Alan Korwin Fight With Phoenix in Appeals Court Over Censoring of Pro-Gun Ads

Phoenix New Times

Phoenix officials and one of our favorite local curmudgeons, gun-law expert Alan Korwin, are scheduled for a courtroom showdown next month over banned firearms-training ads.

The case was launched following the city's move to censor 50 bus-shelter ads that Korwin had purchased in October 2010 for his firearms-training website, trainmeaz.com.

"Guns Save Lives," the ad stated in large type. "Arizona says: Educate Your Kids."

The bus-shelter ads, part of a larger ad campaign Korwin was doing at the time for his company, also contained a large amount of small print about gun rights and Arizona's concealed-carry law. That makes sense knowing Korwin -- he always has a lot to say about firearms and related rights. His books include the hilariously titled, "After You Shoot: Your Gun's Hot, The Perp's Not, What Next?" His TrainMe website hosts advertising for affiliated gun stores and training centers.

Korwin agreed to pay $11,000 to CBS Outdoors, which manages the bus-shelter ads for Phoenix. The ads went up on October 12.

One week later, city of Phoenix officials decided they didn't meet a city requirement that such ads provide "adequate notice" of a commercial transaction. Overnight, the ads disappeared.

Alan Korwin

Korwin sued in Maricopa County Superior Court, represented by Clint Bolick and the Goldwater Institute. They lost, and the case has been wending its way through the Arizona Court of Appeals since late last year. The two sides will square off in court at 9:30 a.m. on December 3, court records show, with 20 minutes each of oral arguments.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed anamicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of Korwin, noting that the Arizona Constitution provides an even greater free-speech protection than the First Amendment.

On its face, the city standard requiring notice of a commercial transaction for bus-shelter ads sounds clear enough. Courts in other states have held that cities can make such restrictions.

The problem is that the requirement is used not to provide a standard, but as a tool that allows the city to reject any ad, for any reason it wants. The city must merely claim the ad doesn't meet the standard -- it's not required to prove it doesn't meet it.

Phoenix Shooting: Man Kills 3, Burns One Victim's Body Then Shoots Himself

Huffington Post

A man apparently killed his estranged wife, their teenage daughter and a male friend Tuesday at a north Phoenix home before killing himself, police said.

Police found the woman's body burned in the home's backyard. The daughter's body was found inside the home, and the male victim was found shot in the front yard, Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crump said.

Police eventually found the suspect's body in a nearby alley and believe he shot himself.

Sounds like business as usual in gun-friendly Phoenix. Are we taking bets on whether this one was a lawful gun owner or not? 

Phoenix Airport Gun Scare

How about that action for taking resources away from where they might be needed?  TS feels that we couldn't require psychological screening for gun owners because it wound take the psychological services away from people who really need them.  But, I suppose open carry stunts like this one are OK.

Phoenix 17-Year-old Dead

Local news reports with video

The owner of the guns who probably had them under his pillow and in the night-stand drawer should be in jail. That's the source of the guns. That's where they passed from the possession of a law-abiding gun owner to the hands of young criminals.

Charging the girl with homicide seems a bit exaggerated, don't you think. She did what thousands of lawful gun owners do all the time, forget the one in the chamber.  That's negligence, not murder.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Poor Turnout at Phoenix Pro-Gun Rally

ABC reports with a video in which you'll see the usual disproportionate number of fat white men.

Hundreds of 2nd Amendment supporters rallied for their rights to own pistols, shotguns and rifles. And they weren't afraid to show them off.

It was a warning to government in Washington to keep all hands off of their guns.

After the numerous and tragic mass shootings, new gun control laws are being proposed.

Gun owners here said they don't need them.

"The problem is, when a crazy person goes to get a gun, it's way too late,” said Jacqueline Janes. “They've already gone crazy. They've already got a plan. What we need to do is take it all the way to the mental care."

Shouldn't there have been thousands or tens-of-thousands. The weather is fine, the number of gun owners is high. Why only hundreds? What kind of message is that for the President?

I loved that bumbling attempt to repeat Wayne La Pierre's ridiculous pitch. The problem is the crazy person who goes and gets a gun, when put like that, sounds more like an argument for our side.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Officer Brian Lilly Cleared of Charges

Phuckpolitics tipped me off to a fascinating story which took place in Phoenix Arizona. Police Officer Brian Lilly and his partner charged into a home after a burglar and shot the home owner instead, no less than 6 times. A detailed account can be read on the Courthouse News Service site.

A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.

Incredibly, the homeowner survived. Even more incredible is that the trigger happy cop survived, career-wise.

AZCentral.com reports.

A Phoenix police officer who mistakenly shot an armed homeowner during a search for an intruder was cleared of wrongdoing this week by a committee that reviews such shootings.

The ruling by the Phoenix Use of Force Board determined Officer Brian Lilly acted within police policy in the incident, in which he fired six shots at the homeowner amid the confusion of a home invasion last September.

Actually I don't find that so incredible. The police have a tough job and they protect each other as much as possible. In cases like this I suppose they tend to give the benefit of the doubt to their own. Even civilian review boards are often inclined towards this.

What the story points out is how someone acts after a questionable shooting. Whether policeman or civilian, the first natural response to a bad shooting is be to cover it up. If circumstances permit, it get recorded as a legitimate act instead of what it really is. This works for cops who are nervous and show bad judgment, shooting too quickly like in this case, as well as the more sinister vigilante or vendetta type shootings. In those, if the victim of the shooting is doing something wrong it's that much easier to cover it up.

What's your opinion? How many of the reported DGUs do you think might be wrongful shootings covered up? Take the Kleck estimate based on his survey, or even the daily reports on the famous site of Clayton Cramer, how many of them might be wrongly reported in your opinion?

Please feel free to leave a comment.