Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Guns

Women’s March Co-Founder Tamika Mallory is Portraying Criminal Activity as “Gun Violence”

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

We all know The Women’s March, which has put Dana Loesch and the NRA in its crosshairs, will do and say anything to advance the gun control agenda. But one of their co-founders is masquerading her personal connection to criminal behavior as a tragic brush with gun violence.

Tamika Mallory frequently cites the shooting death of her son’s father, Jason Ryans, when she speaks on a national level in support of gun control.

An article in the NY Daily News titled Tamika Mallory, who lost son’s father to fatal shooting 12 years ago, takes gun control fight personally attempts to pull at readers’ heartstrings:

Yet, she is, first and foremost, a mother made into a single mother by a gunshot — the one that claimed the life of her son’s father, Jason Ryans. It was 12 years ago, but she still weeps when she recalls the moment her mother called her that day as she drove home from work.

“It was a flash before my eyes. I managed to pull the car over. I realized I was indeed a real single mom, and that my son would never know his father,” she said.

“Over the years, there were so many times when my son has yearned for a father,” she continued. “He needed a male when he was winning games, accomplishing goals … even when he was confused. That’s the most painful part.”

In an article featuring The Ones to Watch during Black History Month 2017, Black America Web wrote:

Tamika Mallory entered the social justice arena in a heartbreaking way. She has firsthand experience with the scourge of gun violence. The New York City native, now 36, lost her son’s father, Jason Ryans, to gun violence. Her son was a toddler at the time.

On her Wikipedia page, the death of her son’s father is again referenced in conjunction with her activism with gun control:

Mallory is a single mother to her son Tarique. Sixteen years ago, her son’s father, Jason Ryans, was shot and killed. Mallory explains that her experience with NAN taught her to react to this tragedy with activism. Her son is now 18 and an active member of NAN.

In an article on PopSugar titled Why a Women’s March Cofounder Says Every Feminist Should Care About Gun Control, guest writer Chelsea Handler referenced Mallory’s drive to “change the policy and discussion around guns” since Ryans’ death:

Mallory is just getting started. Her next project, #NRA2DOJ, will take her to Washington on July 14 to protest the NRA. The effort is a direct response to a viral — and frankly, despicable — marketing campaign from the gun rights advocacy group, but gun control has been an issue close to Mallory’s heart for a long time. She’s been active in changing the policy and discussion around guns since the death of her son’s father by shooting in 2001, and this new project seeks to bring even more national attention to an issue which has reached a crisis point.

But after a friend pointed out a lack of elaboration of the incident, I started noticing that Mallory never expands on Ryans’ death, only referencing it as her personal connection to gun violence and the contributing drive behind her push for gun control.

So why does Mallory fail to elaborate on the “gun violence” that caused Ryans’ death? 

Well, the answer to what lead to his death lies with how Ryans chose to live his life.

In 2001, police said Jason Ryans and the men who beat and shot him were known to be dealing drugs in the Wilkes-Barre, PA. area.

According to an arrest affidavit, Ryans was beaten after Kenny Watson of Mocanaqua and James Watson of Wilkes-Barre discovered two guns and a safe containing seven pounds of marijuana had been stolen from the home Ryans was sharing with Kenny Watson and his girlfriend Tiffany Greco.

Kenny had given his girlfriend two handguns – an H&R .22 caliber and a .380 semi-automatic pistol – to hold for safe keeping after they discovered the missing safe when they returned from the Bronx for Easter (April 15, 2001). Greco told police she had placed both firearms in her bedroom dresser.

Both guns were discovered missing on April 17, 2001, and when Kenny and James Watson, along with their friend Mike Robinson, found the stolen .22 caliber in Ryans’ coat, they began to beat him for stealing it.

At some point during the beating, Ryans pulled out the other stolen gun and James Watson grabbed a steak knife. James stabbed Ryans in the hands, causing him to drop the .380.

James called his girlfriend Jennifer Lynn Barr and told her to come home from work, then instructed her to drive him in a white Ford Explorer to lead a caravan to a “hospital far away”. Transporting a badly beaten and “cut up” Jason Ryans were Kenny Watson and his nephew Rodney Watson, who followed Barr in Greco’s maroon Ford Explorer.

But when Barr passed the Tyler Memorial Hospital on Route 6 near Tunkhannock, James informed her they weren’t taking Ryans to a hospital and instructed her to pull into a secluded area near Camptown where police say she observed Ryans smoking something and holding a vehicle ashtray when he exited the Explorer.

At that point, Kenny, James, Robinson, and Ryans walked into the woods and James ordered Kenny to slit Ryans’ throat. When Kenny told James he couldn’t, police say James shot Ryans – once in the chest, twice in the head – before fleeing the area.

In 2011, a jury convicted James Watson of Ryans’ murder. His brother Kenny Watson was acquitted of murder and kidnapping charges, but was convicted on several charges relating to Ryans’ death.

Now that you know the whole story, what do you think?

When an individual who is known by police to be “dealing drugs in the Wilkes-Barre area” steals guns and possibly seven pounds of marijuana from another known drug dealer, does the ensuing retaliation and subsequent murder fit the mold of “the scourge of gun violence”?

Ryans most certainly didn’t deserve to die, but would the policy changes Mallory aims to make have altered the outcome of her son’s father’s life and prevented his death?

Drugs are illegal.
Possession of an unlawful controlled substance is illegal.
Possession of an unlawful controlled substance with the intent to distribute is illegal.
Distribution of an unlawful controlled substance is illegal.
Theft is illegal.
Theft of a firearm is illegal.
Unlawful carry of a firearm is illegal.
Assault and battery are illegal.
Assault with a deadly weapon is illegal.
Kidnapping is illegal.
Homicide is illegal.
Murder is illegal.

If a person chooses to break the law, they are committing a crime and are, therefore, a criminal. You can add 1,000 more laws, but criminals don’t care – whether they’re breaking 1 law or 1,000 laws –  they’re going to commit that crime.

So let’s get real here: it appears that not only was the father of Tamika Mallory’s son a known drug dealer, he also allegedly stole firearms and possibly seven pounds of (illegal) drugs from his (fellow drug dealer) friends. That’s upsetting, because while there are many very real, extremely sad stories of individuals losing their lives to gun violence, James Ryans’ is not one of them – and by continuing to align him with thousands of innocent victims, Mallory is devaluing the truth.

If Ms. Mallory truly wants to “bring even more national attention to an issue which has reached a crisis point”, perhaps she should focus on the criminal use of drugs, robbery, stricter sentencing for repeat offenders and felons in possession of a firearm, or consider using another example of gun violence that more appropriately fits her agenda.

“Feminist” Co-Founders of The Women’s March Are Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

The men behind the Women’s March organizers have a dangerous and radical agenda, and they’re being led by none other than Louis Farrakhan, the “father of the modern violent left.”

In her latest NRA video, Dana Loesch urges Women’s March Co-Founders Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez to become real feminists and stand up to the violence of men like Farrakhan with their own clenched fists of truth.

 

Virginia: Muslim “obsessed with Islam” tried to join U.S. military to imitate Fort Hood jihad mass murderer

with 2 comments

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 7, 2017

In joining the military, Shivam Patel apparently wanted to become another Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim U.S. Army Major who murdered 13 people while screaming “Allahu akbar” at Fort Hood in 2009: he expressed “support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who fatally shot 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood in Texas, calling the attack ‘completely justified’ as he believed that Hasan died a martyr and he wanted to become one too.”

Actually, Hasan is still alive.

Patel is a convert to Islam from Hinduism. So yet again a convert to Islam somehow gets the idea that his new, peaceful religion requires him to commit treason and mass murder.

“Indian American Hindu man Shivam Patel arrested for wanting to join ISIS,” New India Times, July 7, 2017:

NEW YORK – An Indian American man, Shivam Patel, 27, of Williamsburg, Virginia, was charged with one count of making materially false statements on applications to join the military as he lied about his trips to China and Jordan on his application to join the U.S. Army and Air Force.

Patel, a Hindu man who converted to Islam a few years ago, said that he wanted to join the “Muslim Army” and commit a peaceful jihad explaining that he went to Jordan to find like-minded people but ended up getting arrested there and deported back to the U.S.

According to The Virginian Pilot, an affidavit unsealed on Thursday in the U.S. District Court said that before going to Jordan, Patel had flown to China in July last year to teach English but instead completely covered up the whole matter saying that he had not been out of the country in seven years except for a family trip to India in 2011-2012….

Patel’s parents told the FBI that he had become “obsessed with Islam” when they found out that he had been captured in Jordan.

After investigators searched Patel’s room and computers, with his parents’ permission, they found evidence that he had researched how to beat a polygraph, had downloaded three copies of an online magazine produced by the Islamic State and had searched for how to join the group, the affidavit said.

The affidavit also stated that Patel had boarded a flight to Chicago on Sept. 2 and spoke with an undercover FBI Task Force Officer that same day while he praised the terrorist attacks that had taken place in Paris, Nice and Orlando and expressed an admiration for Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

He then spoke to a “confidential human source” in Detroit the next day where he expressed a desire to do something “bigger, better and more purposeful,” like dying for Allah.

The Virginian Pilot also reported that Patel had spoken to the source again the day after explaining how he would love to see a holy war between Muslims and non-Muslims and even sang an Islamic State fight song while he recalled making a replica of the group’s flag, which he wanted to replace his neighbor’s American flag with.

On Sept. 6, Patel returned to Williamsburg to apply for job with the military as well as some paramilitary organizations.

He then contacted the source one last time on Sept. 23 to express his support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who fatally shot 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood in Texas, calling the attack “completely justified” as he believed that Hasan died a martyr and he wanted to become one too….

Mayhem, Murder and Madness to Hit Kansas July 1st

with one comment

By Steve Sheldon
Townhall
July 1, 2017

If you believe the Left, Kansas is set to implode in a rage of violence and bloodshed starting July 1st when a provision put place by the legislature four years ago goes into effect.

According to Leftist fear mongers, this provision will squelch free speech on campuses everywhere. Students will be afraid to speak due to the threat of violence from fellow students. Teachers will fear giving someone a bad grade because of the sheer violence that will befall them. Professors will no longer find refuge in their offices and are being forced to change their office hours or become unavailable altogether – some have even sought refuge in other states. Others have decided to stop teaching and are seeking alternative pursuits like research. One or two have opted for retirement.

Dark days are ahead for Kansas.

What could bring on such fear?

In 2013, the Kansas legislature passed a law requiring that local municipalities and buildings owned by the state either have adequate security preventing the carrying of guns inside the property or require that citizens be allowed to carry concealed firearms on such properties. It’s a simple concept, either allow citizens to defend themselves, or provide adequate security. These properties were allowed an exemption from concealed carry for four years, giving them enough time to make plans for proper security measures to be installed. Yes, you read that right. They had four years.

Although there is no single place to go for definitive numbers, the grand total of those who have made public announcements about their leaving state universities because of the concealed carry law is around a half-dozen. An article from the Manhattan Mercury, where Kansas State University is located, listed three academic staff and one other employee. At Kansas University, Jacob Dornan made a big splash with his announcement in March. At Wichita State, Deborah Ballard-Reisch announced her resignation blaming concealed carry on campus. That’s a confirmed five out of around 5,800 academic staff in the six state universities – hardly a mass exodus, especially considering several were of retirement age anyway.

Concealed carry on college campuses is allowed in ten states, the longest standing being Utah where students have been allowed to carry since 2004. In thirteen years, there should be plenty of incidents where hostile students confronted others with guns, or situations where the presence of guns has squelched free speech. Or how (insert emotional argument here) has happened. One can search for hours to try and find such incidents and will find nothing of substance. No injuries, no blood in the streets, no students confronting teachers over a bad grade. Nothing. Interestingly enough, there were no mass shootings on campuses that allowed concealed carry either. Hmmmm.

Using the “logic” from the Left, it should be easy to find instances in Kansas where their claims have materialized. Since some municipalities chose not to participate in the exemption, many municipal buildings have allowed concealed carry holders inside state and county owned buildings for the past four years. In that time- frame, there should be plenty of instances where angry confrontational gun owners pointed their pistols at frantic clerks over a driver’s license issue or a property tax problem. Surely, one can find a multitude of instances where these hotheads took their guns out of holsters and threatened innocent government workers. Can you guess how many thousands of times this has happened? Hundreds? Scores? Dozens? A handful? Any? That’s right, zero is the number. At least this author couldn’t find one, if it did happen.

Despite all the fear mongering from the Left, Kansas citizens and students will be safer starting July 1, and the sensational, emotional arguments from Leftists will be found to be without merit…again.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal

with one comment

Fox News
Published June 26, 2017

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a scathing dissent Monday to a Supreme Court decision turning away yet another gun rights case.

On a busy morning of decisions, the court on Monday rejected a challenge out of California regarding the right to carry guns outside their homes, leaving in place a San Diego sheriff’s strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

But Thomas, in a dissent joined by Gorsuch, countered that the case raises “important questions” – and warned that Second Amendment disputes aren’t getting the attention they deserve from the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision … reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, they wrote.

The case in question involved a San Diego man who said state and county policies requiring “good cause” — a specific reason or justifiable need to legally carry a concealed weapon — were too restrictive. A federal appeals court had ruled for the state, and now those restrictions will stay in place.

But Thomas and Gorsuch – the court’s newest member – called the appeals court’s decision to limit its review only to the “good cause” provision “indefensible.”

“The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years,” they wrote. “… This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.”

The justices concluded by warning the court is in danger of acting dismissive toward the right to bear arms:

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.

The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes.

The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration’s appeal.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

We Can’t Afford to Wait on the Attack

with 2 comments

Brevard Sheriff

 

Missouri: Can You Be Sued in Civil Court for Self Defense?

with 2 comments

By Texas & U.S. Law Shield Staff
Texas & U. S. Law Shield
June 16, 2017

 

Just Another Establishment Elitist Republicrat

with one comment

Press Release from Rep Jody Hice (R) GA 10th Congressional District
June 21, 2017

Personal protection and being able to defend oneself against an assailant is part of the fabric of our Constitution, which is why I am an ardent believer in the Second Amendment, While Members of Congress are all average Americans, it is clear that we also have a bull’s eye on our backs. In light of recent events, it’s incredibly important that Congressmen and women maintain the ability to provide for their own safety, regardless of the city or state.

The Congressional Personal Safety Act will grant elected officials the authority to carry a firearm anywhere in America, except for the Capitol,

Where does one start with this hypocrisy?

Rep Hice (R) from Georgia states congressional members are average citizens but somehow have a special target on their back. It is crystal clear from reports in  the media that on any given day every American that walks out of the door of her home has a bull’s eye on her back. But the representative feels, like in Animal Farm, “some citizens are more equal than others.”

Rep Hice (R) is in a position to deny the real average citizen her protected right stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights “to keep and bear Arms.” One must ask why does Rep Hice (R) violate his oath of office by submitting federal legislation to encourage unequal protection under federal law?

Here is a bit of advice for the representative. Fulfill the promises you made to your constituents. Then submit or support legislation that federally mandates state concealed carry reciprocity for all citizens without limitations.

Huff Post Writer: Shooting Just One Pro-Life Congressman Isn’t Enough, We Need More Violence

with 2 comments

By Alex Xenos
LifeNews.com
June 16, 2017

In the aftermath of the shooting targeting Republican congressmen in Alexandria, VA, the media has called for both sides to cool down their rhetoric. As if the vitriol and hate were equal on both sides. The truth is it isn’t. Huffington Post writer Jesse Benn is case and point. The publication has long been a place for the fringe-left to spew their venom.

Benn has defended violence against Trump supporters in the past and actually argued for violent “resistance.” So it should have come as no surprise when he tweeted the following:

For violent resistance to work it’d need to be organized. Individual acts can be understandable, but likely counterproductive/ineffective.

I’m sure the Huffington Post is proud to have somebody representing how they truly feel.

LifeNews Note: Alex Xenos writes for Newsbusters, where this article originally appeared. A previous image not of Jesse Benn was used in error and we regret the mistake.

Demings’ Hit Piece Shows How Backward on Guns (and More) She Is

leave a comment »

By David Cordea
Oathkeepers
June 13, 2017

Val Demings and the Brady Campaign establish their solidarity with the #Resist crowd, that is with those who oppose the predominant principles and values of Americans living in the “red” states and counties of “Flyover Country.”

“A year after Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, we’re going backward on guns,” a USA Today editorial by Democrat Rep. Val Demings asserts. “How many more times do we have to see the words ‘mass’ and ‘shooting’ next to each other before we take action? How young do the victims have to be before we take action?”

What “action” does Demings have in mind? She’s not ready to show all her cards, because if too many people get wind of the end game, they’re not likely to believe the “No one wants to take your guns” lie.

Of course they do (as the gun-grabbers used to admit before figuring out they’d get more mileage pretending they were all about “gun safety”), and so does Demings. But she’s counting on most of her readers not to have plumbed the depths too deeply to realize that when she’s talking about veteran and Social Security recipient disarmament, she’s really talking about undermining the fundamental principle of due process. And when she opposes proposed bills to relax restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, nationwide concealed carry reciprocity and an end to federal restrictions on hearing-protective suppressors, she’s arguing for prior restraints on that which, per the mandate of the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.” .

“I served in law-enforcement for 27 years, four years of that as the Chief of Police for the Orlando Police Department,” Demings says, as if that establishes her bona fides as the arbiter of rights. “Before being elected to Congress I spent most of my adult life wearing a uniform, a badge and carrying a gun. I took an oath to protect the innocent from dangerous people.”

No Rep. Demings, in fact you did not. This is what you took an oath to do, as a cop and as an elected official:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

So she’s an oath-breaker?

With so little regard for the aforementioned rights, and noting that for self-styled “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, is it any wonder Demings is so thin-skinned she threatened using the force of the state to abridge the First Amendment and silence her political opposition?

“Orlando police Chief Val Demings is threatening to sue one of her critics for creating a Web site that criticizes her performance. Valdemings.com is run by Ezell “Easy” Harris, a frequent critic of Demings’, and contains a disclaimer stating the chief has no association with the site. Demings’ attorney, Griffith J. Winthrop III, accuses Harris in an April 17 letter of ‘maligning’ and defaming the chief. The letter also says Harris violated the law by using her ‘persona’ and identity and claims Harris’ behavior is ‘malicious.’ Demings is demanding that the Web site be taken down and threatens to sue Harris if he refuses.”

And as for that gun Demings mentioned carrying, implying she is qualified to be one of the “Only Ones,” while the rest of us are not? Per that website she sicced her mouthpiece on:

“Orlando police Chief Demings given ‘written censure’ for stolen gun …  Demings will have a notice in her personnel file that will remain there for three years as a result of her not properly securing her weapon and ammunition when it was stolen from her car, an internal investigation shows.  Demings’ 9mm Sig Sauer, three loaded magazines, handcuffs and a baton were stolen from her agency-issued vehicle on the evening of Feb. 27. The police reports shows the items were removed from the duffel bag she had placed on the floor and in front of the passenger seat …  The department’s policy states, ‘Employees have an enhanced duty and responsibility to safeguard and maintain control and custody of department owned and issued equipment that is inherently dangerous (firearms).’”

Demings’ negligence contributed to putting another “gun on the street” and she presumes to be a competent authority qualified to lecture the rest of us on gun safety? Did the cost of the replacement gun and gear at least come out of her paycheck, or was the temporary personnel file wrist slap enough?

By the way, spend some time going through that archive and note other instances of mismanagement and corruption, from a female supervisor reportedly getting away with sexual harassment, to a screw-up in an internal affairs investigation of an officer who caused a woman to fall down a flight of stairs, and plenty more. No wonder Demings has since taken over the domain and turned it into a “Rah-Rah Me” site.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

%d bloggers like this: