Utah Concealed Firearms & Training

  • HOME
  • REQUIREMENTS
  • RECIPROCITY
  • FAQ
  • BLOG

GUN OWNER UNARMED, UNWELCOME IN MARYLAND

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

GunBy Tom Jackson | Tribune Staff
Published: January 12, 2014   |   Updated: January 14, 2014 at 06:11 PM

HUDSON – John Filippidis, silver-haired family man, business owner, employer and taxpayer, is also licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

He’d rather he didn’t feel the need, “but things aren’t like they used to be. The break-ins, the burglaries, all the crime. And I carry cash a lot of the time. I’m constantly going to the bank.

“I wanted to be able to defend my family, my household and the ground I’m standing on. But I’m not looking for any trouble.”

Filippidis keeps his gun — a palm-sized Kel-Tec .38 semiautomatic, barely larger than a smartphone in a protective case — in one of two places, always: in the right-hand pocket of his jeans, or in the safe at home.

“There are kids in the house,” Filippidis says, “and I don’t think they’d ever bother with it, but I don’t want to take any chances.”

He’s not looking for any trouble, after all.

Trouble, in fact, was the last thing on his mind a few weeks back as the Filippidises packed for Christmas and a family wedding in Woodridge, N.J., so he left the pistol locked in the safe. The state of Florida might have codified his Second Amendment rights, but he knew he’d be passing through states where recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affirming the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms have been met by hostile legislatures and local officials.

“I know the laws and I know the rules,” Filippidis says. There are, after all, ways gun owners can travel legally with firearms through hostile states. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

So there the Filippidises were on New Year’s Eve eve, southbound on Interstate 95 — John; wife Kally (his Gulf High sweetheart); the 17-year-old twins Nasia and Yianni; and 13-year-old Gina in their 2012 Ford Expedition — just barely out of the Fort McHenry Tunnel into Maryland, blissfully unarmed and minding their own business when they noticed they were being bird-dogged by an unmarked patrol car. It flanked them a while, then pulled ahead of them, then fell in behind them.

“Ten minutes he’s behind us,” John says. “We weren’t speeding. In fact, lots of other cars were whizzing past.”

“You know you have a police car behind you, you don’t speed, right?” Kally adds.

Says John, “We keep wondering, is he going to do something?”

Finally the patrol car’s emergency lights come on, and it’s almost a relief. Whatever was going on, they’d be able to get it over with now. The officer — from the Transportation Authority Police, as it turns out, Maryland’s version of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority — strolls up, does the license and registration bit, and returns to his car.

According to Kally and John (but not MTAP, which, pending investigation, could not comment), what happened next went like this:

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

“At home in my safe,” John answers.

“Don’t move,” says the officer.

Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

The officer came back to John. “You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course, John couldn’t show him what didn’t exist, but Kally’s failure to corroborate John’s account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars.

Ninety minutes later, or maybe it was two hours — “It felt like forever,” Kally says — no weapon found and their possessions repacked, the episode ended … with the officer writing out a warning.

“All that time, he’s humiliating me in front of my family, making me feel like a criminal,” John says. “I’ve never been to prison, never declared bankruptcy, I pay my taxes, support my 20 employees’ families; I’ve never been in any kind of trouble.”

Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? … And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

Now, despite having fielded apologies from the officer’s captain as well as from a Maryland Transportation Authority Police internal affairs captain, John is wondering if he shouldn’t just cancel his CCW license.

For a guy who’s not looking for trouble, that’s not an unreasonable conclusion. And it would please fans of gun control by any means. But let’s hope John Filippidis, American family man, taxpayer and good guy, doesn’t cave, because it would be a sad statement about the brittleness of our guarantees — some would call them sacred — under the Constitution.

Filed Under: In The News, Personal Experience/Reviews

‘YOU COULD NEVER ANTICIPATE THIS HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

What began as a simple traffic stop ended in a humiliating and nightmarish ordeal for a New Mexico man. It won’t come as a surprise to most people why the man has now filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over lack of narcotics.

The incident began on Jan. 2 as David Eckert was leaving the local Walmart in Deming, N.M. He reportedly failed to make a complete stop at a stop sign, prompting police to pull him over.

The officers asked him to step out of the vehicle and claim the man appeared to be clenching his buttocks, Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, told TheBlaze. It is unclear why police removed him from the vehicle in the first place. However, because the cops believed he was clenching his buttocks, they took it as reason to suspect him of hiding narcotics in his anal cavity.

States

Police officers detained Eckert after a narcotics sniffing dog allegedly issued a “hit” on Eckert’s car seat. Meanwhile, they sought a search warrant for an anal cavity search.

“What is so strange about this case is they held him with no evidence,” Kennedy said. “They seized him to collect evidence, to go on a fishing expedition on someone’s body.”

Upon securing the warrant, Deming police officers took the man to an emergency room, but hit their first snag when a doctor refused to perform the anal cavity search because he believed it to be “unethical.”

So police tried again at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, N.M., where doctors agreed to the search.

KOB-TV outlined the disturbing series of events that occurred next, details confirmed by medical records and official documents provided to TheBlaze by Eckert’s attorney:

1. Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

Kennedy told TheBlaze these are undisputed facts from medical records, not claims made by her client.

As he was being detained and probed, Kennedy said Eckert never gave doctors his consent to perform the procedures and protested his treatment, which all arose from the simple traffic violation.

The entire ordeal lasted for roughly 12 hours.

TheBlaze has reached out to the Deming Police Department. This story will be updated should the department respond.

“It’s a nightmare, its unfathomable. You could never anticipate this happening in the United States of America,” Kennedy said, adding that in 18 years of practicing civil rights law, “this may be the most egregious case I have ever seen with law enforcement abuse.”

Kennedy also said the search warrant — in which there were legal concerns anyway — was carried out illegally because it was only valid in Luna County, N.M. The anal cavity search and other procedures were performed at the Gila Regional Medical Center, in Grant County.

Further, she said the search warrant was only good through 10 p.m., but medical records show the preparation for the colonoscopy started at 1 a.m. the next morning. In theory, even if the search warrant were completely legal and compliant, it was no longer valid.

Eckert is suing the city of Deming and Deming police officers Bobby Orosco, Robert Chavez and officer Hernandez. He is also suing Hidalgo County deputies David Arredondo, Robert Rodriquez and Patrick Green; Deputy District Attorney Daniel Dougherty and the Gila Regional Medical Center, including Robert Wilcox, M.D. and Okay Odocha, M.D.

Take a look at Eckert’s official lawsuit and other related documents provided to TheBlaze:

Filed Under: In The News, Political Arena, Uncategorized

THE FACEBOOK PHOTO THAT GOT A MOM BANNED FROM HER DAUGHTER’S SCHOOL

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

A Georgia mother and Army veteran is demanding an apology from her daughter’s school after she was reportedly banned from visiting the building because she posted a photo of her conceal weapons permit on Facebook, WRDW-TV reports.

Tanya Mount told the news station that she feels like a “criminal,” even though she’s done nothing wrong.

“I want to be heard,” she said. “I want a public apology.”

Mount claims she was given a note from Richmond County Board of Education police warning her of criminal trespassing. The notice reportedly banned the mother from visiting McBean Elementary School, where her disabled daughter goes to school.

When she asked what she had done wrong, she allegedly got the following response: “The principal is scared of you and she doesn’t want you on the grounds.”

“I ask, ‘for what?’ And he asks, ‘were you in the Army?’ And I said, ‘yes,’” the mother explained. “He’s like, ‘do you have a concealed weapons permit?’ I said, ‘yes.’”

Mount claims the entire ordeal was caused by her decision to post a picture of her new concealed weapons permit on her Facebook page. She says she has had no problems with the school principal, though their entire history is not known.

When WJBF-TV called McBean Elementary Principal Janina Dallas to confirm that the “no trespass” order was issued over the Facebook post, the principal reportedly said, “Yes, it was.”

“It is my duty and responsibility as the principal of this school to ensure the safety and security of all of our faculty, staff and students,” Dallas told WJBF-TV.

“I feel that this is some high school crap. He said she said. She should have contacted me instead of taking the legal route, which was uncalled for,” Mount said, referring to Dallas.

Mount has reportedly gotten permission to transfer her daughter to another school.

“I am a private person. However, after serving OUR country, it is my DUTY to make sure that our lives are not infringed upon. However, do it all within the confinements of the LAW, I am a law-abiding citizen,” Mount later posted on Facebook.

Filed Under: In The News, Uncategorized

MAN TRIES CHECKING RIFLES, HANDGUNS AND AMMO AT JFK AIRPORT

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Police arrested 23-year-old Keenan Draughon at New York’s Kennedy International Airport Saturday morning after he tried to check two defaced rifles and two handguns.

Both rifles were missing their serial numbers and one had a round in the chamber. Police spokesman Joseph Pentangelo says the Tennessee man also tried to check two magazines capable of holding 15 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition.

These magazines are illegal in New York.

Draughon was arrested trying to board a flight to Charlotte, N.C., after Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police found the weapons.

Police said the 23-year-old told a United Airlines attendant that he wanted to check two cases containing firearms for his flight to Charlotte, a spokesperson for the Queens County district attorney’s office said in a statement.

Draughon was carrying two 9-millimeter pistols and two .22-caliber rifles, the statement said. weapons+arrest+jfk+airport-620x348

Keenan’s father, Kevin, told the New York Times Saturday his son joined the Army when he was 19 and is an “avid hunter in Tennessee.”

Kevin Draughon said his 23-year-old son was in the New York area visiting relatives.

“We haven’t seen him since he had joined Army,” he said.

Draughon was charged with six counts of criminal possession of a weapon, according to authorities.

U.S. Transportation Security Administration rules allow only unloaded weapons in checked luggage.

The Times offers more detail on the reasoning behind the charges leveled at Draughon:

Transportation Security Administration rules state that passengers can transport firearms if they are unloaded and locked in a hard container. All firearms, firearm parts and ammunition must be checked. But under most circumstances, New York City law prohibits visitors from bringing firearms into the city even if they are legally licensed in the visitors’ home state.

This means that while weapons can sometimes be lawfully checked onto a flight destined for New York, gun owners can be arrested if they are caught with the weapons while visiting the city or at city airports when they try to check their weapons for outbound flights.

If convicted, the Tennessee man could face up to seven years in prison.

“Before leaving home, passengers should acquaint themselves with the weapon laws of the jurisdiction that they are visiting,” Richard A. Brown, the Queens district attorney, said in the statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Filed Under: In The News, Uncategorized

THE D.C. GUN RAID YOU WON’T BELIEVE

Thursday, October 24, 2013

When more than 30 police officers in full tactical gear descended upon the house of a successful Washington, D.C., businessman with no criminal record last summer, they were looking for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts,” The Washington Times reported.

Raid

But what did police find after they shut down the streets for blocks around Mark Witaschek’s Georgetown home, broke down a bathroom door with a battering ram and pulled his 16-year-old son out of the shower naked, pointed guns at the heads of Witaschek and his girlfriend, handcuffed them and then “tossed the place” for two hours?

Very little, according to the Times’ Emily Miller:

  • “One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition” — actually an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier that Witaschek kept as a souvenir.
  • “One handgun holster” — perfectly legal.
  • “One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition” — a spent brass casing.
  • “One box of Knight bullets for reloading,” according to police notation on the warrant. Except, Miller reveals, they aren’t for reloading — they’re for antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.

And after all that, in the wake of a raid which Witaschek estimates resulted in $10,000 damage to his house, he faces two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition, the Times reported.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, the Times noted.

While Witaschek has never had a firearm in Washington, D.C., Miller wrote that he’s being “prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” The trial starts Nov. 4.

More from the Times:

This was the second police search of his home. Exactly one month earlier, Witaschek allowed members of the “Gun Recovery Unit” access to search without a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide.

After about an hour and a half, the police found one box of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal) and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Witaschek kept on his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms are legal and do not have to be registered.

Witaschek is a gun owner and an avid hunter. However, he stores his firearms at the home of his sister, Sylvia Witaschek, in suburban Arlington, Va.

Two weeks after the June raid, D.C. police investigators went to his sister’s house — unaccompanied by Virginia police and without a warrant — and asked to “view” the firearms, according to a police report. She refused. The next day, the D.C. police returned to her house with the Arlington County police and served her with a criminal subpoena.

The Office of Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan signed an affidavit on Aug. 21, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest Witaschek. A spokesman for Nathan would not comment on a pending case. […]

In September 2012, the attorney general offered Witaschek a deal to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition with a penalty of a year of probation, a $500 fine and a contribution to a victims’ fund.

Witaschek turned down the offer. “It’s the principle,” he told me.

Filed Under: In The News, Uncategorized

STARBUCKS NO GUN POLICY & WHY!

Friday, September 27, 2013

Recently Starbucks Coffee came out with a letter (see below) indicating that firearms are no longer welcome on their property.  This has created a lot of controversy about open carry versus property rights.

starbucks

Let’s first talk about the subject of open carry.  I personally choose to concealed carry for tactical reasons.  That does not mean that I never open carry but I consider my intended environment before doing so. Open carrying in a crowded environment does not necessary relate to a positive experience for everyone and may draw unwanted attention. I do however support your right to choose how you carry.

Let’s get to the point about people open carrying firearm, specifically long guns, in Starbucks. A recent trend has been to pose with AR-15’s and Ak47’s and post it on social media.  They are doing with this for political reasons and to draw attention to themselves.

In my opinion, making a political statement in a non-political arena servers not real purpose and does not benefit the cause.

It was recently pointed out that Starbucks was found in 1971 in Seattle and from that time until 2013, they had no problems with people open carrying firearms.  They didn’t have a problem with it until OC’ers made Starbucks a political forum and inundated stores nationwide armed to the teeth.  This messed with their business.  This thrust Starbucks, who did not wish to be part of the firearm debate, front and center on the subject ultimately interfering with their ability to due business.

Let’s address private property rights.  First and foremost, lets be clear that you have no rights on private property.  The Bill of Rights, was written to regulate government entities and nothing is law affords you rights beyond that. Starbucks is private property and with a few exceptions can do business or more specifically not do business with anyone they wish.  Since the beginning they allowed anyone unabated to solicit their services.  Their policies that was simply respect the laws of each state.

Starbucks recently changed their long standing policy because of our actions.  We entered their property and created a situation that interfered with their ability to conduct business.  Their new policy makes their wishes clear, however, the same policy state that their employees will take not action if it was to occur.  I interpret this policy as a serious warning to please take them out of the debate.starbucks

After this policy was released, some took to social media to show how ignorant we can be. They claimed that Starbucks is tromping on their constitutional rights, they are totalitarians and other unsavory statements. As previously discussed, Starbucks is a private company on their property and can do as they wish.

What we really need to do is realize that our actions, while well intentioned, can have an adverse effect.  Apologize to Starbucks and hope that this policy that really isn’t being enforced, will allow them the ability to fade back into the background.

starbucks
It is my understanding that this photos was taken at a military base oversees and not at the local store.

What we can take from this is the knowledge that the 2nd amendment rights don’t trump any other rights.  Many have fought and died for ALL these rights and one should never stand taller then any another.  Just as important, we should also take the political debate to the political arena. It does not belong in the private sector.

Open carrying a firearm comes with responsibility and, at times, we forget about our primary reason for carrying. Protect ourselves and others.  You can still accomplish this by carrying a pistol in a proper holster that completely covers the trigger.  Many firearm enthusiasts do not consider a firearm to be safe unless the trigger is properly covered.  Long guns do not afford this safety especially when being handled in the manner seen in these photos.

In the end, please consider your environment when deciding how to carry and always be an ambassador
to the overall cause.

Understandably not everyone may agree with my position.  That’s OK and I welcome a conversation on the matter.  Please feel free to contact me through our contact us page  Also, please feel free to share this on social media.  There more people talking about it the more of a consensus our community will have on the subject.

 

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks Coffee Company

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

 

Filed Under: In The News, Political Arena, Uncategorized

SUSPENDED STUDENT MAY BE EXPELLED FOR A TOY GUN

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

A suspended seventh-grade student in Virginia Beach, Va., could be expelled for the rest of the school year for shooting an airsoft gun with a friend in his yard as they waited for the bus to come.

Khalid Caraballo, 12, and his friend, Aidan, were suspended for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because they “shot two other friends who were with them while playing” with the

suspended
Khalid Caraballo (Image source: WAVY-TV)

airsoft guns, WAVY-TV reported.

Caraballo answered “no, sir,” when asked if he took the toy gun to the bus stop or to school.

“We were in our yard. This had nothing to do with school,” the student said.

Caraballo’s mother, Angel, said being punished for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” was “pretty harsh” for a toy that she bought for $25.

Tim Clark, Aidan’s father, told the news station that the school neglected to use common sense in the incident that occurred off school property.

“Has zero tolerance gone too far?” 

Filed Under: In The News, Uncategorized

FBI: NO INDICATION AR-15 WAS USED IN NAVY YARD SHOOTING

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The FBI said there is no indication that an AR-15 was used in the shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, despite wide initial reports that gunman Aaron Alexis was armed with one when he murdered 12 people Monday.17navy_alexis-articleInline

“At this time we believe that Mr. Alexis entered Building 197 at the Navy Yard with a shotgun. We do not have any information at this time that he had an AR-15 in his possession,” Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, said at a news conference Tuesday. Officials said Alexis also took at least one handgun from a law officer.

The FBI’s confirmation came after CNN reported Tuesday morning that the initial reports that the shooter used an AR-15 may have been incorrect:

[F]ederal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one — a shotgun — that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning’s shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

The New York Daily News devoted its front page Tuesday to the supposed use of an AR-15, with the blaring headline “Same Gun Different Slay”:

Image source: New York Daily News

Calls for bans on AR-15s skyrocketed after the mass slayings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut and an Aurora, Colo. movie theater last year. A new ban on “assault weapons” proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) specifically named AR-15-style rifles but was never brought up for a vote.

Update: Media Mistake Solved:

Shooting

Filed Under: In The News

STUDENT RANDOMLY SHOT DEAD JUST ‘FOR THE FUN OF IT’, POLICE SAY

Monday, August 19, 2013

Police say an Australian student visiting the U.S. on a baseball scholarship was randomly shot dead on Friday by a group of three teenagers who later confessed to authorities they killed him “for the fun of it.”

Chris Lane, 23, was jogging in a small Oklahoma town Friday night after visiting his girlfriend of four years when a gang of teenagers mercilessly gunned him down and left him to die.

According to Sky News, witnesses saw Lane stumble across the road and collapse in the gutter. A woman attempted CPR and paramedics rushed on the scene, but the Australian student was never taken to the hospital — he was pronounced dead at the scene.

One of the three teenage culprits, all arrested later, reportedly told police him and his friends had committed the heinous act “for the fun of it.”

Police described the tragic incident in greater detail.

“He went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him,” Chief of Duncan Police Danny Ford reportedly said.

“[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small calibre weapon, then sped away,” he added.

Lane’s girlfriend, Sarah Harper, posted a heartbreaking tribute to her boyfriend online, saying the four years she was with him were “the most amazing of my life.”

“I love you so much babe,” she wrote, adding “from 2009 until forever you will always be mine and a very special and protected place in my heart.”

Lane’s father also reacted to the senseless murder of his son.

“There’s not going to be any good come out of this because it was just so senseless,” he reportedly said.

All three teenagers are reportedly set to face first degree murder charges, which carry the potential of the death penalty.

Filed Under: In The News

FEDERAL JUDGE NOW THROWS UP ROADBLOCK FOR THOSE IN ILLINOIS

Thursday, August 8, 2013

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a push by gun rights advocates to let Illinois residents immediately tote firearms in public instead of waiting months for the state to outline the permitting process under its new concealed carry law.

U.S. District Judge William Stiehl on Friday threw out the lawsuit filed in East St. Louis by Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, siding with Illinois in ruling the suit moot.

Under the last-in-the-nation concealed carry law, passed by the General Assembly July 9 against Gov. Pat Quinn’s vehement objections, Illinois State Police have 180 days to set up a program before accepting applications, plus an additional 90 days to process the forms.

Shepard, in court filings, called such a delay unreasonable and insisted it “constitutes an unacceptable perpetuation of the defendants’ infringement of the Second Amendment rights.” While noting she wasn’t challenging elements of the new permitting process, Shepard said her issue was over “the complete ban on carrying firearms that continues to exist until the permitting process is up and running.”

But Stiehl’s 10-page ruling agreed with the position of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office: Challenging the legality of the span state police have to set up the program would require Shepard and the state rifle group to file a new complaint spelling out why such a wait is onerous or illegal.

It was not immediately clear Monday whether Shepard or the rifle association planned to pursue the matter further. Messages left with one of their attorneys, William Howard, were not immediately returned. A message seeking comment also was left with Todd Vandemyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist in Illinois.

Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley told The Associated Press that office may have a public response to Stiehl’s ruling later Monday.

In passing the concealed carry measure, lawmakers narrowly beat a deadline set by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which last December ruled the state’s ban on public possession of handguns unconstitutional.

Madigan’s office had argued that Shepard’s lawsuit, which first helped bring about the 7th Circuit’s decision, challenged the state’s blanket prohibition on carrying a loaded firearm on public – something the new law now allows.

“The fact that this time period for establishing the permitting process is specified in the statute does not mean that it actually will take that amount of time for the state police to complete the process,” Stiehl wrote.

Shepard, of Cobden in southern Illinois, was 69 years old in 2009 when she was beaten by an intruder and left for dead. She has said that had she not been barred from carrying a gun, she could have thwarted the attack.

Filed Under: In The News

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 13
  • Next Page »

Privacy Policy  •  Refund Policy • Copyright © 2025 - Utah CCW Carry