Connect with us


Liquor Store Owner Faces Seven Years for Self-Defense


In an alarming twist of justice, Francisco Valerio, a New York City liquor store owner, now faces the possibility of spending seven years behind bars. His crime? Defending his property and his brother from aggressive thieves. This situation underscores the severe consequences of misguided legal actions that penalize law-abiding citizens while emboldening criminals.

On a typical evening at Franja Wine and Liquors in Ridgewood, Queens, Valerio confronted two shoplifters attempting to steal liquor bottles. Video footage shows one of the suspects, Kevin Pullatasi, stuffing a bottle into his jacket before being expelled from the store. However, the incident took a violent turn outside when Pullatasi charged at the store door, initiating a physical confrontation.

Valerio, armed with a concealed carry permit, attempted to protect his brother and his store. In the ensuing struggle, Valerio’s actions led to Pullatasi being shot. The suspect was later seen dragging himself away, while Valerio checked on him. This act of self-defense, however, resulted in Valerio being charged with multiple offenses, including assault and reckless endangerment.

Legal Overreach and Misguided Prosecution


Despite having a concealed carry permit and defending his property from recurrent theft, Valerio faces serious charges. This decision by the Queens District Attorney’s Office has sparked outrage, highlighting a severe miscarriage of justice. It appears that the system is punishing a responsible business owner for protecting his livelihood against habitual criminals.

Fernando Mateo, founder of United Bodegas of America, has vocally criticized the decision to prosecute Valerio. He pointed out that Valerio’s store had been targeted multiple times by the same group of thieves. Business owners, according to Mateo, are continuously plagued by theft, assaults, and robberies, yet find themselves unsupported by a legal system that seems more lenient towards criminals than victims.

Mateo’s argument is compelling: “Frequent flier thieves must be stopped. We have the right to defend ourselves, our businesses, and our communities. District attorneys must stop prosecuting victims and start charging criminals when they commit crimes.”

The Impact on Valerio’s Life

Valerio is not just a business owner but a responsible member of his community. A graduate of Columbia University, married for 30 years with two children, Valerio’s life and livelihood are now at stake due to what can only be described as an overzealous prosecution. The potential loss of his business and personal reputation looms large, underscoring the dire personal consequences of this legal action.

Local residents have rallied in support of Valerio, expressing their disbelief at the charges against him. One neighbor articulated the community sentiment: “He had a permit to carry it and they were assaulting him, and it was an accident. He shouldn’t be in trouble.”

This case brings to light the broader issue of legal protections for those who defend themselves and their properties. It raises critical questions about the direction of law enforcement priorities and the rights of citizens. The decision to prosecute Valerio not only undermines his right to self-defense but also sets a dangerous precedent for other business owners and law-abiding citizens.

The prosecution of Francisco Valerio represents a troubling example of justice gone awry. It is a stark reminder of the need to reassess legal frameworks that unfairly target individuals protecting their rights and properties. As the trial date approaches, the community and advocates for justice urge District Attorney Melinda Katz to reconsider the charges and uphold the true spirit of justice by dropping the case against Valerio. This isn’t just about one man; it’s about the rights of every citizen to defend themselves in the face of crime.

Leave your thoughts about this case in the comments below.

(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Biden’s America: The FBI’s ‘Terror Watch List’ Keeps Growing


( – The world watched in horror as terrorists from Hamas surged into Israel’s border with Gaza, raping and killing civilians, setting homes on fire, fighting back against Israeli resistance that had been quickly assembled, and capturing hostages. 

For good cause, the tragic events of that day have taken up most of the media attention in the world. We have once more witnessed the ugly realities of an ideology come to light. But in the meantime, a more covert invasion is happening nearer to home.

The FBI’s Terror Screening Database, also known as the “terror watch list,” contains a record number of individuals who have been encountered “between ports of entry” at the southern and northern borders of the United States, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

As of mid-October, U.S. officials had apprehended 169 individuals on the terror watch list while attempting to enter the country illegally. 

At U.S. ports of entry, there were also 564 interactions with individuals suspected of being terrorists. These numbers do not account for the unidentified number of people who successfully entered our country; they only reflect those who were identified.

Most interactions at ports of entry occurred at the northern border, where encounters on land have increased by over 20,000 percent since President Biden assumed office. 

There are thousands of “special interest aliens” from Middle Eastern countries among that startling number. 

According to CBP data, agents have interacted with 6,386 citizens of Afghanistan, 3,153 from Egypt, 1,613 from Pakistan, 659 from Iran, 538 from Syria, and 123 from Iraq over the previous two years. Once more, these are the people of whom we are aware.

Following the Hamas assault on Israel, we heard incredible tales of bravery in which armed Israelis fought back against their invaders and saved their country. 

In response, the Israeli government, realizing that its citizens are the country’s first line of defense, ordered thousands of rifles to arm them. 

You would think that after witnessing those acts of individual bravery, our own officials would come to the conclusion that it might not be a good idea to try to disarm our populace following a large-scale movement of people suspected of being terrorists. 

Regretfully, the opposite is accurate. President Biden recently restated his well-known soundbite, calling for the outlawing of the most widely used firearms in America.

Due to the President’s actions failing to shut the border, an unprecedented influx of foreign nationals has entered our country. For their families, many, if not most, of these folks merely want a better life. 

However, some can be acting with darker motives. Suppose there is one thing we can learn from the recent events in Israel. 

In that case, there is a real threat from terrorism, and it is our responsibility as citizens to be ready to take action when necessary. 

Robbing us of the appropriate means to defend ourselves is not leadership.

Copyright 2024.

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Bump Stocks Sparks Debate Over Second Amendment


In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a federal ban on bump stocks, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy expressed concerns that the high court is preparing to fundamentally alter the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Murphy warned that recent gun-related rulings suggest the court might restrict Congress’s ability to implement measures such as background checks or bans on specific firearms like AR-15s.

Murphy’s comments come after the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate similar to a fully automatic weapon. This ruling represents another instance of the conservative-majority court rolling back firearm regulations.

The ban on bump stocks was initially pushed by former President Donald Trump following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a gunman used the devices to kill 58 people at an outdoor music festival. A Texas gun store owner challenged the ban after surrendering two bump stocks to the government, eventually suing to reclaim them.

Murphy criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, suggesting that it aligns with broader efforts to erode gun control measures. He argued that the decision undermines previous bipartisan support for the bump stock ban and positions the court to dismantle key components of gun regulation, thus jeopardizing community safety.

The ruling has sparked a divide between gun control advocates and supporters of gun rights. Gun control groups contend that the court’s decision will exacerbate gun violence in a country already plagued by frequent shootings. They argue that the ban was a necessary regulation to prevent high-casualty incidents facilitated by rapid-fire capabilities.

Conversely, many Republicans have praised the court’s decision, maintaining that the bump stock ban was unconstitutional from the outset. GOP Sen. Tom Cotton remarked that the ban approached an infringement on the Second Amendment and emphasized the need to focus on tackling violent and gang-related crime rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The Supreme Court’s decision, although not based directly on the Second Amendment, has brought the debate over gun rights back to the forefront. This ruling is part of a trend where the high court has sided with gun rights groups, reflecting a broader judicial philosophy that may limit legislative and executive efforts to regulate firearms.

Despite the contentious ruling, Murphy highlighted some positive trends, noting a decline in urban gun homicide rates. He emphasized the ongoing need for effective legislation to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting while acknowledging recent legislative changes that he believes have contributed to enhanced public safety.

As the nation grapples with the implications of this decision, the divide between those advocating for stricter gun control and those championing gun rights continues to shape the legal and political landscape surrounding the Second Amendment.

What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling?

Continue Reading


Federal Appeals Court Upholds California Laws Banning Gun Shows on Public Property


In a 3-0 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California laws that ban gun shows at county fairs and other public properties. This ruling overturned a previous decision by a federal judge in October that had blocked the enforcement of these laws.

The laws in question were introduced by Democratic State Senator Dave Min. The first law, which went into effect in January 2022, specifically prohibited gun shows at the Orange County Fair. The second law, effective last year, extended this ban to county fairgrounds on state-owned land throughout California.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Mark Holcomb ruled that these laws violated the rights of gun sellers and potential buyers. He argued that preventing the purchase of firearms at these events infringed upon commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, as lawful gun sales involve such speech.

However, the appeals court took a different view, stating that the laws do not violate the First Amendment. Judge Richard Clifton wrote that the bans simply prohibit sales agreements on public property and do not limit discussions, advertisements, or other speech related to firearms. Clifton noted that a separate, unchallenged state law mandates that the actual purchase of a firearm at a gun show be completed at a licensed gun store, following a 10-day waiting period and a background check.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling, calling it a victory in the fight against gun violence. Bonta emphasized that firearms should not be sold on state-owned property and lauded the decision as a step towards greater public safety.

Gun-control advocates argue that gun shows can make firearms more attractive to children and facilitate “straw purchases,” where individuals buy guns for those who are legally prohibited from owning them.

The case originated from a lawsuit by B&L Productions, a gun show company, which claimed that the ban on fairgrounds sales infringed upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The appeals court countered this claim, pointing out that there were six licensed firearms dealers in the same ZIP code as the Orange County Fairgrounds, indicating that the law did not restrict access to firearms.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association and attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed intent to appeal the ruling. Michel criticized the decision, asserting that it discriminates against gun culture and infringes on fundamental rights.

As this legal battle continues, the tension between gun rights advocates and those pushing for stricter gun control measures remains high. This case highlights the ongoing debate over how best to balance public safety concerns with constitutional rights in the United States.

What do you think of the recent appeals court hearing?

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved