bearingarms--2020-09-16--WSJ Columnist Dismantles Anti-Gun Lies About NRA

There are a lot of people who don ’ t like the National Rifle Association .
I ’ m not just talking about people on the anti-gun side , either .
I know a lot of gun owners who have no use for the organization these days .
However , there are also a lot of lies that surround the group .
While the pro-gun critics of the NRA may or may not have listened to those lies , a lot of other people have .
A recent column in the Wall Street Journal seems to have addressed some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few other tidbits worthy of note .
A few years back , I asked a former colleague whom I knew to be pro-Second Amendment philosophically if he owned a gun .
He answered no , and then asked if I had one .
I said I wouldn ’ t know what to write down as my reason for wanting one .
He told me , “ Write down , ‘ Because I don ’ t trust the government.
’ ” That might have worked for the Founding Fathers .
But in today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giffords Law Center ’ s annual Gun Law Scorecard as the nation ’ s most restrictive after California—the response might be 40 squad cars on the front lawn by morning .
I say this only half in jest : Do other Americans buying guns for the first time find it as grating as I do to learn that we need government permission to exercise a constitutional right ?
I know , right ?
It ’ s ridiculous any American has to justify their decision to own a gun , a constitutionally-protected right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any other right .
However , that ’ s a merely interesting point of discussion .
Now , about the NRA .
See , many argue the NRA has lost its way , that it used to be about education and now it ’ s merely about politics .
Of course , this criticism tends to come from those who see the NRA as a roadblock to their anti-gun agenda .
It ’ s also not true , as columnist William McGurn notes .
Equally illuminating has been learning about guns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades in the news business , I have often written about the National Rifle Association , usually about some proposed new gun law .
Most recently the NRA has been in the headlines over a lawsuit filed by New York ’ s attorney general in which she accuses top leaders of decades-long corruption and misspending .
But our family ’ s decision to buy a gun has introduced us to the side of the NRA more Americans see : the education side .
The NRA has courses , online and in person , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my wife and I engaged , Billy De Almedia , was firm , professional and patient .
It ’ s not just the instruction that impresses .
It ’ s the sheer Americanness of a private organization established to support a constitutional right in all its manifestations , from defending the Second Amendment legally and philosophically to instilling in newbies such as myself the respect for guns necessary to keep and use them safely .
Not to mention a taste of the satisfaction that comes from mastering a new discipline .
Surely if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA provides , the experience would be akin to going to your local Department of Motor Vehicles .
In America , by contrast , the ethos emphasizes private initiative and responsibility .
In our new interactions with gun owners , gun instructors and owners of gun ranges , my wife and I have found them unfailingly eager to help and to answer even the dumbest questions .
McGurn is right once again .
Look , there are criticisms one can level against the NRA all day long .
There are legitimate criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization one cares to name .
Yet many of the claims of the anti-gun critics really don ’ t hold water .
Especially about how the NRA no longer cares about education .
Even the much vilified Carry Guard program included a hefty educational element .
The group has never lost its way when it comes to education , they just recognized that if they don ’ t defend the Second Amendment , there won ’ t be any need for the educational services .
Most of those lashing out over that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They just want groups like the NRA out of the way so they can run rampant over our Second Amendment rights .

There are a lot of people who don’t like the National Rifle Association. I’m not just talking about people on the anti-gun side, either. I know a lot of gun owners who have no use for the organization these days.
However, there are also a lot of lies that surround the group. While the pro-gun critics of the NRA may or may not have listened to those lies, a lot of other people have.
A recent column in the Wall Street Journal seems to have addressed some of those. It also touched on a few other tidbits worthy of note.
A few years back, I asked a former colleague whom I knew to be pro-Second Amendment philosophically if he owned a gun. He answered no, and then asked if I had one. I said I wouldn’t know what to write down as my reason for wanting one. He told me, “Write down, ‘Because I don’t trust the government.’ ” That might have worked for the Founding Fathers. But in today’s New Jersey—a state ranked by the Giffords Law Center’s annual Gun Law Scorecard as the nation’s most restrictive after California—the response might be 40 squad cars on the front lawn by morning. I say this only half in jest: Do other Americans buying guns for the first time find it as grating as I do to learn that we need government permission to exercise a constitutional right?
I know, right? It’s ridiculous any American has to justify their decision to own a gun, a constitutionally-protected right, when no one would tolerate such regulations on any other right.
However, that’s a merely interesting point of discussion.
Now, about the NRA. See, many argue the NRA has lost its way, that it used to be about education and now it’s merely about politics. Of course, this criticism tends to come from those who see the NRA as a roadblock to their anti-gun agenda. It’s also not true, as columnist William McGurn notes.
Equally illuminating has been learning about guns and those who own them. Over four decades in the news business, I have often written about the National Rifle Association, usually about some proposed new gun law. Most recently the NRA has been in the headlines over a lawsuit filed by New York’s attorney general in which she accuses top leaders of decades-long corruption and misspending. But our family’s decision to buy a gun has introduced us to the side of the NRA more Americans see: the education side. The NRA has courses, online and in person, for almost everything. The NRA instructor my wife and I engaged, Billy De Almedia, was firm, professional and patient. It’s not just the instruction that impresses. It’s the sheer Americanness of a private organization established to support a constitutional right in all its manifestations, from defending the Second Amendment legally and philosophically to instilling in newbies such as myself the respect for guns necessary to keep and use them safely. Not to mention a taste of the satisfaction that comes from mastering a new discipline. Surely if the government were to assume the functions the NRA provides, the experience would be akin to going to your local Department of Motor Vehicles. In America, by contrast, the ethos emphasizes private initiative and responsibility. In our new interactions with gun owners, gun instructors and owners of gun ranges, my wife and I have found them unfailingly eager to help and to answer even the dumbest questions.
McGurn is right once again.
Look, there are criticisms one can level against the NRA all day long. There are legitimate criticism, much as there are of any organization one cares to name. Yet many of the claims of the anti-gun critics really don’t hold water. Especially about how the NRA no longer cares about education. Even the much vilified Carry Guard program included a hefty educational element.
The group has never lost its way when it comes to education, they just recognized that if they don’t defend the Second Amendment, there won’t be any need for the educational services.
Most of those lashing out over that, though, don’t really care. They just want groups like the NRA out of the way so they can run rampant over our Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Guns Returned In Virginia Red Flag Case

Guns Returned In Virginia Red Flag Case

We don ’ t have any firm numbers on just how many times Virginia ’ s “ red-flag ” firearms seizure law has been used since it took effect on July 1st , but one recent case in the northwest part of the state provides ample evidence of the flaws in the new law and how it can be used to harass and cause problems for innocent parties .
A Frederick County man had his guns taken from him after both his father and son accused him of pulling a gun on the younger man back on September 2nd .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently had his firearms returned to him after a “ substantial cause ” hearing was held and the man ’ s father failed to appear in court .
“ The red flag law is wrong because anybody who is spiteful can have someone ’ s guns taken from them , ” the man told Judge Alexander R. Iden prior to having his guns returned .
“ I go hunting every year in Romney , West Virginia , and there ’ s a chance I might miss hunting season.
” The man ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against his son on Sept. 2 that expired on Tuesday and wasn ’ t renewed .
The man said if his father was afraid of him he would have renewed the order .
He said he ’ s returned home , and he and his father are back on good terms .
But Deputy Samantha Garrison testified that the elderly father was shaking when he made the allegations to her at the Frederick County Public Safety Building on Sept. 2 .
“ He told me he had no other option , ” Garrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his grandson came home from work that something was going to happen.
” Garrison said she spoke by phone to the grandson .
He said he made a sarcastic remark to his father on a stairway in their home and his father pointed a revolver at him .
“ [ He ] said he didn ’ t initially report it because because his dad has done crazy things like that before and he is used to it , ” Garrison said .
The subject of the “ red-flag ” order says that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his son has held a grudge against him for a couple of years after he called police on his child when he found that the son had drugs delivered to his home .
Neither the man ’ s father or son actually appeared in court for the substantial risk hearing , and an emergency protective order filed by the man ’ s father expired last week without the elder gentleman renewing it .
Without much evidence that the subject actually posed a danger to himself or others , the judge overseeing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to him , despite the objections of prosecutor Andrew Robbins .
“ It ’ s discouraging for the commonwealth .
All we can do is try and pray that this doesn ’ t go south , ” he said .
“ The gentleman is having his firearms returned to him , and we just hope that he uses them safely and doesn ’ t use them to injure himself or anyone else.
” Robbins said he understood the verdict given the lack of witness testimony .
Iden said the seizure required “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal standard that is greater than a “ preponderance of evidence ” and less than the “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” standard in a criminal case .
“ There are no witnesses that say a gun was pointed at them , ” Iden said in denying the seizure motion .
To make it clear ; the subject of the “ red-flag ” order was never charged with a crime , yet the filing of the order was enough for him to have his guns taken from him .
Even though the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself and others , no mental health professional ever evaluated him , because that ’ s not a requirement of the state ’ s red-flag law .
If his father and son had actually shown up in court for the hearing , it ’ s entirely possible that the “ red-flag ” order would have been finalized and the man ’ s guns would have been withheld from him for months on end .
Supporters of the “ red-flag ” law will likely claim that the resolution of the case shows that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his guns returned to him .
Opponents of the law , on the other hand , can rightfully point to the fact that the man was never charged with a crime , yet had his guns taken from him simply because of the accusations of two people who didn ’ t bother to show up for a court hearing .
I ’ m also curious to see what , if any , reaction this case generates locally .
Frederick County is a Second Amendment Sanctuary , and more than 1,000 people showed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2019 in full support of the resolution .
Will there be a backlash to the county sheriff and Commonwealth ’ s Attorney ( both elected positions ) attempting to enforce the red-flag order ?
Unless this case flies under the public ’ s radar , I suspect that many Second Amendment supporters will have quite a bit to say about the case in the coming days .

We don’t have any firm numbers on just how many times Virginia’s “red-flag” firearms seizure law has been used since it took effect on July 1st, but one recent case in the northwest part of the state provides ample evidence of the flaws in the new law and how it can be used to harass and cause problems for innocent parties.
A Frederick County man had his guns taken from him after both his father and son accused him of pulling a gun on the younger man back on September 2nd. The Winchester Star reports that the man recently had his firearms returned to him after a “substantial cause” hearing was held and the man’s father failed to appear in court.
“The red flag law is wrong because anybody who is spiteful can have someone’s guns taken from them,” the man told Judge Alexander R. Iden prior to having his guns returned. “ I go hunting every year in Romney, West Virginia, and there’s a chance I might miss hunting season.” The man’s father had an emergency protective order issued against his son on Sept. 2 that expired on Tuesday and wasn’t renewed. The man said if his father was afraid of him he would have renewed the order. He said he’s returned home, and he and his father are back on good terms. But Deputy Samantha Garrison testified that the elderly father was shaking when he made the allegations to her at the Frederick County Public Safety Building on Sept. 2. “ He told me he had no other option,” Garrison said. “ He was afraid when his grandson came home from work that something was going to happen.” Garrison said she spoke by phone to the grandson. He said he made a sarcastic remark to his father on a stairway in their home and his father pointed a revolver at him. “[ He] said he didn’t initially report it because because his dad has done crazy things like that before and he is used to it,” Garrison said.
The subject of the “red-flag” order says that his son lied to officers, and claims that his son has held a grudge against him for a couple of years after he called police on his child when he found that the son had drugs delivered to his home. Neither the man’s father or son actually appeared in court for the substantial risk hearing, and an emergency protective order filed by the man’s father expired last week without the elder gentleman renewing it.
Without much evidence that the subject actually posed a danger to himself or others, the judge overseeing the case ordered the man’s guns returned to him, despite the objections of prosecutor Andrew Robbins.
“It’s discouraging for the commonwealth. All we can do is try and pray that this doesn’t go south,” he said. “ The gentleman is having his firearms returned to him, and we just hope that he uses them safely and doesn’t use them to injure himself or anyone else.” Robbins said he understood the verdict given the lack of witness testimony. Iden said the seizure required “clear and convincing evidence” — a legal standard that is greater than a “ preponderance of evidence” and less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal case. “There are no witnesses that say a gun was pointed at them,” Iden said in denying the seizure motion.
To make it clear; the subject of the “red-flag” order was never charged with a crime, yet the filing of the order was enough for him to have his guns taken from him. Even though the man was accused of being a threat to himself and others, no mental health professional ever evaluated him, because that’s not a requirement of the state’s red-flag law. If his father and son had actually shown up in court for the hearing, it’s entirely possible that the “red-flag” order would have been finalized and the man’s guns would have been withheld from him for months on end.
Supporters of the “red-flag” law will likely claim that the resolution of the case shows that the law is working because the man had his guns returned to him. Opponents of the law, on the other hand, can rightfully point to the fact that the man was never charged with a crime, yet had his guns taken from him simply because of the accusations of two people who didn’t bother to show up for a court hearing.
I’m also curious to see what, if any, reaction this case generates locally. Frederick County is a Second Amendment Sanctuary, and more than 1,000 people showed up to the county supervisors meeting in December of 2019 in full support of the resolution. Will there be a backlash to the county sheriff and Commonwealth’s Attorney (both elected positions) attempting to enforce the red-flag order? Unless this case flies under the public’s radar, I suspect that many Second Amendment supporters will have quite a bit to say about the case in the coming days.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--As Gang Violence Rises, N.C. Mayor Targets Legal Gun Owners

Beyond the obvious constitutional issues with most gun control laws , there are also real practical problems with attempting to use gun control as a way of addressing violent crime .
Durham , North Carolina Mayor Steve Schewel doesn ’ t seem bothered by either the dubious constitutionality or the pragmatic concerns about gun control , however .
As shootings increase in the city , Shewel ’ s embraced a gun control agenda that ’ s aimed squarely at the city ’ s legal gun owners instead of the small number of violent criminals driving the mayhem and misery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state to allow cities to ban guns in parks , trails , restaurants , bars , and school parking lots .
He is also calling for background checks for all gun sales , for automatic assault weapons to be banned , and for ammunition to be taxed… “ This is not about taking away a hunter ’ s rifle or the right to bear arms , ” Schewel said .
“ If we ’ re serious about getting a handle on it , we ’ re not going to stop it until we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are committing crimes.
” Nope , nope , nope .
Supply side gun control is destined to fail in a nation with more than 400,000,000 privately owned firearms and a constitutional right to keep and bear them .
Banning our way to safety is a non-starter , and Schewel should actually be embarrassed to have uttered such an idiotic statement .
Look at what Schewel ’ s proposing here .
Banning legal gun owners from both public and private property ?
Telling a woman who ’ s a concealed carry holder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s running on a trail , or telling a restaurant owner that he can no longer have his firearm with him when he ’ s in his own establishment ?
The only way those gun bans would work to make anyone safer is if violent criminals would pay attention to the prohibition on carrying .
Schewel can ’ t be dumb enough to truly believe that would be the case , but his goal is clearly to go after legal gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trickle down effect on violent criminals .
Schewel ’ s anti-gun agenda , including banning so-called assault weapons , universal background checks , and increasing taxes on ammunition , won ’ t stop a single act of violence , nor would they actually “ cut off the supply of guns to people who are committing crimes.
” Most of these people are getting their guns illegally , after all .
No , in order to really address the issue Schewel needs to get serious about addressing the demand for guns among people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals , using a gun in the commission of a crime is a net positive at the moment .
The potential consequences don ’ t outweigh the perceived benefits .
That is what needs to change , and it has nothing to do with another gun control law ( or three , or more ) .
Instead , it means focusing like a laser on the relatively small number of people who are responsible for an outsized portion of the city ’ s violence .
Offer these individuals a chance to change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it clear that more shootings means no more plea deals .
No more low bail .
Take as many of these cases as officials can to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution and put offenders away for as long as the law allows .
While Schewel is bloviating about banning our way to safety , at least some residents in Durham know where the problem really lies .
Kathy Dingle lives on Park Avenue .
Four bullets flew into her 18-year-old son ’ s bedroom on Tuesday evening .
Thankfully he was not injured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be stricter gun laws to keep these guns out of the wrong hands .
“ If you ’ re caught with a gun , you ’ re back out on the streets firing a gun five or three days later , it ’ s not sending a message to these young people , ” Dingle said .
Schewel ’ s gun control agenda sends the wrong message to these young people .
If he ’ s even remotely serious about actually addressing violent crime , he needs to quit parroting anti-gun talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works .
I ’ d recommend he pick up a copy of David Kennedy ’ s book “ Don ’ t Shoot : One Man , A Street Fellowship , and the End of Violence in Inner-City America .
That ’ s the blueprint for saving Durham , not the bumper sticker slogans of Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety .

Beyond the obvious constitutional issues with most gun control laws, there are also real practical problems with attempting to use gun control as a way of addressing violent crime. Durham, North Carolina Mayor Steve Schewel doesn’t seem bothered by either the dubious constitutionality or the pragmatic concerns about gun control, however. As shootings increase in the city, Shewel’s embraced a gun control agenda that’s aimed squarely at the city’s legal gun owners instead of the small number of violent criminals driving the mayhem and misery.
He said he is asking for the state to allow cities to ban guns in parks, trails, restaurants, bars, and school parking lots. He is also calling for background checks for all gun sales, for automatic assault weapons to be banned, and for ammunition to be taxed… “This is not about taking away a hunter’s rifle or the right to bear arms,” Schewel said. “If we’re serious about getting a handle on it, we’re not going to stop it until we cut off the supply of guns to people who are committing crimes.”
Nope, nope, nope. Supply side gun control is destined to fail in a nation with more than 400,000,000 privately owned firearms and a constitutional right to keep and bear them. Banning our way to safety is a non-starter, and Schewel should actually be embarrassed to have uttered such an idiotic statement.
Look at what Schewel’s proposing here. Banning legal gun owners from both public and private property? Telling a woman who’s a concealed carry holder that she can no longer carry when she’s running on a trail, or telling a restaurant owner that he can no longer have his firearm with him when he’s in his own establishment?
The only way those gun bans would work to make anyone safer is if violent criminals would pay attention to the prohibition on carrying. Schewel can’t be dumb enough to truly believe that would be the case, but his goal is clearly to go after legal gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms in the hopes of it having some sort of trickle down effect on violent criminals.
Schewel’s anti-gun agenda, including banning so-called assault weapons, universal background checks, and increasing taxes on ammunition, won’t stop a single act of violence, nor would they actually “cut off the supply of guns to people who are committing crimes.” Most of these people are getting their guns illegally, after all. No, in order to really address the issue Schewel needs to get serious about addressing the demand for guns among people who are committing crimes.
For those individuals, using a gun in the commission of a crime is a net positive at the moment. The potential consequences don’t outweigh the perceived benefits. That is what needs to change, and it has nothing to do with another gun control law (or three, or more). Instead, it means focusing like a laser on the relatively small number of people who are responsible for an outsized portion of the city’s violence. Offer these individuals a chance to change, and give them help, but make it clear that more shootings means no more plea deals. No more low bail. Take as many of these cases as officials can to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution and put offenders away for as long as the law allows.
While Schewel is bloviating about banning our way to safety, at least some residents in Durham know where the problem really lies.
Kathy Dingle lives on Park Avenue. Four bullets flew into her 18-year-old son’s bedroom on Tuesday evening. Thankfully he was not injured, but she said she thinks there should be stricter gun laws to keep these guns out of the wrong hands. “If you’re caught with a gun, you’re back out on the streets firing a gun five or three days later, it’s not sending a message to these young people,” Dingle said.
Schewel’s gun control agenda sends the wrong message to these young people. If he’s even remotely serious about actually addressing violent crime, he needs to quit parroting anti-gun talking points and start looking at what actually works. I’d recommend he pick up a copy of David Kennedy’s book “Don’t Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America. That’s the blueprint for saving Durham, not the bumper sticker slogans of Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--RI Mayors Plan Buyback To Address Growing Violence

As we ’ ve noted a lot here , there ’ s a lot more violence these days than there was a year ago .
At least , it sure seems that way .
With everything going on , that ’ s not overly surprising , though .
It ’ s bad and it appears to be hitting pretty much every city in the United States to some degree .
Unsurprisingly , politicians all over the country are scrambling in an attempt to do something to protect their jobs .
After all , even if they ’ re not responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damn sure going to get blamed for it .
They simply have to be seen trying to do something .
So , a couple of Rhode Island mayors are trying to do something .
It ’ s stupid , but it ’ s something .
They ’ re having a buyback .
Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza , Central Falls Mayor James Diossa , Commissioner of Providence Public Safety Steven Paré , and Cedric Huntley , Executive Director of the Nonviolence Institute announced a gun buyback program on Thursday scheduled to happen on Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities .
The gun buybacks will happen on Saturday , October 17 at The DaVinci Center , 470 Charles St , Providence and at the Knights of Columbus 20 Claremont Street , Central Falls from 9:00AM to 1:00PM .
“ Gun violence is an ongoing public health issue across our country that has deeply impacted our families and our community , ” said Mayor Elorza .
“ We know that when we remove a single gun off our streets , we may be saving one of our neighbor ’ s lives .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn in their unwanted guns , no questions asked , and help us keep our community safe .
I want to thank Mayor Diossa and our partners for their close collaboration and their help preventing future gun violence in our cities.
” “ Central Falls has experienced the national health issue of gun violence , ” said Mayor Diossa .
“ Central Falls will do its part to address this issue by asking the community to participate in the gun buyback program on October 17th from 9am to 1pm by bringing illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbus on Claremont Street in Central Falls .
Please help us take steps in ensuring the issues with guns are cleared out of our streets and help us provide the quality of life that all residents deserve.
” Well , that ’ s about the dumbest idea I ’ ve ever heard .
Look , I get the idea behind these things .
Unwanted guns can be unloaded somewhere that they ’ ll be destroyed rather than put back into circulation where they might end up in criminal hands .
Except , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , Rhode Island is fairly pro-gun , but they also have universal background checks .
Aren ’ t those supposed to prevent guns from being sold to criminals ?
If those work , then why worry about how people get rid of unwanted guns ?
See , the thing is , the bad guys ?
They already have guns .
If not , they have sources to get guns that don ’ t require those handful of guns that will be turned in at such an event .
They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for the most part , buybacks are harmless .
People are free to dispose of their property however they wish .
Offering $ 100 gift card for a rifle and $ 200 for a handgun , though , isn ’ t going to entice a lot of people to turn much in .
It might convince me to buy a few Hi-Points and make a profit , though .
One thing that ’ s interesting is that they ’ re offering $ 500 for any firearm that ’ s been previously reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how many people will report their cheap guns stolen , then sell them , only to use that money to get something better .
Remember , these are no questions asked , so how are they to know that it was your gun the whole time ?
I ’ m not encouraging anyone to do that , mind you .
Quite the contrary , don ’ t do it .
It ’ s fraud and if you ’ re caught , you ’ ll deserve the jail time , on top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we all know someone has already thought about it and are considering it , which is another reason why these things are just so stupid .
On the same token , though , it makes it more profitable to dump a gun used in a crime , so there ’ s that .
The only thing I want to tell these mayors is for them to not get disappointed when it has absolutely no impact on violent crime in their cities .

As we’ve noted a lot here, there’s a lot more violence these days than there was a year ago. At least, it sure seems that way. With everything going on, that’s not overly surprising, though. It’s bad and it appears to be hitting pretty much every city in the United States to some degree.
Unsurprisingly, politicians all over the country are scrambling in an attempt to do something to protect their jobs. After all, even if they’re not responsible for the violence, they’re damn sure going to get blamed for it.
They simply have to be seen trying to do something.
So, a couple of Rhode Island mayors are trying to do something. It’s stupid, but it’s something. They’re having a buyback.
Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza, Central Falls Mayor James Diossa, Commissioner of Providence Public Safety Steven Paré, and Cedric Huntley, Executive Director of the Nonviolence Institute announced a gun buyback program on Thursday scheduled to happen on Saturday, October 17 at locations in both cities. The gun buybacks will happen on Saturday, October 17 at The DaVinci Center, 470 Charles St, Providence and at the Knights of Columbus 20 Claremont Street, Central Falls from 9:00AM to 1:00PM. “Gun violence is an ongoing public health issue across our country that has deeply impacted our families and our community,” said Mayor Elorza. “We know that when we remove a single gun off our streets, we may be saving one of our neighbor’s lives. We’re asking residents across Rhode Island to turn in their unwanted guns, no questions asked, and help us keep our community safe. I want to thank Mayor Diossa and our partners for their close collaboration and their help preventing future gun violence in our cities.” … “Central Falls has experienced the national health issue of gun violence,” said Mayor Diossa. “Central Falls will do its part to address this issue by asking the community to participate in the gun buyback program on October 17th from 9am to 1pm by bringing illegal or unwanted guns to the Knights of Columbus on Claremont Street in Central Falls. Please help us take steps in ensuring the issues with guns are cleared out of our streets and help us provide the quality of life that all residents deserve.”
Well, that’s about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.
Look, I get the idea behind these things. Unwanted guns can be unloaded somewhere that they’ll be destroyed rather than put back into circulation where they might end up in criminal hands.
Except, that’s not supposed to happen. I mean, Rhode Island is fairly pro-gun, but they also have universal background checks. Aren’t those supposed to prevent guns from being sold to criminals?
If those work, then why worry about how people get rid of unwanted guns?
See, the thing is, the bad guys? They already have guns. If not, they have sources to get guns that don’t require those handful of guns that will be turned in at such an event. They’ll still get guns just fine.
Look, for the most part, buybacks are harmless. People are free to dispose of their property however they wish. Offering $100 gift card for a rifle and $200 for a handgun, though, isn’t going to entice a lot of people to turn much in. It might convince me to buy a few Hi-Points and make a profit, though.
One thing that’s interesting is that they’re offering $500 for any firearm that’s been previously reported as stolen. It makes me wonder just how many people will report their cheap guns stolen, then sell them, only to use that money to get something better. Remember, these are no questions asked, so how are they to know that it was your gun the whole time?
I’m not encouraging anyone to do that, mind you. Quite the contrary, don’t do it. It’s fraud and if you’re caught, you’ll deserve the jail time, on top of making a false report to police.
But we all know someone has already thought about it and are considering it, which is another reason why these things are just so stupid.
On the same token, though, it makes it more profitable to dump a gun used in a crime, so there’s that.
The only thing I want to tell these mayors is for them to not get disappointed when it has absolutely no impact on violent crime in their cities.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--OH Man Busted After Pointing Gun At Police Car

A Toledo , Ohio man is facing multiple charges after posting a video on Facebook of him pointing a gun at a police cruiser with two officers inside .
25-year old Christopher Lofton was busted Thursday afternoon after an eagle-eyed detective saw the Facebook video and was able to identify the car that Lofton was in when he recorded the video .
The vehicle was spotted by authorities , but as they moved Lofton took off .
When Lofton attempted the leave the parking lot , the officers made a traffic stop .
As they got out of the vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The chase went to Ewing and Pinewood until it dead-ends into Division , where Lofton attempted to run on foot .
He was caught a short time later after trying to jump a fence but failed and fell on his face .
Lofton was treated for facial abrasions by Toledo Fire & Rescue , and he was booking into Lucas County Jail , where 12 grams of cocaine were found stuffed into his body .
According to police , the gun that was recovered had been reported stolen , and now Lofton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including felony fleeing and eluding , having weapons while under disability , and trafficking and possession of cocaine .
Lofton ’ s arrest in Toledo comes as law enforcement officers across the country have been targeted in ambush attacks .
In Phoenix , two officers were shot at this week as they sat in their patrol car , though thankfully they weren ’ t injured .
DPS officials say the suspect drove up to troopers while a teen sitting in the passenger ’ s seat attempted to shoot them with an assault rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprovoked ; the suspects targeted the detectives and fired first .
The detectives happened to be in the area to provide support for other troopers who were conducting a separate investigation , “ Our detectives were wearing police attires , easily identifiable as police officers .
We ’ re here simply supporting another opertation going on nearby , ” said Capt .
Jesse Galvez with DPS .
“ He began to shoot at our trooper as he exited his vehicle , ” said DPS Director Col. Heston Silbert .
Officials say the shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not had the wherewithall and the ability to quickly exit his vehicle and engage the suspect , undoubtedly , he would have been shot or killed , ” said Col. Silbert .
In Kern County , California this week a deputy was ambushed as responded to a call of a suspicious vehicle .
The officer was forced to shoot his alleged attacker , 31-year old Ricardo Enrique Usher .
And in New Jersey , a husband and wife who are both police officers had their home targeted in a drive-by shooting .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were uninjured , ” said Camden County Police Chief Joseph Wysocki at a press conference Thursday , adding , “ I do know that this was a targeted attack against this residence and the officers inside.
” Authorities said a Honda Odyssey pulled up to the home on Tuesday and opened fire .
The vehicle has since been recovered , and police are searching for the vehicle ’ s owner , driver or additional passengers .
“ It ’ s critical for us to speak to the owner , the occupants or friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wysocki said during the press conference .
All these incidents have taken place after the shooting of two Los Angeles County deputies last weekend .
No arrest has been made in that case , but the reward for information leading to an arrest has grown to more than $ 600,000 .
The 24-year old deputy who was shot has also been released from the hospital , while his 31-year old partner , who managed to call for help after she had been shot in the jaw , remains hospitalized but is expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous job , but it ’ s truly disturbing to see so many ambush attacks on officers in just a one-week span .
Murders and shootings are already spiking in many cities thanks to violent criminals feeling emboldened by everything from coronavirus-related court closures to the defunding of many police departments .
Sadly , too many politicians in charge of these cities are still pretending that the increase in violence can be addressed by targeting legal gun owners with more gun control laws , when they should be ensuring swift and certain consequences @ @ @ @ @ @

A Toledo, Ohio man is facing multiple charges after posting a video on Facebook of him pointing a gun at a police cruiser with two officers inside.
25-year old Christopher Lofton was busted Thursday afternoon after an eagle-eyed detective saw the Facebook video and was able to identify the car that Lofton was in when he recorded the video. The vehicle was spotted by authorities, but as they moved Lofton took off.
When Lofton attempted the leave the parking lot, the officers made a traffic stop. As they got out of the vehicle, Lofton sped away down Woodland. The chase went to Ewing and Pinewood until it dead-ends into Division, where Lofton attempted to run on foot. He was caught a short time later after trying to jump a fence but failed and fell on his face. Lofton was treated for facial abrasions by Toledo Fire & Rescue, and he was booking into Lucas County Jail, where 12 grams of cocaine were found stuffed into his body.
According to police, the gun that was recovered had been reported stolen, and now Lofton’s been charged with multiple offenses, including felony fleeing and eluding, having weapons while under disability, and trafficking and possession of cocaine.
Lofton’s arrest in Toledo comes as law enforcement officers across the country have been targeted in ambush attacks. In Phoenix, two officers were shot at this week as they sat in their patrol car, though thankfully they weren’t injured.
DPS officials say the suspect drove up to troopers while a teen sitting in the passenger’s seat attempted to shoot them with an assault rifle. DPS officials say the shooting was unprovoked; the suspects targeted the detectives and fired first. The detectives happened to be in the area to provide support for other troopers who were conducting a separate investigation, “Our detectives were wearing police attires, easily identifiable as police officers. We’re here simply supporting another opertation going on nearby,” said Capt. Jesse Galvez with DPS. “He began to shoot at our trooper as he exited his vehicle,” said DPS Director Col. Heston Silbert. Officials say the shooting was unprovoked. “Had the trooper not had the wherewithall and the ability to quickly exit his vehicle and engage the suspect, undoubtedly, he would have been shot or killed,” said Col. Silbert.
In Kern County, California this week a deputy was ambushed as responded to a call of a suspicious vehicle. The officer was forced to shoot his alleged attacker, 31-year old Ricardo Enrique Usher. And in New Jersey, a husband and wife who are both police officers had their home targeted in a drive-by shooting.
“Thank God the officers and their baby were uninjured,” said Camden County Police Chief Joseph Wysocki at a press conference Thursday, adding, “I do know that this was a targeted attack against this residence and the officers inside.” Authorities said a Honda Odyssey pulled up to the home on Tuesday and opened fire. The vehicle has since been recovered, and police are searching for the vehicle’s owner, driver or additional passengers. “It’s critical for us to speak to the owner, the occupants or friends of anybody that operates this vehicle,” Wysocki said during the press conference.
All these incidents have taken place after the shooting of two Los Angeles County deputies last weekend. No arrest has been made in that case, but the reward for information leading to an arrest has grown to more than $600,000. The 24-year old deputy who was shot has also been released from the hospital, while his 31-year old partner, who managed to call for help after she had been shot in the jaw, remains hospitalized but is expected to recover.
Policing is always a dangerous job, but it’s truly disturbing to see so many ambush attacks on officers in just a one-week span. Murders and shootings are already spiking in many cities thanks to violent criminals feeling emboldened by everything from coronavirus-related court closures to the defunding of many police departments. Sadly, too many politicians in charge of these cities are still pretending that the increase in violence can be addressed by targeting legal gun owners with more gun control laws, when they should be ensuring swift and certain consequences for those committing violent crimes.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--FL Man Kills Wife With Sword, Shatters Anti-Gun Narrative

Make no mistake , domestic abuse of any kind is horrible .
As bad as the hitting can be , the verbal and psychological abuse can be just as bad .
I ’ ve seen it with my own two eyes .
For the anti-gunners , though , they use domestic abuse as grounds to infringe on our rights as citizens .
They note how horrible a situation it is , but then pretend that if guns aren ’ t in the mix , all will be well .
Like suddenly , everything will suddenly get better .
Maybe I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Perhaps they get that there will still be abuse but simply think , mistakenly , that if a gun isn ’ t around , the victim can leave ; that husbands won ’ t kill their wives without a gun .
Well , a case in Florida proves that even if guns are present , a husband is fully capable of taking his wife ’ s life without one .
The fight reportedly started as an argument before turning physical .
Thibault is alleged to have slammed his wife ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s been charged with second-degree murder with a deadly weapon .
There are a few key points we need to remember here .
First and foremost is that while a gun was present in the household , that ’ s not the weapon Thibault used .
Instead , for some weird reason , he used a sword .
Don ’ t get me wrong , swords are deadly , especially if you know how to use one .
I study 15th Century Italian longsword for fun , so I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And yes , I ’ m kind of curious as to what kind of sword he used , but not enough to actually try to find out . )
Yet the narrative is that if guns aren ’ t in the household , things like this won ’ t happen .
Well , they do .
See , the problem with that narrative is that it ignores a few facts , starting with basic biology .
Men are , on average , bigger and stronger than women .
As such , a violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon to murder a woman .
He can also use any manner of household implement he desires .
Had it not been a sword , it could just as easily been a knife .
Hell , I call our meat tenderizer a “ war hammer ” because it kind of looks like a weapon and it amuses me .
Do you mean to tell me that a violent man can ’ t kill his wife with one of those ?
Yes , they sometimes use firearms .
No one is happy about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he ’ s a domestic abuser in the making , pushing for laws that allow him to be disarmed for no reason , is not how you fix that problem .
After all , would we be better off if those women were killed with swords instead ?

Make no mistake, domestic abuse of any kind is horrible. As bad as the hitting can be, the verbal and psychological abuse can be just as bad. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.
For the anti-gunners, though, they use domestic abuse as grounds to infringe on our rights as citizens. They note how horrible a situation it is, but then pretend that if guns aren’t in the mix, all will be well. Like suddenly, everything will suddenly get better.
Maybe I’m being a little unfair to them. Perhaps they get that there will still be abuse but simply think, mistakenly, that if a gun isn’t around, the victim can leave; that husbands won’t kill their wives without a gun.
Well, a case in Florida proves that even if guns are present, a husband is fully capable of taking his wife’s life without one.
Police in Florida said that despite a gun being recovered at the scene, a man allegedly killed his wife with a sword. According to the City of Homestead police, Mark William Thibault, 53, confessed to killing 56-year-old Rachel Thibault on Tuesday. Police said that a handgun was recovered shortly after a relative reported that Mark Thibault had confessed in a phone call to killing Rachel Thibault, Local10.com reported.
The fight reportedly started as an argument before turning physical. Thibault is alleged to have slammed his wife’s head against the bathtub before stabbing her.
He’s been charged with second-degree murder with a deadly weapon.
There are a few key points we need to remember here. First and foremost is that while a gun was present in the household, that’s not the weapon Thibault used. Instead, for some weird reason, he used a sword.
Don’t get me wrong, swords are deadly, especially if you know how to use one. I study 15th Century Italian longsword for fun, so I’m fully aware of them. (And yes, I’m kind of curious as to what kind of sword he used, but not enough to actually try to find out.)
Yet the narrative is that if guns aren’t in the household, things like this won’t happen. Well, they do.
See, the problem with that narrative is that it ignores a few facts, starting with basic biology. Men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women. As such, a violent man doesn’t actually need a weapon to murder a woman. He can also use any manner of household implement he desires. Had it not been a sword, it could just as easily been a knife.
Hell, I call our meat tenderizer a “war hammer” because it kind of looks like a weapon and it amuses me. Do you mean to tell me that a violent man can’t kill his wife with one of those?
Yes, they sometimes use firearms. No one is happy about that.
But treating every law-abiding man as if he’s a domestic abuser in the making, pushing for laws that allow him to be disarmed for no reason, is not how you fix that problem. After all, would we be better off if those women were killed with swords instead?


bearingarms--2020-09-18--Kamala Harris Wants To Ban Guns, But She Doesn't Want To Talk About It

Kamala Harris was in Philadelphia on Thursday for a campaign stop in a vital swing state , and she did a one-on-one interview with ABC 6 ’ s Jim Gardner , who tossed up a few softball questions about the rising “ gun violence ” in the City of Brotherly Love .
Homicides are up by more than 30 % in the city , said Gardner before asking what the city can do to reduce the violence .
“ Well , I mean , I can speak about gun violence as a national issue , ” Harris responded .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many areas that we need to focus on .
There is the issue of what we need to do that is about smart gun safety law , and that means having background checks .
Um , just asking the question about whether someone has been convicted of a violent felony before we allow them to purchase a gun.
” If universal background checks worked to reduce crime , we wouldn ’ t be seeing spikes in the homicide rate in places like New York City , Seattle , Chicago , Baltimore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are required before anyone can legally purchase a firearm .
New Mexico instituted universal background checks in 2019 and Albuquerque is likely to have a record-high number of homicides this year , while not a single person has been arrested or charged for transferring a firearm without going through a background check .
Universal background checks poll well , but they don ’ t actually do much to target criminal activity .
It ’ s virtually impossible to proactively enforce background checks on private transfers , so as a crime prevention tool they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for politicians who want to be able to say they ’ re “ doing something ” about violent crime .
Harris added that , “ We need to make sure that we are dealing with the impact of gun violence on communities .
It exacts so much trauma on a community , most of which we do not diagnose and treat .
There is what we need to do that is about realizing in so many communities where you see these high rates of violence , they ’ re also the communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are underfunded public school programs and things of that nature .
So all of these things need to happen in addition to making sure that there are the resources to investigate those cases and make sure that there ’ s going to be a consequence and accountability.
” Interestingly , Kamala Harris said nothing about the Biden/Harris campaign pledge to ban so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines .
The Biden/Harris campaign has been downplaying their anti-gun agenda on the campaign trail , and for the most part the media has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid any substantive discussion about how their agenda would impact tens of millions of legal gun owners .
In this case , Gardner didn ’ t even ask a followup to Harris about her word salad of an answer , and just moved on to other topics .
Kamala Harris can try to avoid any mention of banning guns and magazines , but it ’ s still telling that the very first thing she talked about in terms of reducing violent crime was a gun control measure aimed at legal gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for violent criminals was an afterthought ; just a minor aside that she threw in at the end of her statement .
If you lived in a Philadelphia neighborhood where the crime rate is sky-high , would Kamala Harris ’ answer make you feel any better ?
Would it give you any hope ?
Would you think to yourself , “ yeah , background checks should do it ” ?
Of course not .
Harris ’ response seems like a focus-group tested response designed to appeal to suburban women , not the mothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their kids to school or to play in the park because of the drug and gang-related violence on the streets .
The Biden/Harris gun control agenda would be devastating to our Second Amendment rights .
It would ban the most commonly sold rifles and the most commonly owned magazines in the nation , and require gun owners to either turn over the guns and magazines that they own or pay a hefty fee to register them with the federal government .
“ If you like your gun you can keep your gun , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that work out when they said the same thing about keeping your doctor under Obamacare ?
The truth is that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden would create crimes where the Second Amendment used to be and would create criminals out of legal gun owners .
That ’ s where their focus is .
Harris didn ’ t mention anything about diverting more felon-in-possession cases to federal prosecutors , or using DOJ to implement programs like Project Ceasefire or Project Exit to target the most violent offenders in any given community .
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blame on legal gun owners , offer up a false promise of safety and security with her call for universal background checks , and avoid any mention of the gun and magazine ban that she and Biden have embraced .
In a time of record-high gun sales , a ban on commonly-owned firearms and magazines isn ’ t what millions of new gun owners want to hear , even if it ’ s what Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have promised to deliver .

Kamala Harris was in Philadelphia on Thursday for a campaign stop in a vital swing state, and she did a one-on-one interview with ABC 6’s Jim Gardner, who tossed up a few softball questions about the rising “gun violence” in the City of Brotherly Love. Homicides are up by more than 30% in the city, said Gardner before asking what the city can do to reduce the violence.
“Well, I mean, I can speak about gun violence as a national issue,” Harris responded. “And uh, nationally, there are so many areas that we need to focus on. There is the issue of what we need to do that is about smart gun safety law, and that means having background checks. Um, just asking the question about whether someone has been convicted of a violent felony before we allow them to purchase a gun.”
If universal background checks worked to reduce crime, we wouldn’t be seeing spikes in the homicide rate in places like New York City, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles, where background checks are required before anyone can legally purchase a firearm. New Mexico instituted universal background checks in 2019 and Albuquerque is likely to have a record-high number of homicides this year, while not a single person has been arrested or charged for transferring a firearm without going through a background check.
Universal background checks poll well, but they don’t actually do much to target criminal activity. It’s virtually impossible to proactively enforce background checks on private transfers, so as a crime prevention tool they’re meaningless. Their main benefit is for politicians who want to be able to say they’re “doing something” about violent crime.
Harris added that, “We need to make sure that we are dealing with the impact of gun violence on communities. It exacts so much trauma on a community, most of which we do not diagnose and treat. There is what we need to do that is about realizing in so many communities where you see these high rates of violence, they’re also the communities where you see low home ownership, there are underfunded public school programs and things of that nature. So all of these things need to happen in addition to making sure that there are the resources to investigate those cases and make sure that there’s going to be a consequence and accountability.”
Interestingly, Kamala Harris said nothing about the Biden/Harris campaign pledge to ban so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The Biden/Harris campaign has been downplaying their anti-gun agenda on the campaign trail, and for the most part the media has been happy to go along with their attempt to avoid any substantive discussion about how their agenda would impact tens of millions of legal gun owners. In this case, Gardner didn’t even ask a followup to Harris about her word salad of an answer, and just moved on to other topics.
Kamala Harris can try to avoid any mention of banning guns and magazines, but it’s still telling that the very first thing she talked about in terms of reducing violent crime was a gun control measure aimed at legal gun owners. Ensuring that there are actual consequences for violent criminals was an afterthought; just a minor aside that she threw in at the end of her statement.
If you lived in a Philadelphia neighborhood where the crime rate is sky-high, would Kamala Harris’ answer make you feel any better? Would it give you any hope? Would you think to yourself, “yeah, background checks should do it”? Of course not. Harris’ response seems like a focus-group tested response designed to appeal to suburban women, not the mothers and fathers who are scared to send their kids to school or to play in the park because of the drug and gang-related violence on the streets.
The Biden/Harris gun control agenda would be devastating to our Second Amendment rights. It would ban the most commonly sold rifles and the most commonly owned magazines in the nation, and require gun owners to either turn over the guns and magazines that they own or pay a hefty fee to register them with the federal government. “If you like your gun you can keep your gun,” they say. How well did that work out when they said the same thing about keeping your doctor under Obamacare?
The truth is that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden would create crimes where the Second Amendment used to be and would create criminals out of legal gun owners. That’s where their focus is. Harris didn’t mention anything about diverting more felon-in-possession cases to federal prosecutors, or using DOJ to implement programs like Project Ceasefire or Project Exit to target the most violent offenders in any given community.
No, her first thought was to pin the blame on legal gun owners, offer up a false promise of safety and security with her call for universal background checks, and avoid any mention of the gun and magazine ban that she and Biden have embraced. In a time of record-high gun sales, a ban on commonly-owned firearms and magazines isn’t what millions of new gun owners want to hear, even if it’s what Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have promised to deliver.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--Philly City Council Wants "Gun Violence Emergency" Declared

Unfortunately , most major cities are experiencing a huge upswing in violence .
Frankly , most minor cities seem to be seeing one as well .
However , for some of the big urban centers , they really couldn ’ t afford an upswing .
After all , for some of them , it was bad enough before half the country seems to have lost their damn minds .
One such city is Philadelphia .
The City of Brotherly Love has some serious domestic violence issues , let me tell ya , and they had them prior to much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of things hasn ’ t exactly caused things to settle down , either .
Now , the city council wants the situation declared an emergency .
So , it ’ s a problem because they ’ re black or brown communities ?
Really ?
I mean , don ’ t get me wrong , no innocent person deserves to be shot , of course , regardless of ethnicity , but it seems like it ’ s only a problem for Gauthier because of who the victims are .
Regardless , though , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotspots ” by any stretch .
I mean , every city has parts of town where everyone knows not to go for a walk at night .
These are likely the same neighborhoods that are plagued by gang violence , the drug trade , and other criminal enterprises .
For whatever reason , these kinds of things plague some minority communities , after all .
Not all of them , to be sure , but when you have those kinds of things going on , they tend to be in heavily minority communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion beyond our scope here , but it ’ s one we should probably have .
It ’ s worth noting , though , that all of the things Gauthier proposes to address the problem , there ’ s no mention of law enforcement .
That ’ s quite interesting .
After all , if you ’ re talking about violent crime , you need to also consider law enforcement in addition to other programs you ’ re considering .
Anti-crime programs can work , but they can also take years before you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means thousands could be shot and/or killed while you wait for the program to yield results .
But if you add enforcement of current law into the mix , you see something quite different .
Then you can see short-term gains and long-term advances .
Then again , police aren ’ t popular and politicians are all about what ’ s popular .
Maybe I ’ m wrong .
Maybe that ’ s a part of the “ anti-gun violence initiatives ” mentioned .
I ’ d like to be wrong , actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see this game too much at this point to believe I am .

Unfortunately, most major cities are experiencing a huge upswing in violence. Frankly, most minor cities seem to be seeing one as well. However, for some of the big urban centers, they really couldn’t afford an upswing. After all, for some of them, it was bad enough before half the country seems to have lost their damn minds.
One such city is Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love has some serious domestic violence issues, let me tell ya, and they had them prior to much of the current psychosis. The current state of things hasn’t exactly caused things to settle down, either.
Now, the city council wants the situation declared an emergency.
So, it’s a problem because they’re black or brown communities? Really?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, no innocent person deserves to be shot, of course, regardless of ethnicity, but it seems like it’s only a problem for Gauthier because of who the victims are.
Regardless, though, no one should be surprised by these “hotspots” by any stretch. I mean, every city has parts of town where everyone knows not to go for a walk at night. These are likely the same neighborhoods that are plagued by gang violence, the drug trade, and other criminal enterprises. For whatever reason, these kinds of things plague some minority communities, after all. Not all of them, to be sure, but when you have those kinds of things going on, they tend to be in heavily minority communities.
Why that is would be a discussion beyond our scope here, but it’s one we should probably have.
It’s worth noting, though, that all of the things Gauthier proposes to address the problem, there’s no mention of law enforcement. That’s quite interesting. After all, if you’re talking about violent crime, you need to also consider law enforcement in addition to other programs you’re considering. Anti-crime programs can work, but they can also take years before you really start seeing appreciable gains. That means thousands could be shot and/or killed while you wait for the program to yield results.
But if you add enforcement of current law into the mix, you see something quite different. Then you can see short-term gains and long-term advances.
Then again, police aren’t popular and politicians are all about what’s popular.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s a part of the “anti-gun violence initiatives” mentioned. I’d like to be wrong, actually. Unfortunately, we’ve all see this game too much at this point to believe I am.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--Open Carry Protesters Rally For 2A At Michigan Capitol

The issue of whether guns should be banned or allowed at the state capitol building in Lansing , Michigan has been hotly debated since April , when anti-lockdown protests that included some armed protesters took place on the capitol grounds in the building itself .
Earlier this week the Michigan Capitol Commission voted down two proposals ; one that would have banned all firearms from the building and another that would have banned the carrying of long guns .
Second Amendment supporters had a rally at the capitol planned for this week anyway to show their opposition to the proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 1,000 gun owners showed up for a peaceful demonstration on the capitol lawn .
Two parents carried rifles while their daughter shouldered a BB gun .
Others wore British Revolutionary War costumes to mock Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s coronavirus-prevention policies .
And some Black Detroiters were there advocating for more diversity in the gun rights movement… While occasionally addressing other issues such as Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-home measures , speakers at the Sep. 17 rally focused on the rights of protesters , many of whom carrying pistols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Whether you decide to open carry or concealed carry , that is your choice .
It is not my job to make that decision for you , ” said Tom Lambert , former president of Michigan Open Carry , to the crowd before pointing back to the Capitol building .
“ It is not their job to make that decision for you either.
” That ’ s obviously in dispute .
The state ’ s Attorney General says the Capitol Commission does have the authority to decide if guns will be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes to ban guns failed this week , the commission is apparently still talking to lawmakers in an attempt to find “ common ground , ” according to the commission chairman .
Firearms have long been allowed in and around the Michigan Capitol building , and members of the public are allowed to enter the building without being checked by security .
That ’ s not the case in the U.S. Capitol and many other state Capitol buildings around the country .
A few Republican politicians spoke about the proposal , including Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Capitol Commission doesn ’ t have the authority to ban guns from the building .
“ The Capitol Commission deals with the care and upkeep of the Capitol building , the grounds here that you see and upkeep of the statues , ” he said .
“ But they don ’ t have the ability to set policy within the Capitol building itself.
” Both Attorney General Dana Nessel and independent counsel retained by the commission found the panel does indeed have the authority , although some commissioners were hesitant to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps the most common sense take of the day was offered by a Republican congressional candidate , who has what is now officially my favorite name in politics .
David “ Dude ” Dudenhoefer , Republican challenger for U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib ’ s 13th District seat , said while the optics of hundreds of rifled protesters in the Capitol building during an April 30 rally may not look good to some , it ’ s no reason to deny people their Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense .
“ Wherever you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend yourself , ” he said .
“ If there are places where they restrict that right , that ’ s a criminal empowerment zone.
” He also pointed that no armed protester has discharged a shot in front or inside the Capitol building , comparing it to violence during police brutality protests in Detroit .
It ’ s a great point .
You ’ ve got people in illegal possession of firearms who are illegally using firearms to commit violent crimes , but far too many lawmakers in Lansing are more interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceably and legally carrying at the state capitol complex .
I suspect that ultimately the Capitol Commission is going to try to split the baby here and attempt to please everyone , while ultimately making no one happy .
If I had to guess , I ’ d say they ’ re going to push a ban on openly-carried firearms while still allowing concealed carry .
That won ’ t be far enough for the gun-banners , and it ’ ll be too far for many Second Amendment activists , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission members are trying to find some common ground between lawmakers .
Of course it could be that there ’ s no common ground to be found , only the quicksand of partisan politics when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms .
I think the best thing to do would be for the Capitol Commission to drop the subject completely , but something tells me that isn ’ t the leading option for commission members at the moment .

The issue of whether guns should be banned or allowed at the state capitol building in Lansing, Michigan has been hotly debated since April, when anti-lockdown protests that included some armed protesters took place on the capitol grounds in the building itself. Earlier this week the Michigan Capitol Commission voted down two proposals; one that would have banned all firearms from the building and another that would have banned the carrying of long guns.
Second Amendment supporters had a rally at the capitol planned for this week anyway to show their opposition to the proposed gun ban, and n Thursday, about 1,000 gun owners showed up for a peaceful demonstration on the capitol lawn.
Two parents carried rifles while their daughter shouldered a BB gun. Others wore British Revolutionary War costumes to mock Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s coronavirus-prevention policies. And some Black Detroiters were there advocating for more diversity in the gun rights movement… While occasionally addressing other issues such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-home measures, speakers at the Sep. 17 rally focused on the rights of protesters, many of whom carrying pistols and rifles out in the open. “Whether you decide to open carry or concealed carry, that is your choice. It is not my job to make that decision for you,” said Tom Lambert, former president of Michigan Open Carry, to the crowd before pointing back to the Capitol building. “It is not their job to make that decision for you either.”
That’s obviously in dispute. The state’s Attorney General says the Capitol Commission does have the authority to decide if guns will be allowed in the statehouse, and while the votes to ban guns failed this week, the commission is apparently still talking to lawmakers in an attempt to find “common ground,” according to the commission chairman.
Firearms have long been allowed in and around the Michigan Capitol building, and members of the public are allowed to enter the building without being checked by security. That’s not the case in the U.S. Capitol and many other state Capitol buildings around the country. A few Republican politicians spoke about the proposal, including Sen. Tom Barrett, R-Charlotte. He argued the Capitol Commission doesn’t have the authority to ban guns from the building. “The Capitol Commission deals with the care and upkeep of the Capitol building, the grounds here that you see and upkeep of the statues,” he said. “But they don’t have the ability to set policy within the Capitol building itself.” Both Attorney General Dana Nessel and independent counsel retained by the commission found the panel does indeed have the authority, although some commissioners were hesitant to make a determination without some legislative input.
Perhaps the most common sense take of the day was offered by a Republican congressional candidate, who has what is now officially my favorite name in politics.
David “Dude” Dudenhoefer, Republican challenger for U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s 13th District seat, said while the optics of hundreds of rifled protesters in the Capitol building during an April 30 rally may not look good to some, it’s no reason to deny people their Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense. “Wherever you go, you have the right to defend yourself,” he said. “If there are places where they restrict that right, that’s a criminal empowerment zone.” He also pointed that no armed protester has discharged a shot in front or inside the Capitol building, comparing it to violence during police brutality protests in Detroit.
It’s a great point. You’ve got people in illegal possession of firearms who are illegally using firearms to commit violent crimes, but far too many lawmakers in Lansing are more interested in the legal gun owners who are peaceably and legally carrying at the state capitol complex.
I suspect that ultimately the Capitol Commission is going to try to split the baby here and attempt to please everyone, while ultimately making no one happy. If I had to guess, I’d say they’re going to push a ban on openly-carried firearms while still allowing concealed carry. That won’t be far enough for the gun-banners, and it’ll be too far for many Second Amendment activists, but it’s still the most likely scenario if commission members are trying to find some common ground between lawmakers.
Of course it could be that there’s no common ground to be found, only the quicksand of partisan politics when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. I think the best thing to do would be for the Capitol Commission to drop the subject completely, but something tells me that isn’t the leading option for commission members at the moment.


bearingarms--2020-09-18--Trump Warns Biden Could Strip Us Of Civil Liberties

We really should be knee-deep in election coverage these days , but the truth of the matter is that there ’ s just not a lot of gun control discussion going on now that we ’ ve reached the general election .
Oh , Biden hasn ’ t backed off on his anti-gun agenda by any means .
He ’ s simply not talking about it .
It ’ s as though his campaign recognizes it ’ s not a winning issue for the Democrats like it might have been back in February .
Unfortunately for them , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hammer Biden over this topic .
President Donald Trump on Thursday evening said that if America elected Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , he would take away the country ’ s energy independence and some of their civil rights .
During a campaign rally in Mosinee , Wisconsin , Trump accused Biden of softening on some promises he had made earlier in his campaign .
The president also claimed that Democrats who lean further to the left now regret giving Biden the nomination .
Trump then encouraged those in attendance at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s original political positions .
“ Remember this in politics—it ’ s always the thing that they say first .
That ’ s what they ’ re going to do , ” said Trump .
“ No guns , no religion , no energy , no oil .
Remember that .
Remember.
” Newsweek reached out to the Biden campaign for comment .
In March , Biden announced that he would place former Texas representative Beto O ’ Rourke in charge of gun control laws .
O ’ Rourke , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle , said during a December Democratic debate , “ Hell , yes , we ’ re going to take your AR-15 , your AK-47.
” I have no doubt that the fact-checkers will swoop in and try to claim that Biden didn ’ t say he would take all the guns but instead said blah , blah , blah .
I honestly don ’ t care .
See , Trump is right .
If Biden gets his way , it likely will be “ no guns.
” The campaign position isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position lies .
It ’ s the starting point .
It ’ s the minimum they think they need to promise to get elected .
They need to appease all those who want no guns as well as not scaring too many of those who believe in at least some regulation .
It ’ s where Biden ’ s campaign believes the “ sweet spot ” is .
Yet his history tells a very different story .
In the last few decades , Biden has pushed for more and more gun control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t work , he still wants more .
Take the assault weapon ban as an example .
He ’ s been campaigning for a return of that , yet the evidence clearly shows how meaningless the ban actually was .
Crime continued to drop after the ban sunset , which suggests that maybe , just maybe , criminals weren ’ t using AR-15s to hold up liquor stores .
That doesn ’ t matter to him because yeah , he hates gun on principle and wants them gone .
He merely wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can get away with it .
He ’ ll likely use any opportunity to shift gears and try to ban other firearm classes just as soon as they present themselves .
So yeah , Trump is right .
Biden does want to take our guns from us .
He wants to take all of our guns from us .
He ’ s just campaigning on taking some of them to start with .

We really should be knee-deep in election coverage these days, but the truth of the matter is that there’s just not a lot of gun control discussion going on now that we’ve reached the general election. Oh, Biden hasn’t backed off on his anti-gun agenda by any means. He’s simply not talking about it. It’s as though his campaign recognizes it’s not a winning issue for the Democrats like it might have been back in February.
Unfortunately for them, though, President Donald Trump isn’t afraid to hammer Biden over this topic.
President Donald Trump on Thursday evening said that if America elected Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, he would take away the country’s energy independence and some of their civil rights. During a campaign rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, Trump accused Biden of softening on some promises he had made earlier in his campaign. The president also claimed that Democrats who lean further to the left now regret giving Biden the nomination. Trump then encouraged those in attendance at the event not to forget the former vice president’s original political positions. “Remember this in politics—it’s always the thing that they say first. That’s what they’re going to do,” said Trump. “No guns, no religion, no energy, no oil. Remember that. Remember.” Newsweek reached out to the Biden campaign for comment. In March, Biden announced that he would place former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun control laws. O’Rourke, who also ran for president in this election cycle, said during a December Democratic debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
I have no doubt that the fact-checkers will swoop in and try to claim that Biden didn’t say he would take all the guns but instead said blah, blah, blah. I honestly don’t care.
See, Trump is right. If Biden gets his way, it likely will be “no guns.”
The campaign position isn’t the end of where an anti-gun position lies. It’s the starting point. It’s the minimum they think they need to promise to get elected. They need to appease all those who want no guns as well as not scaring too many of those who believe in at least some regulation. It’s where Biden’s campaign believes the “sweet spot” is.
Yet his history tells a very different story. In the last few decades, Biden has pushed for more and more gun control, even when evidence shows it didn’t work, he still wants more. Take the assault weapon ban as an example. He’s been campaigning for a return of that, yet the evidence clearly shows how meaningless the ban actually was. Crime continued to drop after the ban sunset, which suggests that maybe, just maybe, criminals weren’t using AR-15s to hold up liquor stores.
That doesn’t matter to him because yeah, he hates gun on principle and wants them gone. He merely wants to start with so-called assault weapons because he can get away with it. He’ll likely use any opportunity to shift gears and try to ban other firearm classes just as soon as they present themselves.
So yeah, Trump is right. Biden does want to take our guns from us. He wants to take all of our guns from us. He’s just campaigning on taking some of them to start with.


bearingarms--2020-09-19--The Fight Over SCOTUS Will Determine The Future Of The 2nd Amendment

Will the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday upend the 2020 election , or is the fight over the future of SCOTUS already enough of a key election issue for voters that it won ’ t have much of an impact on the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden ?
That depends on who you ask .
Over at Hot Air , Jazz Shaw notes that Republican and Democratic strategists are already weighing in , with Republican strategist Alex Conant asserting that a confirmation fight before the election will only help the Trump campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are taking a decidedly different stance .
Meanwhile , the liberals and never-Trumpers at the Bulwark were busy prognosticating in the opposite direction , as you would expect .
They start by saying that if Trump and the Senate GOP move forward and replace Ginsburg it will “ destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court .
Full stop.
” ( I ’ m glad they ’ re not getting overly dramatic . )
They go on to say that if Ginsburg is replaced before the election on November 3rd and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will almost certainly attempt to pack the court by adding more seats .
And if she is replaced after November 3rd ( in a scenario where Biden wins the election ) , then “ the powder keg would explode.
” The only “ safe ” course of action they posit is to go for the “ Garland solution , ” where they simply wait and let the next President and Senate Majority Leader ( be that Trump and McConnell or Biden and Schumer ) seat Ginsburg ’ s replacement .
Or Trump could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fantasyland tribute to his political foes .
The chances of Merrick Garland being nominated by Donald Trump is slightly less than the possibility of Joe Biden joining the NRA and touting his recent purchase of an AR-15 .
It ’ s simply not going to happen , though it looks like Trump will be nominating someone to fill the seat in the coming days .
Trump has already released his short list of SCOTUS nominees for a second term , and it ’ s likely that Trump ’ s choice will come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is chock full of judges who ’ ve backed the Second Amendment , both on the bench and in their previous in public service and the private sector .
It ’ s still an open question as to whether or not any nominee could actually be confirmed , either before the election or in a lame-duck session of Congress after the election results are known ( at least if Biden were to win in November ) .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already stated that a vote will be held , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of at least a few of his GOP colleagues to make that happen , and Senator Susan Collins of Maine was quick to go on the record in opposition to a vote either before the election or in a lame duck session if Trump loses .
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has also stated her objections to a vote before the election , though she ’ s been silent so far on the possibility of a SCOTUS vote in a possible lame-duck session .
The political fight on Capitol Hill is likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners and Second Amendment supporters , a third SCOTUS pick for Donald Trump could be the most compelling reason to turn out and vote in November , regardless of whether or not the pick is seated before the election .
As Jazz pointed out , some Democrats and never-Trumpers are already pushing to expand the number of Supreme Court justices if Trump is able to win the confirmation fight but lose the election , and that raises the stakes for the 2020 election even higher than they already are .
The Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that ’ s come before the high court in recent months , with unnamed sources saying that pro-2A justices have become concerned that Chief Justice John Roberts may side with the liberal wing of the Court despite being in the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions a decade ago .
If Donald Trump is successful in placing another justice on the Court who understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms , those concerns about how Roberts might land on a Second Amendment-related case become far less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November , however , then Chief Justice Roberts won ’ t be the biggest cause for concern among gun owners .
Instead , we could expect an overhaul of the Court itself , with Democrats changing the rules in order to pack the court with anti-gun justices who could render the Second Amendment a dead letter , legally speaking .
The confirmation fight , in other words , is likely less important to gun owners than the election itself .
Regardless of what happens with Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the determining factor in the future of the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court .
Gun owners already had plenty of reasons to get off the couch and get involved in this year ’ s elections at the grassroots level , but now it should be crystal clear just how important this election will be for our right to keep and bear arms .
If Trump wins , our Second Amendment rights are far more likely to be secure for a generation or more .
If Biden wins , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @

Will the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday upend the 2020 election, or is the fight over the future of SCOTUS already enough of a key election issue for voters that it won’t have much of an impact on the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden? That depends on who you ask.
Over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw notes that Republican and Democratic strategists are already weighing in, with Republican strategist Alex Conant asserting that a confirmation fight before the election will only help the Trump campaign. Democrats, as you might imagine, are taking a decidedly different stance.
Meanwhile, the liberals and never-Trumpers at the Bulwark were busy prognosticating in the opposite direction, as you would expect. They start by saying that if Trump and the Senate GOP move forward and replace Ginsburg it will “destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Full stop.” (I’m glad they’re not getting overly dramatic.) They go on to say that if Ginsburg is replaced before the election on November 3rd and the Democrats take power next year, they will almost certainly attempt to pack the court by adding more seats. And if she is replaced after November 3rd (in a scenario where Biden wins the election), then “the powder keg would explode.” The only “safe” course of action they posit is to go for the “Garland solution,” where they simply wait and let the next President and Senate Majority Leader (be that Trump and McConnell or Biden and Schumer) seat Ginsburg’s replacement. Or Trump could just nominate Garland himself as some sort of fantasyland tribute to his political foes.
The chances of Merrick Garland being nominated by Donald Trump is slightly less than the possibility of Joe Biden joining the NRA and touting his recent purchase of an AR-15. It’s simply not going to happen, though it looks like Trump will be nominating someone to fill the seat in the coming days. Trump has already released his short list of SCOTUS nominees for a second term, and it’s likely that Trump’s choice will come from that short list of candidates, which is chock full of judges who’ve backed the Second Amendment, both on the bench and in their previous in public service and the private sector.
Paul Clement, the former Soliciter General who’s represented gun owners in multiple Second Amendment challenges in recent years, is on the list, as is former Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who called for the Supreme Court to declare a New York City gun law unconstitutional back in 2019. “New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a friend of the court brief Wednesday.
Francisco asked the court to “confirm” that the Second Amendment also protects the right of a “law-abiding, responsible citizen to take his firearms outside his home, and to transport it to other places — such as a second home or a firing range — where he may lawfully possess that firearm.”
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is another outspoken supporter of the Second Amendment on Trump’s short list. Cameron has publicly backed Constitutional carry legislation in Kentucky, while expressing his opposition to red-flag laws, which he says “impedes on our Second Amendment rights.”
It’s still an open question as to whether or not any nominee could actually be confirmed, either before the election or in a lame-duck session of Congress after the election results are known (at least if Biden were to win in November). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already stated that a vote will be held, but he’ll need the help of at least a few of his GOP colleagues to make that happen, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine was quick to go on the record in opposition to a vote either before the election or in a lame duck session if Trump loses. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has also stated her objections to a vote before the election, though she’s been silent so far on the possibility of a SCOTUS vote in a possible lame-duck session.
The political fight on Capitol Hill is likely to be a bruising one, but for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, a third SCOTUS pick for Donald Trump could be the most compelling reason to turn out and vote in November, regardless of whether or not the pick is seated before the election. As Jazz pointed out, some Democrats and never-Trumpers are already pushing to expand the number of Supreme Court justices if Trump is able to win the confirmation fight but lose the election, and that raises the stakes for the 2020 election even higher than they already are.
The Supreme Court has passed on virtually every Second Amendment case that’s come before the high court in recent months, with unnamed sources saying that pro-2A justices have become concerned that Chief Justice John Roberts may side with the liberal wing of the Court despite being in the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions a decade ago. If Donald Trump is successful in placing another justice on the Court who understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, those concerns about how Roberts might land on a Second Amendment-related case become far less important.
If Trump were to lose in November, however, then Chief Justice Roberts won’t be the biggest cause for concern among gun owners. Instead, we could expect an overhaul of the Court itself, with Democrats changing the rules in order to pack the court with anti-gun justices who could render the Second Amendment a dead letter, legally speaking.
The confirmation fight, in other words, is likely less important to gun owners than the election itself. Regardless of what happens with Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, the outcome of the election will be the determining factor in the future of the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court. Gun owners already had plenty of reasons to get off the couch and get involved in this year’s elections at the grassroots level, but now it should be crystal clear just how important this election will be for our right to keep and bear arms. If Trump wins, our Second Amendment rights are far more likely to be secure for a generation or more. If Biden wins, they’re likely to disappear forever.


bearingarms--2020-09-19--Claims Of NICS Delays Arming Criminals Are Scaremongering

For months now , the NICS system has been swamped .
Tons of people are wanting guns and are having to wait for background checks to clear so they can take them home .
However , due to the law , they can ’ t make people wait indefinitely .
See , when the NICS process was first proposed , there was a legitimate concern that delays could be created to discourage people from owning guns .
After all , you ’ re not telling them they can ’ t , you ’ re just taking months or years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , there ’ s a limit to how long gun dealers have to hold onto a gun and wait before they can assume it ’ s good to go .
Now , though , a lot more people are hitting those wait times , and it ’ s got anti-gunners nervous .
Firearms sales have surged this year .
That has led to a corresponding backlog of background checks , which gun regulation advocates worry will lead to more prohibited purchases .
The data are clear .
From March through August , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 20 million background checks through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System .
Every single one of those months set a new all-time monthly record .
Industry analysts and experts say sales have spiked for a variety of reasons , including the pandemic and social unrest in a contentious presidential election year .
The FBI runs background checks on most gun purchases .
Most take only a few minutes , but some are flagged for further review .
The FBI then has three days to complete the check .
If it takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through by default , sometimes called the “ Charleston loophole.
” The surge in purchases has led to a simultaneous increase in background checks that miss the three-day window .
Because of that , gun regulation advocates at Everytown for Gun Safety estimate that nearly 4,000 firearms could have been sold to purchasers that would have been denied .
I hate to break it to you , but that ’ s a minute percentage of the overall firearms sold and Everytown freaking knows it .
In fact , when you look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t really been much of any increase in prohibited persons trying to buy firearms .
They ’ re doing it at roughly the same rate they always have .
What ’ s more is that when that check comes back and we find out they ’ re not supposed to have a gun , the paperwork has their address , making it easy for them to be picked up and arrested .
In other words , it ’ s really not the issue Everytown wants to claim it to be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is to do away with the window .
They want to require gun dealers hold onto firearms indefinitely so that other efforts can create delays .
It ’ s important to remember that despite what they may claim , they don ’ t want anyone having guns .
After all , they have never once opposed a gun regulation anywhere in the country as going too far .
Instead , they ’ ve backed every measure and will continue to back every measure until guns simply don ’ t exist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t make that happen unless people are afraid , so they scaremonger .
They spin horror stories of prohibited persons getting guns and thus making the world less safe .
Meanwhile , criminals are getting guns the same way they usually got them–by breaking the law in some manner .
They ’ re using straw buyers , black market sellers , or outright stealing them from law-abiding citizens .
Yet those are problematic to address , so instead they target a tiny fraction of a percent of all cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that tiny fraction of a percent is also where they can foul up our constitutional right to keep and bear arms as well .
If they can stop people from obtaining guns , they can eventually stop people from supporting guns .
Gun owners tend to be gun voters , after all .
So , they try to scare people into believing there ’ s a problem where none exists , all so they can push for some kind of change that won ’ t actually do a damn thing .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what they ’ ll always continue to do .

For months now, the NICS system has been swamped. Tons of people are wanting guns and are having to wait for background checks to clear so they can take them home. However, due to the law, they can’t make people wait indefinitely.
See, when the NICS process was first proposed, there was a legitimate concern that delays could be created to discourage people from owning guns. After all, you’re not telling them they can’t, you’re just taking months or years to tell them they can. As a result, there’s a limit to how long gun dealers have to hold onto a gun and wait before they can assume it’s good to go.
Now, though, a lot more people are hitting those wait times, and it’s got anti-gunners nervous.
Firearms sales have surged this year. That has led to a corresponding backlog of background checks, which gun regulation advocates worry will lead to more prohibited purchases. The data are clear. From March through August, the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed more than 20 million background checks through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Every single one of those months set a new all-time monthly record. Industry analysts and experts say sales have spiked for a variety of reasons, including the pandemic and social unrest in a contentious presidential election year. The FBI runs background checks on most gun purchases. Most take only a few minutes, but some are flagged for further review. The FBI then has three days to complete the check. If it takes longer than that, the purchase may go through by default, sometimes called the “Charleston loophole.” The surge in purchases has led to a simultaneous increase in background checks that miss the three-day window. Because of that, gun regulation advocates at Everytown for Gun Safety estimate that nearly 4,000 firearms could have been sold to purchasers that would have been denied.
Almost 4,000 guns?
I hate to break it to you, but that’s a minute percentage of the overall firearms sold and Everytown freaking knows it. In fact, when you look at the percentages, you find that there hasn’t really been much of any increase in prohibited persons trying to buy firearms. They’re doing it at roughly the same rate they always have.
What’s more is that when that check comes back and we find out they’re not supposed to have a gun, the paperwork has their address, making it easy for them to be picked up and arrested.
In other words, it’s really not the issue Everytown wants to claim it to be.
Instead, what Everytown is likely hoping to do is to do away with the window. They want to require gun dealers hold onto firearms indefinitely so that other efforts can create delays.
It’s important to remember that despite what they may claim, they don’t want anyone having guns. After all, they have never once opposed a gun regulation anywhere in the country as going too far. Instead, they’ve backed every measure and will continue to back every measure until guns simply don’t exist in this country anymore.
But they know they can’t make that happen unless people are afraid, so they scaremonger. They spin horror stories of prohibited persons getting guns and thus making the world less safe. Meanwhile, criminals are getting guns the same way they usually got them–by breaking the law in some manner. They’re using straw buyers, black market sellers, or outright stealing them from law-abiding citizens. Yet those are problematic to address, so instead they target a tiny fraction of a percent of all cases and focus on that.
After all, that tiny fraction of a percent is also where they can foul up our constitutional right to keep and bear arms as well. If they can stop people from obtaining guns, they can eventually stop people from supporting guns. Gun owners tend to be gun voters, after all.
So, they try to scare people into believing there’s a problem where none exists, all so they can push for some kind of change that won’t actually do a damn thing. It’s what they’ve always done and what they’ll always continue to do.