Nelson Blanco is well known to police in Providence, Rhode Island. The 46-year-old has a rap sheet that goes back to 1999, and was most recently arrested 2024 for domestic violence. He was released into the custody of the R.I. Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals last July, though, after he was found incompetent to stand trial.
Instead of being confined to a secure facility until his competence could be restored, a psychiatrist recommended that Blanco remain an outpatient since he was "not likely to imperil the peace and safety of the community or himself at this time."
Now Blanco stands accused of stabbing a 2-year-old girl and her mother as the pair were waiting for her other children at a school bus stop.
Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez said Blanco made insulting comments to the woman, so she crossed the street with her daughter, who was in a stroller.
They remained in the area while the woman waited for her other children to get off the school bus.
“The suspect approached the mother again and then started insulting the mother before attacking the child with a knife. The mother also reported that the suspect grabbed her during the incident and that witnesses who were present at the scene intervened, after which the suspect fled the area,” Perez said.
Blanco allegedly broke into another woman's home and locked himself in the basement before he was apprehended by police.
The bus stop where the mother and toddler were attacked does not appear to have been a "gun-free zone" under Rhode Island law. I don't know if this woman or any of the people at the bus stop who intervened are gun owners, but I do know the state makes it awfully difficult for someone to obtain a carry license.
The biggest challenge for most folks is the state's live-fire test. Applicants must demonstrate their proficiency by shooting 30 rounds at a distance of 25 yards (75 feet) and achieve a score of 195/300, which allows them to receive a live-fire proficiency certificate that must be submitted along with their concealed carry application.
When the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Rhode Island's ban on "large capacity" magazines, it argued that "civilian self-defense rarely --if ever --calls for the rapid and uninterrupted discharge of many shots, much less more than ten."
Well, self-defense rarely involves shooting an attacker from 25 yards away either. If the First Circuit thinks it's appropriate to judge magazine restrictions based on what's typically needed in a defensive encounter, why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to Rhode Island's live-fire requirement? Being able to accurately hit a target at 25 yards is a useful skill, but demonstrating that ability shouldn't be a prerequisite for exercising your right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
Consider all of the hoops the state makes people jump through in order to carry a gun in self-defense: the live-fire qualification, the application, the wait to be approved, the restrictions on where they can carry.
Now consider what happened with Nelson Blanco.
According to the Boston Globe, Blanco was accused of stabbing two 7-year-old boys back in 2003. He was found incompetent to stand trial in that case. He was found incompetent again in 2018 after being charged with possessing a stolen vehicle. And just three months ago, he was deemed incompetent to stand trial yet again, this time in connection with a domestic violence case.
Despite that history, a psychiatrist concluded that Blanco was unlikely to endanger himself or the community at that time, and recommended outpatient treatment instead of institutionalization.
The state wants to determine whether you're suitable to defend yourself with a handgun. Yet in Blanco's case, the assessment of whether he posed a danger to the public apparently proved tragically wrong. Rhode Island demands that peaceable citizens prove they're suitable to carry a firearm, while a man with a lengthy history of arrests, alleged violence, and repeated findings of incompetence was deemed suitable to remain in the community.
When the government's assessment of someone's dangerousness turns out to be wrong, it's ordinary people who can suffer the consequences.
That's why the right to armed self-defense matters. No, a gun can't guarantee your safety, but the government can't guarantee it either. And if some stranger starts swinging a knife at me or my kids, I'd much rather be able to respond with a gun than having to use my fists or feet.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member