Academy Sports is buckling to political pressure, even though they had nothing to do with the Orlando terror attack.

IMG950892
They are removing from shelves and displays all “MSRs” (modern sporting rifles such as the AR), all MSR accessories, and any firearm the resembles a MSR (like a S&W M&P15-22). So they are removing mags, rails, and Magpul stocks form shelves as well. But they will still sell the MSRs on line and presumably in store. Soooo, they won’t display them or advertise them, but they will sell them. Hypocritical.

In response Daniel Defense is refusing to sell rifles or gear through Academy. By pulling this stunt, Academy is not helping the Second Amendment. The Turd in Orlando had Glock on him during the attack, as well as a Smith and Wesson .38 in his car… Yet the Glock and Revolvers remain on display at Academy Sports.

Consider that when spending your cash.

Addicting Info – Open Carry Texas Leader Does ‘Daily Show,’ Assures Members He Didn’t Say Anything Too ‘Extremist’

Addicting Info – Open Carry Texas Leader Does ‘Daily Show,’ Assures Members He Didn’t Say Anything Too ‘Extremist’.

What is he thinking?!? We have discussed CJ Grisham and Open Carry Texas (OCT) on the show more than once. CJ’s intentions seem to be honest and supportive of OC, but his actions and comments unusually cause more problems than they solve.

Well, here he goes again. He agreed to appear on the Daily Show with John Stewart… Let that sink in a bit. John Stewart is very anti gun, and the Daily Show in notorious for editing an interview to make the subject look like an idiot. It does not matter how well CJ prepared, or how well he answered, it will be edited out of context. Period.

CJ claims he recorded the whole interview himself to prevent any misunderstanding. So what? The damage will be done, the Daily Show version will be shared across the net, and the only folks who will see the unedited version will be OCT supporters who already side with CJ. The anti gunners will plaster the edited version everywhere and millions of undecided or moderate 20 year olds will get the message that OC is a fringe freak movement. Damage done.

We as 2nd amendment proponents need to get our message out to the media. We need a broader audience. But we don’t need to stick our foot in a bear trap on purpose like CJ is doing. It is the same thing as when Jeremy Alcede went on Piers Morgan, or when Tex Grebner went on Tosh.0 a few months back. Both were edited to look like buffoons. You can bet money that will happen again…

Jason

Drones, Airspace, and the Law

So, we talked drones and privacy last week in a post and on the podcast. A NJ man used a shotgun to shoot down a privately owned drone that was hovering and taking photos of a new house that was under construction. The shooter was promptly arrested and his shotgun seized.

Needless to say, we a GOTR do not recommend shooting up into the air if you see something hovering over your yard. Deadly force should be reserved for deadly threats. Having your picture taken is not a “deadly threat” to you or your family.

The question did arise as to what are your legal rights to the airspace above your property. Well, SCOTUS laid that out in Unites States vs Causby 1946. Causby was suing the government for building a airstrip near his property, and noted his farm is in the glide path of landing planes. He said that pales flying over constituted the unlawful seizure of his property.

Causby cited an old Latin common law phrase, “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” (Latin for ‘whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is theirs all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell’), as a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below.

But, in 1946, SCOTUS issued a decision that “us est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” has no legal authority in the United States when pertaining to the sky. A man does not have control and ownership over the airspace of their property except within reasonable limits to utilize their property. Airspace above a set minimum height is property of the Masses and no one man can accuse airplanes or other such craft within of trespassing on what they own.

Now, it was still not a total loss for Causby. Per Wiki:
————
The court noted in his specific case that Congress defined the “navigable airspace” in the public domain, as that above the “minimum safe altitude” which varies from 500 to 1000 feet depending on time of day, aircraft, and type of terrain. Since the aircraft passing over Causby’s property were at 83 feet, the court determined the flight path was an easement, a form of property right. Because the government had taken the easement through private property, Causby was owed compensation under the Takings Clause.

The court’s decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, could have resolved the case on a narrow ground by simply holding that there was a taking of land because the government’s flights affected the land. Justice Douglas did reach that conclusion, but then he went much further and opined on what airspace landowners do and do not own. He wrote that “if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run” . . . Thus, a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land,” and invasions of that airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface.”[1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
—————-

In the case of a drone flight, we do not have a SCOTUS opinion yet.

Since private drones typically fly below 500 ft, one could argue an intrusion… But that argument stands a better chance in court if you are not shooting up in the air. Remember, just because can, does not always mean you should.

We present this as a mere suggestion. A bit of case law that has come before. You have to make your own decision, and understand that the decision could have very negative consequences…

Stay safe.

GOTR rant on hate and threats on our pages

IMG953903

Folks a little rant is coming your way. We at GOTR started this page and site for a few reasons. We want to support the 2nd Amendment, we want to help folks with any questions about firearms or defense, we want to spread facts not rumors, and we want to have fun!

A lot of what we post generates debate. We encourage that. If you don’t agree with us, tell us why. Use facts and cite a source. If you want make joke, make jokes. We love to laugh. We want to hear from our listeners!

What is getting out of hand is hate. Calls to violence or to murder folks, even politicians we don’t like is not needed or wanted. Racial crap is not needed or wanted. Cop hate is not needed or wanted. Specifically, we had a post about an officer being saved by a bullet proof vest, with a comment “most cops are corrupt, fuck them, kill them all.” Jeff’s father is a cop, his girlfriend is a cop. Gary’s father is a cop. Jason is a cop, and his daughter is about to be a cop. You are calling for them to all be murdered?!? Take that hate filled crap over to “cop block” or some other site. Donut jokes are fine, disagreement with police is fine, pointing out police misconduct is fine, but death threats are not. The “Ban Hammer” will come down.

Likewise, death threats about political figures can be screen captured and used on anti gun sites to make us all look bad. Check that stuff at the door. Because we will delete it.

Have fun, joke, voice your opinion, participate, argue with us, disagree with us, keep the hate and violence to yourself.

GOTR Staff

Sonoma County Deputy Erick Gelhaus cleared in shooting of Andy Lopez

So, the California criminal case of Sonoma County Deputy Erick Gelhaus’ shooting Andy Lopez has been resolved, as the DA has declined charges against Gelhaus.

“Prosecutors said Monday they will not file criminal charges against a Northern California sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun he mistook for an assault rifle. The parents of Andy Lopez decried the decision, saying “it is impossible” to accept and they felt as though their son “had been killed again.”

Erick Gelhaus shot Lopez on Oct. 22 as the teen walked in a Santa Rosa neighborhood with the pellet gun. The deputy told investigators he believed the gun was real and opened fire out of fear for his life.

 

Gelhaus fired eight times, striking the eighth-grader seven times with his department-issued 9 mm handgun. The district attorney said Gelhaus had 18 rounds in his gun and stopped shooting when he felt the threat had ended. Lopez was declared dead at the scene.” – via http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7355600-No-charges-for-deputy-who-killed-teen-carrying-replica/

The FBI is still looking into possible Civil Rights violations, and the family will sue. So this is far from over. But let’s look at why Deputy Gelhaus was not charged, even though there was tremendous political pressure.

Graham V Connor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386) states that police use of force must be reasonable given the circumstances available to the officer at the time the trigger is pulled. The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

Monday morning quarterbacking may show different circumstance, but THE OFFICER IS JUDGED ONLY ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE TO THE OFFICER AT THE TIME. When the trigger was pulled, Deputy Gelhaus had an “armed individual refusing multiple lawful orders to comply”. That is what Gelhaus saw, and that is what Gelhaus had a split second to react to. The facts uncovered during the subsequent months long investigation are real vent to the case, but not to the issue of the reasonableness of the use of force.

So was this tragic? Yes. Do police want to kill people? No. Was the suspect in control of the amount of force used? Yes. Did the suspects actions (whether or not he intended) cause the officer to feel threatened? Yes.

The family wants answers. I would too. I would want answers to questions like “why did my son purposefully remove the mandated orange tip on the replica rifle and the replica pistol he was carrying?” “Why was my 13 year old son high on marijuana, and in possession of marijuana at the time of his death?” “Why was my son not in school at 3:12pm when the school let out at 3:30?”

Perhaps the parents don’t want to ask those types of questions. 13 year olds are just kids. They make poor decisions sometimes. It is up to the parents to teach right from wrong. This is tragic for all parties involved.

-Jason