John Martini and Marilyn Flax

NJ.com reports on the death of John Martini, former death row inmate in New Jersey. In 1989 he went on a nation-wide killing spree ending with the kidnapping and murder of Irving Flax in New Jersey. After spending about 15 years on death row his sentence was changed to life without the possibility of parole when New Jersey abolished Capital Punishment.

Denied her wish to see her husband's killer executed when the state abolished the death penalty two years ago, Marilyn Flax sent John Martini, the man who kidnapped and murdered her beloved Irving, an anonymous letter.

She wrote that God created heaven -- and hell for a select few.

"And I know that when you die, that's where you will be going. I know your soul will be tormented forever and ever," Flax, 63, said yesterday, recalling the letter she wrote late last year. "I wanted to have the last word."

This seems to be the normal reaction. Those few who can actually forgive are the rare lucky ones.

Martini who was suffering from a number of ailments, died in the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton the other day. "That's the only comfort I can get" out of his death, Flax said in a telephone interview from her home in North Jersey. "It's finally over."

What's your opinion? Do you think Mrs. Flax will really experience comfort now that the killer is dead? Do you find her attitude one of vengeance-seeking or justice-seeking? How do you think you would react in her situation?

Please leave a comment.

Michael Littlejohn's Flintlock

The New York Daily News reports on the fascinating case of an antique flintlock owner in Brooklyn who had an encounter with the police.

A Brooklyn Revolutionary War buff can keep his antique rifle and his good name.

Turns out it was legal all along - just as 50-year-old Michael Littlejohn told cops who knocked on his Sheepshead Bay door to tell him he needed a permit.

Cops wanted Littlejohn to surrender the historic flintlock rifle, complete with ramrod, when they confronted him.

But like the first Patriots did to the Red Coats, Littlejohn stood his ground.

Does anyone else find that comparison a bit dramatic? Do gun enthusiasts really think in those terms, picturing themselves like the 18th century colonists who fought the British?

To the police, Mr. Littlejohn, insisted he didn't need to register his rifle, because its design is so outdated it's considered an antique. In fact, City law is on his side. Antique firearms, defined as rifles that require the bullet and gunpowder to be loaded separately, are exempt.

I was very curious as to how the police came to knock on his door. A partial answer is found in David Codrea's article in the Examiner.

We learn the cops found out about Littlejohn's purchase when he left a receipt at a Staples copy center. Wouldn't it be nice to find out who the enuretic authority-worshiping snitch is, if for no other reason than to put the same public spotlight on them that they felt justified to anonymously put on a fellow citizen?

I'm all for reporting serious crimes to the police, but I must admit this sounds more like some busy-body butting in where they don't belong. I could understand if the receipts left at Staples referred to those evil AK-47s or something like that, but any reference to a flintlock should have seemed more like a collector's item.

David Codrea put forth an interesting idea.

One last item: When you go to the Daily News article I used as the source for this column, be sure and take the poll. You just have to shake your head in wonder at the slave mentality that voted "No. Since he does not have a license, the police have a right to take it away."

Do you agree with that? Is it "slave mentality" that accounts for the majority of folks in New York favoring gun control laws? Don't those people deserve a little more credit than that? Aren't they entitled to have this opinion without having been enslaved or brainwashed by the government?

What's your opinion? Why should these weapons be excluded from the ones covered by various laws? Aren't some black powder weapons quite functional and as deadly as your average semi-automatic?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

What Makes a Real Man?

Convicted Felons With Guns

CBSnews.con reports (scroll down to the bottom of the article) on the decision in North Carolina to restore gun rights to a convicted felon.

Barney Britt is a longtime outdoorsman and hunter who once claimed a trophy for shooting the third largest deer in North Carolina history. Now the resident of the town of Garner, a short drive south of Raleigh, N.C., can claim a different type of trophy: he faced off against the government over gun rights, and he won.

Some background: Britt pleaded guilty to felony possession of methaqualone (aka quaaludes) in 1979, when he was 20 years old. Now he's 49 years old, has no subsequent criminal history, and there's no evidence he's violent or dangerous today. In fact, he peaceably owned firearms from 1987 to 2004.

What exactly was the right that had to be restored? What did he lose by becoming a convicted felon? If he "peaceably owned firearms" after his conviction and became a famous hunter and outdoorsman, what was lacking?

In 2004, the North Carolina General Assembly rewrote the law to deny possession of any firearm to anyone convicted of a felony, even if the guns were kept at their homes or businesses. So Britt filed a lawsuit claiming his rights -- not his Second Amendment rights, but those protected by the state constitution -- were violated by the new law.

Is that to say that prior to 2004 convicted felons in NC were not subject to losing their right to bear arms? Does that mean that during those years all the convicted felons who weren't able to turn their lives around like Mr. Britt were able to own guns? I'll bet that resulted in some repeat offenders, what do you think?

What's your opinion? Is this a good law, that convicted felons should be deprived of their rights? Did the State of North Carolina do good in making an exception in the case of Mr. Britt?

Please leave a comment.

D.C. Upholds Gun Licensing

CBSnews.com reports on the decision in the District of Columbia to uphold its requirement for licensing gun owners who want to carry outside the home.

An appeals court in Washington, D.C. has upheld the city's extremely restrictive law requiring residents to obtain licenses to carry handguns outside of their homes.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year in the high-profile D.C. v. Heller Second Amendment case did not invalidate the District of Columbia's licensing requirements, and even appears to have endorsed them, the appeals court ruled.

Was this decision ever in doubt? Only Alaska and Vermont allow such a thing. I'm surprised the motion wasn't thrown out at a lower level.

"While the statute indisputably imposes a regulatory restriction on the right to bear arms, on its face it does not stifle a fundamental liberty," the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded in an opinion dated August 27.

What's your opinion? Does the requiring of licensing for folks who want to carry guns violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? The Court said no. What do you think?

If such licensing can be considered Constitutional, what's to prevent the further requirement of demanding ALL gun owners to be licensed? What's wrong with regularizing the chaotic hodgepodge mess we've got now?

What's your opinion?

Tyler Heinze on his Brother Guy Jr.

Big thanks to Gage46Bstn for the tip. The jacksonville.com site has the fascinating story.

He wondered if it were even possible for a single person to carry out so many killings without help and all the things that don't make sense.

"I want to see fingerprints on a murder weapon."

He also said Guy Heinze Jr. had nothing to gain from killing anyone in the house and that he believed his father, Rusty Toler Sr. and West were all fighters who could defend themselves. His brother didn't have a scratch on him, another indication he didn't kill anyone, Tyler said.

To Err is Human, To Forgive Divine

The Indiana News reports on a fascinating story of forgiveness, a story which includes a number of interesting facets.

The family of a man shot to death when he tried to help a woman who was being robbed said they have forgiven his killer.

The teen responsible for killing Mario Gonzalez, 72, was sentenced to 80 years in prison Wednesday in Marion Superior Court.

Mr. Gonzalez came to the aid of a woman being robbed at gunpoint by the then 16-year-old Dominique Staten.

Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Courtney Curtis said, "He aimed the firearm that he had a right to carry and then he lost his life."Gonzalez died from a single .357-caliber bullet to the abdomen. His gun was found at the scene, but he did not get off a shot.

The forgiveness angle is good. It occurs to me that perhaps this is one place where Christians have got it right. But, I suppose there are many vengeance-seeking Christians out there. What's your opinion? Is forgiveness of this type a Christian thing?

Another interesting aspect of the story is the fact that Mr. Gonzalez was a concealed carry permit holder, and as such was armed when he intervened in the robbery. What do you think went wrong? Isn't it strange that he didn't even get a shot off? Would he have approached a robbery in progress so unprepared? What's the point of carrying a gun if that's what happens?

Is it possible that many concealed carry permit holders are untrained and unprepared? Do some of them think the gun itself gives them some kind of protection? What do you think?

Of course, I was interested in the provenance of the gun. "Dominique Staten, then 16, had just bought a stolen gun from a friend," the article said. I couldn't help but wonder if the gun had been stolen from its legitimate owner and how easily that had been accomplished. Besides straw purchases, it seems that stolen guns are one of the main sources. Do you think that's right? Isn't there any way we could encourage gun owners to be more careful with their weapons? If the monetary damage of having a gun stolen is not enough motivation, would legal sanctions help? What if all guns were registered to specific individuals and those individuals had to be accountable for their weapons?

One other observation is that apparently the young shooter has made some efforts to turn his life around in spite of the fact that a good portion of it will be behind bars.

Staten's attorney, Eugene Kress, said his client wants to better himself.

"He's done a lot of work since he was initially incarcerated, furthering his education," Kress said. "His goal is to continue that. He's going to, I hope, use his time wisely."

How common do you think that is? How many young prisoners truly make an effort to turn their lives around? Does rehabilitation work in some cases?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.