YEADON, Pa. - April 23, 2008 (WPVI) --

The shooting happened around 1:35 p.m. in Yeadon. A constable and an apartment manager were shot at 2200 block of Alfred Drive.
Police said they, along with a maintenance worker, were serving an eviction notice, but the resident refused to leave. The resident then pulled out a gun, according to investigators.
Story continues belowAdvertisement
 He shot the constable and the manager, but the gun jammed when he tried to shoot the worker. The suspect then fled.
The constable was shot in the head and the manager in the upper torso with a small-caliber handgun, Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux said. They were found in the living room and both were conscious when police arrived.
The suspect was identified as 21-year-old Tamarr Minor. He was leasing the third-story apartment. He was arrested in Philadelphia about two hours after the shooting. Authorities believe they recovered the gun used in the shooting, Molineux said.
"There's no motive at this time, except for a very heated argument by the leasee who was told to leave the premises," Molineux said.
The shooting occurred at the Parkview Court apartments, a community with 960 units that has several evictions per week, according to police. The apartments rent for about $550 to $690 a month each, according to leasing information found online.

Gun Control: Barack Obama says he won't take folks' guns away as long as they're hunters. But when the hunted are his constituents, well, that's different: He opposes concealed carry and the right to self-defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Election 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's something about an election that brings out the sportsman in a Democratic presidential candidate. Recall John Kerry's sudden fondness for hunting four years ago.

And speaking in Idaho earlier this year, Barack Obama told the crowd, "We got a lot of hunters in the state of Illinois, and I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
Except he does.
In a 1996 questionnaire, Obama wrote that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." He says now that the survey was filled out by an aide who misrepresented his views. Yet his record since then is consistent with that view. Never mind that Illinois and the other 49 states have a lot of two-legged predators.

Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun to defend his home in 2003. Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, in effect making the town a gun-free zone.

To correct the situation, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar. Obama voted against the bill.

That self-defense bill protecting the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens such as DeMar passed the Illinois state Senate and was enacted into law over the governor's veto (and Obama's opposition).

It's no surprise, then, that Sen. Obama has come out in opposition to concealed-carry laws. In anticipation of an April 16 debate in Philadelphia on the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune: "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 65.7% of the U.S. population lives in the 39 right-to-carry states, and there's no indication such laws have turned our neighborhoods into the O.K. Corral. To the contrary, all the stats we've seen show a steep decline in murders and violent crimes after a state adopts a right-to-carry law.

Virginia is one of those states, but the only one who had the right to carry last April 16 was Seung-Hui Cho. He shot 32 people to death on a Virginia Tech campus that had declared itself gun-free.

One wonders if Cho would have even walked on campus with a gun if he knew his victims would be able to defend themselves. Or how the story would have been different had professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who lost his life barricading a classroom door so his students could escape, had been able to fire back.

On the subject of the total ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Nov. 23 Chicago Tribune said Obama believes in the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.

As pointed out by John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, the D.C. murder rate fell three times faster than surrounding Maryland and Virginia in the five years before the 1977 ban, but rose nearly four times faster in the five years afterward. Since 1977, there has been only one year (1985) when the D.C. murder rate was lower than in 1976.

Obama's Web site says: "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting" (emphasis ours).

Not, apparently, for you to protect your wife and children.

Dear Mr. ruoss:

Thank you for contacting my office concerning the confirmation of Eric H. Holder. I appreciate your interest in this important matter and your opinion.

The confirmation of an Attorney General is one of my most important responsibilities as a United States Senator. Next to the President, there is no federal official more important than the Attorney General to ensuring that the rule of law is enforced. Attorneys General are trusted with incredible responsibility and, in our justice system, they often have the final say on critical legal issues. As a result, I take the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process very seriously. I examine each and every nominee thoroughly and make an independent judgment as to whether he or she is qualified to assume the position of Attorney General. I conduct the same thorough review regardless of the political party of the President who nominates these candidates for confirmation.

A critical component of the confirmation process is the Senate hearing, where Senators are provided an opportunity to question the nominees and determine their fitness for the positions to which they are nominated. Prior to Mr. Holder's hearing, several concerns had been raised about his role in the Clinton Administration and, as a result, he needed to answer some tough questions. I think it was important that Mr. Holder was willing to admit candidly his mistake on the Marc Rich pardon. It also was important for him to explain why he recommended releasing 16 FALN terrorists from jail and why he did not believe appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Vice President Gore was warranted. While I still had some concerns about these issues, my concerns were ameliorated by the recommendations of several key individuals who also were critical of Mr. Holder on these matters but still firmly supported his nomination to be Attorney General, individuals such as former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Director Freeh called the Rich pardon a "corrupt act," but explained that the corrupt act was not Mr. Holder's. Director Freeh also strongly disagreed with Mr. Holder's decision to recommend the release of the FALN terrorists and not to appoint an independent counsel; however, Director Freeh still endorsed Mr. Holder's nomination. At his hearing, Director Freeh said Mr. Holder had "tremendous integrity," "great character," and "good judgment."

Given these recommendations, I believe Mr. Holder deserves the benefit of the doubt. I voted in favor of Mr. Holder's nomination based on these strong recommendations, his lengthy record of public service, and my desire to allow the President to put his team into place. President Obama is facing enormous problems, and to the extent there can be cooperation consistent with my responsibilities and the Senate's role in our system of checks and balances, I intend to cooperate with President Obama. In addition, given the importance of the Justice Department's mission, I will continue working to ensure that its leadership positions are filled in a fair but timely manner.

Thank you again for writing regarding the confirmation of the Attorney General. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any questions on this issue or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Arlen Specter  

Dear Mr. ruoss:

           Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control. I appreciate you writing to express your interest and opinions on this important matter.

Millions of Americans own firearms for a variety of reasons: many wish to protect themselves and their property while others collect firearms as a hobby or use firearms for sport. Most gun owners are responsible citizens and understand the burden of owning a firearm. While a tiny fraction of the guns in this country are used in the unfortunate instance of the commission of a crime, the government should not prevent gun ownership which would punish law-abiding citizens. I believe the Second Amendment clearly defines the right of citizens to own guns and in my tenure in the Senate, I have a strong record supporting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.

I opposed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, more commonly known as the 'Brady Bill.' I believed this legislation to be onerous in its restrictions on individuals' right to purchase firearms and I believe it did not sufficiently address the relevant issues necessary to combat crime.

In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), I voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act limits the civil liability of gun manufacturers and reduces frivolous lawsuits. During the Senate's consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007, I supported and the Senate adopted an amendment which would prohibit any funding provided by this legislation to be used for the purpose of confiscating firearms during a natural disaster or another state of emergency.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding the right to own firearms. I will keep your thoughts in mind if the Senate considers any legislation relating to guns or gun control in the 110th Congress. Please be assured, I will continue to support the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and own firearms. If you have any further questions about this issue or any other issue, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter  

Dear Mr. Ruoss:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding District of Columbia v. Heller which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

As you may know, I support the Second Amendment and will continue to uphold the rights of law-abiding citizens to legally own firearms. I also believe we must fully enforce local gun laws and help local governments put more law enforcement officers on the street. Recently, I signed onto an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief circulated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. This brief reaffirms my position that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.



Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Gun Rights vs. Centralization

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Gun suit vs. U. Darby will cause ripples

By WILLIAM BENDER
Philadelphia Daily News

benderw@phillynews.com 215-854-5255

SECOND AMENDMENT GOES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

by Tom Gresham

Unless you have been testing tactical flashlights in a cave for the last two months, you know that the Washington, DC, gun ban case is going before the Supreme Court. Here's the "short barrel" version: Washington, DC, banned private ownership of handguns in 1976, and banned owning any functional firearm. All long guns have to be unloaded and either disassembled or be fitted with a trigger lock. In other words, it's illegal to have a gun you could use to defend your life with.

That law was challenged, and the lawsuit was dismissed, then appealed to the federal appeals court on SECOND AMENDMENT grounds, saying that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that even though some say there can be "reasonable" restriction, a total ban is not reasonable. The court agreed, destroying the D.C. gun ban. Understand, though, that this case was brought with the full intention of getting it to the U.S. Supreme Court. D.C. was reluctant to appeal to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States), but finally did. The court decided to take the case, and it will likely be heard in the spring, with a decision in the summer.

This is huge, as in .600 Nitro Express huge! On Gun Talk radio last Sunday, I asked Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, how he thought the case would go. While some have said they think it'll go our way with a narrow 5/4 split, Alan said he gives it an 80 percent chance of going our way with a 6/3 split, and a 70 percent chance of a huge majority decision with a split of 7 to 2.

The editorials in major newspapers have never been more shrill, nor more incorrect, as they assert that there is no individual right to own guns, that the founding fathers never imagined semi-automatic firearms (Yeah, and they did anticipate the internet, so you can have First Amendment protection for your online papers???), and that this is a terrible case of "judicial activism" (which is the line the Brady Campaign is using).

What's even more interesting, though, are the thoughtful columns and opinion pieces which clearly state that the scholarship on this issue has seen a 9.2 Richter shakeup over the last 20 years, with the majority of law journal articles supporting the "individual rights" view of the Second.

HERE'S THE DEAL. My prediction? SCOTUS will uphold the circuit court, overturning the D.C. gun ban. It will do it in a way which also supports "reasonable" restrictions. What constitutes "reasonable" will be a three-decade battle fought in courtrooms across the country. But, there is a plan. Other cities (and states) have total bans on guns -- handguns, 50-caliber rifles, semi-auto rifles, etc. If the D.C. case (actually known as the Heller case, for one of the people who was named in the original case) goes our way, you'll be seeing similar lawsuits filed in several cities. Once we get favorable decisions there, the plan is to take this to states. At some point, I'm betting, there will be an effort to "incorporate" the Second Amendment -- a term which means that states are prohibited from violating this basic civil right.

If you don't know what the Truth Squad is, let me fill you in. It's a group of volunteers who want to stay updated on gun issues, and who are willing to send letters to newspapers supporting gun rights. If you want to volunteer, click here to sign up for Tom Gresham's Truth Squad.