Follow Up on Carry Insurance - 2

In yesterday's article, questions were raised about the YouTube channels that ditched USCCA in favor of presumably the money from "Attorneys on Retainer." Today, we focus on the error of that choice. 

First, the founder of AOR is Marc Victor. Here is a video that details a few of the troubles with him. This website has most, if not all the same quotes used in the video. From the website:

Victor believes in gun restriction laws, even if temporary (sounds a lot like red flag laws)

- "As a criminal defense attorney for over twenty-five years, I’ve personally witnessed prohibited possessor laws indeed keep guns out of the hands of some such people (those that "violate" or "might violate" Victor's "Live and Let Live philosophy). That fact alone makes the effort worthwhile."

Victor believes in requiring "competency" to own firearms

- "However, reasonable people could also argue a gun safety class ought to be required to ensure minimum competence with any weapon."

Victor believes government is capable of determining when one is too "incompetent" to possess a firearm:

- "In addition to age and certain types of mental illness or injury, there may be temporary conditions such as drunkenness that also deprive an otherwise competent person of the minimum level of competency to safely possess a firearm. As with the violent felon category, reasonable minds can disagree on specifics and different communities will come to different reasonable conclusions. Moreover, there ought to be a reasonable process for determining if and when such deficiencies in mental competency are sufficiently restored. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t encompass the person who lacks sufficient mental competency to safely possess a firearm."

Victor repeatedly dances around the idea that "government cannot be trusted" and tries to "balance" it with "communities coming to reasonable conclusions." 

This is all gun control!

Second, here is a link to the appeal case from Kayla Giles - the earmark case that AOR keeps referencing. Considering that they are attorneys, one must presume they have read this information. It is not hard to find. Some tidbits from this ruling, and proof from the document, immediately following:

Giles assaulted her estranged husband

- Thomas (decedent) reported Defendant (Kayla Giles) to law enforcement authorities that Defendant slapped him during a custody exchange.

Giles planned to kill her estranged husband 

- Mrs. Dennis (friend of Giles) related that in early 2018, Defendant told her she wanted to kill Thomas and asked if she could borrow a gun. Mrs. Dennis refused to loan Defendant one of her guns. 

- Later, Defendant sent Mrs. Dennis a picture of a black handgun she had purchased. Defendant also asked Mrs. Dennis if she knew anything about self-defense insurance. 

- In August 2018, Defendant sent a message indicating that she had deleted all her social media accounts and that she might “make the news.”

Giles illegally purchased the gun

- And on August 27, 2018—contrary to the court’s protective order—Defendant purchased a Ruger LCP handgun chambered in .380 ACP from an Academy Sports and Outdoors location in Dallas, Texas. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 obtained by Academy, which is required for all commercial firearms transfers or purchases, indicates that Defendant was not subject to a criminal background check because she held a valid Texas concealed carry permit. Defendant also purchased concealed carry insurance from the U.S. Concealed Carry Association on the same day.

Giles lied about being attacked by her estranged husband

- While Defendant described Thomas jumping toward her car 2 and jerking the door open, Defendant’s daughter, A.S., stated that Thomas walked toward the car, which contradicted a recorded statement she had given the police earlier.

Giles obstructed justice by concealing evidence of her plan to kill her husband. 

- Approximately two weeks before the incident, Defendant had entrusted her laptop computer to her sister, which Defendant delivered in a flowered bag. Defendant made calls from the jail. Among them was a call to Mrs. Austin, during which Mrs. Austin asked Defendant if someone could take “the flowered thing” from her. Defendant told Mrs. Austin that no one was searching for it and that “it doesn’t exist.” Mrs. Austin told Defendant she was worried about herself, and Defendant told her, “Give it to Jennifer. Give it to Jennifer.” Mrs. Austin gave the laptop to Mrs. Dennis, who lived in Ouachita Parish. Neither Mrs. Austin nor Mrs. Dennis were asked to damage the computer or delete files from it.

Last, but certainly not least, the appellate court's decision:

DECREE 

Defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.

To be fair, it is possible the Louisiana state Supreme Court is taking up the matter. It is possible they vacate or amend the ruling. Based on the Appellate court's findings, that would seem unlikely at this time. This author suspects the defendant and murderer, Kayla Giles, is simply trying every legal remedy to get the conviction overturned or reduced. Throwing the proverbial "Hail Mary."