there technically is no way for law enforcement to stop someone from doing just that. There are, however, some "no carry zones," like schools, hospitals and police stations." Please be sure to clarify that CPL holders can open carry in a Pistol Free Zone. The bill in December that Snyder vetoed was going to outlaw open carry all together, but the media only marketed it as allowing CPL holders to conceal carry in Pistol Free Zones. It pays to read the bill as oppose to accepting the medias spin on it. Rest assure, this man will never have a CPL again. He's lucky someone else in the restaurant didn't have their CPL and drew their pistol well inside the confines of the law.
Honest Abe
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 7:17 a.m.
Sorry Frank. I did not mean to say the quote was from you.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:14 p.m.
I should say…you are quoting Annarbor.com, not me.
Frank Lee
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:11 p.m.
Honest Abe – Did you read the article or know what a quote is?
Honest Abe
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:02 p.m.
"There are, however, some "no carry zones," like schools, hospitals and police stations." You're incorrect, Frank Lee. Actually, one can carry (open or concealed) in a police station. There is no law against it, unless they have a sign stating otherwise.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
Many people seem to be confused about open carry. There is no law preventing anyone from open carry in a "gun free" zone. All that does is prevent a CPL holder from carrying in those zones. The bill, as you stated, was meant to reverse that and outlaw open carry in those zones and force those who wanted to do so to get a higher level of training. But the media spin killed that one quickly. The sad thing is that it likely would have passed had the Connecticut shooting not happened.
G. Orwell
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
"Users obtain CCW permits through the Washtenaw County clerk's office. Applicants must take a gun safety course and pass a federal background check. They are rejected if they have certain crimes on their record, like gun violence or domestic assault." I highly doubt criminals would go through the CCW permitting procedure to carry a gun. They would probably laugh if told to do so. Can you imagine drug gangs attending CCW classes. Probably, 99% or very high percentage of CCW permit holders are law abiding people. You will always have a few people violate the rules. Can't avoid it. Just like bad drivers.
G. Orwell
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 3:59 a.m.
@sayzme I am glad murder is illegal in this country because it would be terrible if people murdered other people. I think there is also a law against illegal drugs. Don't be so naive.
sayzme
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.
Here we go with the "criminals don't obey laws" argument. Well maybe murder should just be legal since murderers don't follow laws
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Could we possibly do some actual reporting here? Michigan DOES have a stand your ground law. Oddly enough, one very similar to the Florida stand your ground law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/stand-your-ground-michigan-law-florida-trayvon-martin-self-defense-act_n_1527349.html "As the law stands, if a person believes he is at risk of being subjected to deadly force, great bodily harm or rape, he can use deadly force without first retreating. Many states have some version of the law on the books." However, that doesn't give one justification to start a fight and then bring out a gun.
jcj
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
"Since it isn't something that is noted in reports, it's impossible to say how many CCW license holders are law abiding or not" That's like saying it is impossible to say how many left handed people are law abiding. Or how many reporters actually went to journalism school.
jcj
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
In this case the "messenger" delivered a ridiculous statement. Would the "messenger" say in an article about a drunk driving accident, it's impossible to say how many drivers license holders are law abiding or not"
G-Man
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:38 p.m.
Stay away from these "late night" restaurants. If everyone had gone to bed at 9 pm, wouldn't have been a problem.
baker437
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:38 p.m.
"There were 1,841 county residents with CCW permits in 2011, and Milligan expects that figure to at least double by the end of 2013." This can't be right according to MSP report posted about from 07/01/10 - 06/30/11 Washtenaw County issued 1999 CPL. A CPL is good 5 years there must be more than this in the county.
baker437
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
"The Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office does not keep statistics on how many people it arrests have a CCW permit. Since it isn't something that is noted in reports, it's impossible to say how many CCW license holders are law abiding or not, spokesman Derrick Jackson said. " This statement should be followed up on since all Michigan counties report a huge amount of CPL information to the Michigan State Police every year. This includes number of revoked CPL because behavior such as or other serious crimes, but not things such as speed tickets. Here is the link to MSP report: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2011_CPL_Report_376632_7.pdf
yourdad
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:39 a.m.
The main reason that it is not noted and recorded in most reports is because most reports have no interest or bearing on a CPL. For instance, a private property crash or a noise complaint or a motorist assist report do not call for any acknowledgement of any parties having a CPL or not. And these are the most common types of reports written.
zip the cat
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
Sorry to inform you but michigan does have a stand your ground law House bill # 5143 passed and signed into law a few years ago. google it
Tom Perkins
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
You are right. The story has been updated. Thanks.
Billy
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
I think it's the one from 2006 for anyone looking for it.
antikvetch
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.
At first I thought a Strauss waltz, but finally decided the video was funnier with the Benny Hill theme music playing -
Blue Marker
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
Yakety Sax by Boots Randolph by the way.
RUKiddingMe
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
Let's hope this guy is punished to the maximum allowed and is never allowed to own, touch, or transport a firearm ever again.
Youwhine
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
"...shooting, in which a 17 year-old black male from Florida was fatally shot..." I am curious why there is no mention of race for the Sandy Hook victims you mentioned earlier in the story.
Eep
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
Maybe because the Sandy Hook victims weren't all the same race - I hate to judge just by pictures, but it looks like there were white, black, and Asian victims. There also haven't been any allegations that race played a role in the Sandy Hook incident - right or wrong, there certainly have been allegations that race played a roll with the Florida shooting.
Brad
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
"Since it isn't something that is noted in reports, it's impossible to say how many CCW license holders are law abiding or not" You people will print any statement, won't you? That's the difference between reporting and journalism.
Dipstick
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Brad, I agree there are so many things wrong in the article.
Brad
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.
Sorry, you will print any statement that aligns with your biases. That's annarbor.com.
Billy
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
"Michigan doesn't have the so-called "stand your ground" law that allows residents to use a gun if they feel threatened." Well actually sir....yes, we kinda do. Any "sudden and violent attack" is justification enough to use a firearm in self-defense regardless of the ACTUAL threat. This means if someone sucker punches you....you MAY respond by drawing your weapon and immediately shooting in defense....you MAY NOT respond by drawing your gun and then threatening them with it. Of course this doesn't apply here in the incident at Luca's. Glad to see he's facing a laundry list of charges, he's an irresponsible gun owner who's actions will ONLY hurt the public opinion of legitimate gun owners.
yourdad
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:34 a.m.
Sorry Billy but your example of being struck from behind by a bat would automatically qualify for a weapon laden response. Any person that brings a weapon to a fight would cause the fear of an imminent life threat to the other, which by default would bring out my CPL backed weapon. But I do feel as though a simple fist fight wouldn't justify a weapon unless I am under direct attack from a group of assailants.
Reverend Bubba X
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:02 p.m.
Legal right to draw the weapon does not entail an automatic right to shoot, immediately or otherwise.
Billy
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.
I have checked the law.......a "sudden and violent" attack removes the "duty to retreat" requirement. This is my point. Although we don't have the blanket "stand your ground" law.....you CAN use a firearm in self-defense regardless of actual threat as long as the attack was "sudden and violent." Getting hit with a pillow suddenly would not be cause to draw your weapon....taking a bat to the knee from behind however IS. I do want to point out a catch-22 I've found with this system. You are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS supposed to identify your target...and whatever is behind it...before shooting. If you have identified your target...you should now know whether a firearm is a proper response and thus removes the whole "unknown" aspect of the defense. If you fire before IDing your target...well then you're just practicing bad firearm handling.
glimmertwin
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.
You better check the law - there needs to be more than that to shoot. Multiple assailants; an assailant with a weapon (object, etc.), a significant size disadvantage or knowing that the person is a highly dangerous person due to prior acts. You may get a way with pulling it, but certainly not shooting it. Very subjective there. Let's not forget that if there is a trace of alcohol in the gun carrier's system, you are done.
Technojunkie
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:25 p.m.
Getting your head bashed in against the sidewalk like Zimmerman and shooting Martin in self defense is very different than brandishing a gun at a waitress who was sitting on the floor. These aren't remotely comparable situations. "Stand your ground" wouldn't apply in the latter case. You're taught in CPL training that you'd better have a really good reason to draw your weapon, much less shoot, because the law can and will be used against you. Jacobs should definitely lose his CPL, though I'd argue that losing his CPL is the least of his worries right now.
leaguebus
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 3:59 a.m.
And the Police told Zimmerman to leave the kid alone, more than once. So Zimmerman instigated the situation and eventually killed the kid. Why is he not to blame?
Jay Thomas
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 10:42 p.m.
@clownfish: Zimmerman was walking away from Martin after talking to him. So no, that wouldn't apply. Drugs were also found in Martin's system at the autopsy. People's perceptions are changed completely when under such an influence.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Weird, and hear I thought all those "facts" you are spouting had yet to be proven in a court of law. But AA.com says it's ok to convict everyone but CONVICTS before trial so long as they are gun owners.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.
clownfish...thankfully that's what courts are for.I hate to tell you this that just because someone is black there is no other reason to assume innocence
clownfish
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
Is there a possibility that Mr Martin was using "stand your ground" laws to defend himself against a perceived threat, a strange guy following him around and then confronting for no reason? Oh, right, he was a black kid with a hood on, no other reason needed.
JimmyD
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
I'm not a big fan of CCW, but I can say that the Sheriff's office does a good job of vetting the applications. One of my (later) ex-coworker was a real hothead. Police had visited him for a domestic disturbance and he had a fender bender escalate into a yelling match. They circular-filed his application despite his protests about his "rights".
Jenny
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.
Yeah, that's correct. What I'm surprised about is that this guy didn't have a felony already.. he is already 32 and if he is doing stupid things like this, it seems like he would have had a felony already before he got his CPL.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
A domestic disturbance within so many years of applying basically guarantees you won't get one.
Blue Marker
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
It's impossible for him to have a concealed weapons permit. For I've be told several times by pro-gun people they only give those out to law abiding citizens. There must be some sort of mistake. Can you feel the sarcasm? I hope so because I'm laying it on pretty thick.
Ann23
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 3:10 a.m.
And, because nobody who has ever been issued multiple PPO's telling them they are not allowed to posess guns has gotten away with keeping their guns anyway.
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
.....because NOBODY has ever broken the law with a car after getting a license. ....because No teacher has ever abused a student. .... because no priest has ever......an alter boy .... because no hockey coach has ever......
mermaid72
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
tdw--- liberal mermaids don't ever lie, even those with left-leaning, anti-gun views!
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.
Blue Marker, do you have some information that shows he was not a law-abiding citizen when he was given the permit? We - and law enforcement agencies - would like to have this information. Please post it.
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:07 p.m.
If it was good sarcasm, you wouldn't have to tell us it's sarcasm.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
mermaid...You are correct.Left wing.anti gun liberals don't lie either.Do they ?
mermaid72
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:01 p.m.
Yep, that's what the NRA sez. You know they don't lie! Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, or somthing like that.
RUKiddingMe
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
They DO only give them to law-abiding citizens. Then if those citizens break the law, they (hopefully) take it away. Kind of like Driver's licenses. You can get a license, and then get drunk and kill someone while driving. Also like voting. And other things.
trespass
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
I am not sure about this one. He is allowed to pull out his gun to protect himself from an assault and battery. There was clearly a fight going on and we cannot see everything that went on or hear what verbal threats may have been made. I think we shoud wait until a jury hears all of the facts before we convict him in the comment section of AA.com.
yourdad
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.
A reasonable amount of patience and sworn testimony along with facts has never played a role in the public outcries on any blog.com site. Why should AA snooze.com be any different?
FrankOZ
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
From what I saw, the woman he pointed the gun at was unarmed and was being pulled by her clothing across the floor away from the individual with the gun. I guess we need a very specific description of appropriate protection from unarmed, prone girls?
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
Why wait? We have already chosen sides based on our feeling with respect to gun laws. It is actually a lot easier this way. That whole evidence/trial/deliberation thing is soooooooo tiresome.
Rabid Wolverine
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.
Tom, ccw is what the crime is called when carrying illegally. CPL is the license to be able to carry concealed. Interchanging the two randomly as you have done in the article is incorrect.
Jenny
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:17 p.m.
Well what do you expect.. it is annarbor.com lol...
hmsp
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
I liked the other headline better, the one that told of the "24-hour Coney Island melee." Now that's a long fight!
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Punctuation is a beautiful thing.
Paula Gardner
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
Indeed! Changed it pretty early this morning. Guess you were up early, too!
Bcar
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
play stupid games win stupid prizes. This guy will never have a CPL again, and rightly so! Also, the author should read up a bit more on "stand your ground" laws. They do not allow someone to draw and shoot because "they feel threatened." You have to be in immediate danger to life/limb/forcible penetration. Stand your ground has to do with duty to retreat OUTside of the home/car.
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
"Be in immediate danger to life/limb/forcible penetration" is analogous to "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself ." Neither of those are "feel," which, especially considering the source, is an oversimplification and meant to imply there is only irrational reaction, not a rational decision process that results in gun use as a last choice, in which CPL holders are trained.
Reverend Bubba X
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
Clownfish, Michigan law and Florida law are very different. Florida law has no bearing on a person in Michigan acting in self defense or criminal behavior. People, please don't let "gun show lawyers" influence your actions.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that "... he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so..." covers the "feel " aspect. Simply because the word "feel" isn't used in the statute doesn't mean that "reasonably believes" isn't an implication for what one must "feel". And how you can think that this backs up Bcar's comments I don't know. "...immediate danger" is a completely relative term and the 'stand your ground' laws offer no definition of what constitutes "immediate danger" (at least not that I'm aware of). The fact is that under Florida law, if you 'reasonably believe' or even "feel" that your life is endangered, you are free to kill. You don't have to prove that you were in danger, just that you 'felt' threatened. This is the major problem with this law.
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
clownfish, twice in your post you claimed that one must only have to feel threatened, with feel in quotes, but neither that word, nor it's meaning, are in the law you copy-pasted. However, what you copy-pasted did back up Bcar's statement.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
That is one theory. Another is that one only has to "feel" threatened to consider oneself in immediate danger. Florida Law reads as follows "... including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." ie: If you "feel" threatened, you can shoot now and ask questions later. "Justifiable homicides" by civilians in Florida went from 10 in 2000 to 40 in 2010. I think the law was passed in 2005/6, which saw 18/12 justifiable killings, then 2007- 42, 2008-41, 2009-42, 2009-45.
sandy schopbach
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
I find particularly concerning the fact that no one seems overly frightened while that gun is being brandished. No one leave the restaurant. No one runs away. They just seem to step out of the way. Are people REALLY that used to seeing guns flashed around these days? And I'd also like to know whether, now that Jacobs has been charge with "mis-using" his gun, will his permit be rescinded? Will it be taken away? Because he obviously doesn't have the good judgment to have one!
Ann23
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 : 2:57 a.m.
a2citizen, thank you for your last sentence. Jenny, he may not legally be allowed to own, carry, or posess it but, that doesn't mean he won't do it anyway. Some people only care about what they can get away with, not about doing what the law tells them to.
Jenny
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:15 p.m.
If he is convicted of these crimes, and charged with a felony, he will not be able to own a handgun, let alone carry it around legally.
Ponycar
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:07 p.m.
"reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm" does not equal "feels threatened". It COULD if a jury agrees that it was necessary. It takes judgement.
a2citizen
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.
Maybe they were too scared to run. Maybe they would rather face their killer than be shot in the back. Maybe they didn't want to abandon a friend who had less of a chance of escape. Unless you've looked down the wrong end of the barrel, and even if you have, don't judge another persons response to fear.
Tyrone Shoelaces
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
For some people, this is a normal environment.
tdw
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
Before all the anti-gun, anti-NRA blather starts, let's see if a gun law is actually enforced and the guys gets some prison time
Ponycar
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:01 p.m.
Again, please don't try to confuse people with your Tiahrt straw man. What language in the Tiahrt amendment make it "next to impossible to enforce" the brandishing laws? Or any other gun crimes, for that matter? Tiahrt deals with the release of information from the federal firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency and also pretty much blocks civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers that blame them for the deaths caused by the firearms they manufacture.
bobslowson
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:49 p.m.
Hmmmm...are there any laws left that CAN legally be enforced? You might want to check with Todd Tiahrt on that. I love "just enforce existing" laws as the solution begin pushed by the NRA, when they know it's impossible.
Atlas Shrugged
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:45 a.m.
If things are as described in the article and as shown in the video posted a while ago, the guy holding the concealed pistol license will, and SHOULD, have his license revoked... forever.
Ponycar
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:01 p.m.
Please don't try to confuse people with your Tiahrt straw man. What language in the Tiahrt amendment make it "next to impossible to enforce" the brandishing laws? Or any other gun crimes, for that matter? Tiahrt deals with the release of information from the federal firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency and also pretty much blocks civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers that blame them for the deaths caused by the firearms they manufacture.
sayzme
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 4:40 p.m.
And we all know the current laws on the books are next to impossible to enforce because the NRA watered them down with the Tiahrt amendment. Soon after, the NRA awarded Todd Tiahrt with their coveted "freedom fighter of the year" award. http://readersupportednews.org/ opinion2/416-gun-control-/ 15829-the-nra-vs-america
Mitch
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.
That will because of the 1968 Federal Gun law. And we all know how well that is enforced.
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 11:40 a.m.
hopefully past tense 'had' is correct.
mady
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:25 p.m.
you took each and every syllable out of my mouth.
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.
let me add, that i AM a cpl permit holder (ccw)
Youwhine
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
I came to say exactly this.