• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

The Examiner - Punishment for armed self-defense still the norm in NYC and DC

G

GOAL C.M.

Link to story with comments

Some things never change.

Two letters to the editor concerning some of our more notorious citizen disarmament zones point to an ongoing outrage:

Sullivan Law Justice

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I saw this news item in one of our local newspapers. I believe it will shock anyone who has any sense of justice.
"New York. AP- A bandit entered Victor Comancho's west side grocery store Sunday night and drew a gun. Comancho whipped out his own gun, fired, and the bandit fell.

"Police identified the dead bandit as Raymond Brugueras, who had been arrested before on narcotics charges. Comancho was charged with homicide and violation of the weapons law."

John Walton
Lawrence, Kansas

----

Not Only In New York

The enclosed clipping is an example of a citizen defending himself when the police couldn't. (And then look what happened!)
"Washington, D.C.-James E. Weatherington, a bus driver, was held up and robbed in 1956. Since then, he has carried a gun. Last night, three teenagers rode his bus to the end of the line and then, when Weatherington was alone, attacked him. One boy looped a piece of baling wire around Weatherington's neck, and the others jumped him. Weatherington pulled a pistol from his belt and fired a shot, striking one boy in the groin. His companions dragged him from the bus and fled.

"About an hour later, the boy was brought to a hospital by his mother. Police questioned him, later arrested his companions. All were charged with assault with intent to commit robbery. Weatherington was charged with carrying a deadly weapon. Police said they approved of the results of yesterday's encounter, but had to charge him with violating the law."

Harry A. Hamilton
Silver Springs, Md.

That's what they get for not being "only ones"?

I said "ongoing"? Yes, these letters appeared on page 10 in the "Crossfire" section of the March 1960 issue of GUNS Magazine, now online. Regular Gun Rights Examiner readers know that every month I highlight this great website feature offered by the magazine I write the "Rights Watch" column for: They post online the corresponding issue from 50 years before.

Santayana told us "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and that certainly holds true for any area where the "law"—and those wretched opportunists, subversives, frauds and fools who would impose it on you—would rather see you dead than armed. Unfortunately such enclaves and such persecutions still exist in the land of the Second Amendment.

For another outrageous glimpse into the past, check out the views expressed in "Know Your Lawmakers" on page 4. Not a one of the featured poltroons had a clue, and it's not hard to see how things were allowed to degenerate legislatively in the days before a critical mass of gun owners woke up and started getting politically involved. It's ironic to realize that one of the politicians who really got it back then was a prominent liberal Democrat.

It's also a lesson for today's welfare parasite gun owners—those who do nothing but enjoy their sport, the apathetic, the lazy, the willfully ignorant, yet draw benefits from the labor of others in keeping their guns and activities "legal"...

To download and read the complete March 1960 issue of GUNS Magazine, click here. I note the links are still up to download the January and February issues, which I suggest you do before they are replaced. And if you missed earlier installments, click here to get all issues from 1955 through 1957.

I hope you get as much education and enjoyment looking through this window to the past as I do. And I hope you share the link to this column so that others can learn about this terrific archive.
 
Just because he is charged doesn't per se he mean will automatically be convicted. Self defense is a defense to such a charge. Assuming his facts line up, the guy in NY will not be convicted of homicide. In terms of violation of the weapons law, he can only thank Bloomberg for that one. There are ways to rebut that charge as well, but NY supreme courts are about as fair as MA superior courts.
 
What a shame these people are facing criminal charges. But at least they are alive to face those charges. I would much rather be a live felon than a dead victim any day of the week.

Just because he is charged doesn't per se he mean will automatically be convicted. Self defense is a defense to such a charge. Assuming his facts line up, the guy in NY will not be convicted of homicide. In terms of violation of the weapons law, he can only thank Bloomberg for that one. There are ways to rebut that charge as well, but NY supreme courts are about as fair as MA superior courts.

These events occurred on or before 1960.
 
Back
Top Bottom