bearingarms--2020-09-09--Does Second Amendment's Fate Hinge On This Election?

Gun control has been a significant issue this election cycle .
From the earliest rumblings of the Democratic primaries , anti-gun candidates jockeyed for position as the person toughest on guns .
Despite it not working out for folks like Rep. Eric Swalwell and Beto O ’ Rourke , it was still a major factor for the rest of the candidates .
Eventual nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden , also has his anti-gun bonafides in place , as does his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris .
It ’ s clear that should they win , our guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fate of the Second Amendment at stake ?
Obviously , not everyone thinks it is .
Democrats will “ confiscate your guns and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment , ” President Trump warned in his recent acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination .
He ’ s right .
Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has promised to use executive orders to ban guns , and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to make former Congressman Beto O ’ Rourke ( D-TX ) his gun czar .
O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he yelled , “ Hell yeah , we ’ re going to take your AR-15.
” He called them , ” weapons of war , designed to kill people efficiently on a battlefield.
” If Democrats win control of both the Senate and the presidency , the legislation they will pass and the judges that they will appoint will eventually lead to guns being banned in the United States .
Gun control advocates will dismiss this as scaremongering , but things are different this time .
The author , John Lott , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s also right that the Second Amendment is at stake .
See , Biden and Harris are pushing for an “ assault weapon ban.
” They have decided that these weapons are just too dangerous for you or me to own .
They want to take them away , as has been clear from their own words and the declaration that Beto would be Biden ’ s point man on guns should he win .
As noted , Beto has made it clear he wants to come for our guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden agrees with this assessment .
Yet in trying to do so , they ’ d have to essentially nullify the Heller decision .
One of the tests for a gun under Heller is whether or not a firearm is in common use .
If it is , then it ’ s not constitutional to ban a firearm .
Yet despite this test , anti-gun zealots have continued to push for assault weapon bans .
In their minds , the AR-15 and similar rifles are still fair game .
However , the AR-15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold in this country .
It ’ s more popular that bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns .
If the most popular rifle in this country doesn ’ t pass the “ in common use ” test , then what firearm does ?
Should Biden win and pass his assault weapon ban , it would fall to the Supreme Court to lower the boom .
Yet despite two appointments by the Trump Administration , the Court has been pretty reticent about taking on a Second Amendment case .
There ’ s no guarantee they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal assault weapon ban .
That means that while so-called assault weapons are on the table right now , there ’ s no reason to believe a more emboldened Congress wouldn ’ t go after things like handguns as well .
After all , handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals of all stripes .
How long do you think it would take before they would try to go down that rabbit hole ?
No , I don ’ t see the Second Amendment being formally repealed , but why bother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it so that it ’ s nothing but words on a piece of paper ?
That ’ s what the anti-gunners want from this election , and why this one matters so very much .

Gun control has been a significant issue this election cycle. From the earliest rumblings of the Democratic primaries, anti-gun candidates jockeyed for position as the person toughest on guns.
Despite it not working out for folks like Rep. Eric Swalwell and Beto O’Rourke, it was still a major factor for the rest of the candidates.
Eventual nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, also has his anti-gun bonafides in place, as does his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris. It’s clear that should they win, our guns are in jeopardy.
But is the fate of the Second Amendment at stake? Obviously, not everyone thinks it is.
However, others disagree.
Democrats will “confiscate your guns and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment,” President Trump warned in his recent acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s right. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has promised to use executive orders to ban guns, and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to make former Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) his gun czar. O’Rourke made a name for himself when he yelled, “Hell yeah, we’re going to take your AR-15.” He called them,”weapons of war, designed to kill people efficiently on a battlefield.” If Democrats win control of both the Senate and the presidency, the legislation they will pass and the judges that they will appoint will eventually lead to guns being banned in the United States. Gun control advocates will dismiss this as scaremongering, but things are different this time.
The author, John Lott, is right. Things are different. He’s also right that the Second Amendment is at stake.
See, Biden and Harris are pushing for an “assault weapon ban.” They have decided that these weapons are just too dangerous for you or me to own. They want to take them away, as has been clear from their own words and the declaration that Beto would be Biden’s point man on guns should he win.
As noted, Beto has made it clear he wants to come for our guns, so it seems reasonable to assume that Biden agrees with this assessment.
Yet in trying to do so, they’d have to essentially nullify the Heller decision.
One of the tests for a gun under Heller is whether or not a firearm is in common use. If it is, then it’s not constitutional to ban a firearm. Yet despite this test, anti-gun zealots have continued to push for assault weapon bans. In their minds, the AR-15 and similar rifles are still fair game.
However, the AR-15 is the most popular long gun type sold in this country. It’s more popular that bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns. If the most popular rifle in this country doesn’t pass the “in common use” test, then what firearm does?
Should Biden win and pass his assault weapon ban, it would fall to the Supreme Court to lower the boom. Yet despite two appointments by the Trump Administration, the Court has been pretty reticent about taking on a Second Amendment case. There’s no guarantee they’d even bother to look at a federal assault weapon ban.
That means that while so-called assault weapons are on the table right now, there’s no reason to believe a more emboldened Congress wouldn’t go after things like handguns as well. After all, handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals of all stripes. How long do you think it would take before they would try to go down that rabbit hole?
No, I don’t see the Second Amendment being formally repealed, but why bother with doing that when you can nullify it so that it’s nothing but words on a piece of paper? That’s what the anti-gunners want from this election, and why this one matters so very much.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--TXJudge Says Gun Control Can Fix "Systemically Flawed" Justice System

A local judge in San Antonio , Texas is using his position on the bench to push for a slate of new gun laws in the Lone Star State , claiming that more gun control can help fix a “ systemically flawed ” criminal justice system .
Is he right , or would his “ cure ” actually exacerbate the problem ?
Judge Nelson Wolff recently penned an open letter to Bexar County residents about the recent death of Damian Lamar Daniels , a 31-year old military veteran who was killed by officers after they responded to a mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Sheriff Javier Salazar said deputies had been called several times to the home over the last few days .
He said they finally made contact with Daniels on Tuesday and tried to de-escalate the situation for about 30 minutes since they knew he had a weapon .
At one point , a deputy tried to bond with Daniels in an attempt to calm him down , Salazar said .
It became apparent that he did not want to follow deputies to get help , and he got aggressive , the sheriff said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

A local judge in San Antonio, Texas is using his position on the bench to push for a slate of new gun laws in the Lone Star State, claiming that more gun control can help fix a “systemically flawed” criminal justice system. Is he right, or would his “cure” actually exacerbate the problem?
Judge Nelson Wolff recently penned an open letter to Bexar County residents about the recent death of Damian Lamar Daniels, a 31-year old military veteran who was killed by officers after they responded to a mental health call at Daniels’ home.
At one point, a deputy tried to bond with Daniels in an attempt to calm him down, Salazar said. It became apparent that he did not want to follow deputies to get help, and he got aggressive, the sheriff said.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar said deputies had been called several times to the home over the last few days. He said they finally made contact with Daniels on Tuesday and tried to de-escalate the situation for about 30 minutes since they knew he had a weapon.
Salazar said a deputy attempted to subdue Daniels with a stun gun, but it did not stop him. He then grabbed the deputy’s stun gun, and another deputy used their stun gun on him to try to get him to let go of it, the sheriff said.
Salazar said Daniels then reached for a weapon he had in a holster around his waistband. Deputies told him to let go of the gun. Salazar said a deputy then shot Daniels twice in the upper torso when he did not listen to their commands.
According to Judge Wolff, officers shouldn’t have shown up at Daniels’ home to begin with. Instead, the judge says that ” it may have been better to send mental health professionals instead of armed deputies in uniform.” Maybe it would have been, though the sheriff says that deputies did try to de-escalate the situation before Daniels became aggressive with officers.
Wolff goes on to say that the Daniels case shows that the criminal justice system is “systematically flawed to the extent that it fails to administer justice to the poor, the homeless, minorities, and to the mentally ill and drug dependent citizens.” I find it interesting that nowhere in his letter does Wolff talk about whether the criminal justice system fails to administer justice to the victims of violent crime. Instead, the judge proclaims that a more equitable criminal justice system must include several new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
“…the Texas Legislature needs to pass a reasonable gun control law. The legislature should require enhanced background checks, pass red-flag laws, ban sale of high-capacity magazines and close loopholes in protective order laws.”
It’s awfully ironic that one of Wolff’s recommendations is the passage of a red-flag law, which typically involve sending armed police to confiscate legally owned firearms from people who’ve never been accessed by a mental health professional. One of Wolff’s criticisms of the Daniels case is that mental health professionals weren’t involved in the attempt to check up the veteran, and Wolff notes that Daniels had a right to own a firearm. The same is true of the vast majority of red-flag cases, yet Wolff wants to have more police confiscate firearms from people who have neither been accused of a crime or declared mentally incompetent by a medical professional.
As for his support for things like universal background checks and magazine bans, can the judge possibly explain how those laws wouldn’t also be used to target the poor and minorities? It seems to me that if you think the criminal justice system is inherently flawed, one of the best things we can do would be to reduce the number of criminal offenses on the books, not add to them.
Of course Wolff is a longtime Democrat, serving in the state legislature in the 1970s and as San Antonio’s mayor in the mid-1990s. Still, as judge he’s supposed to put partisanship aside in favor of administering justice, not toe the party line by embracing an anti-gun agenda that would likely lead to more lower-income Texans and racial minorities ending up behind bars for non-violent, possessory gun offenses.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--DeWine Wants OH Legislature To Pass His Gun Control Bill

Governor Mike DeWine did what he probably thought he had to do .
After all , in the wake of the Dayton mass shooting , he probably figured he needed to float some kind of gun control package just to keep the wolves at bay .
Gun control was pretty popular at the moment .
I didn ’ t think he actually drank the Kool Aid .
It seems , though , I was wrong .
Not only did DeWine introduce a gun control bill , but now he ’ s pushing for the legislature to pass it , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was just a few months ago .
On Tuesday , DeWine called again for the Ohio General Assembly to pass measures that he believes will help stop the rash of gun-related deaths across the state .
According to DeWine , in a six day period between September 1 and Labor Day , there were 40 people shot in the state of Ohio .
21 of them died .
That number includes Cleveland police detective James Skernivitz and his informant Scott Dingess , who were fatally shot on Thursday night as they sat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the area of West 65th Street and Storer Avenue .
Three teens have been charged in the shooting .
In response to the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton , DeWine introduced his ‘ STRONG Ohio ’ proposals , which would increase and improve background checks and ensure people don ’ t have firearms if a court has deemed them to be a danger .
The legislation also would increase penalties for anyone who provides a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one , and require that certain types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in state and federal law enforcement databases to ensure more accurate background checks .
And yet , there ’ s zero evidence that any of those measures who have stopped a single one of those 40 people from being shot .
Not a one .
See , most of those shootings were carried about by criminals , people who couldn ’ t pass a background check as they currently stand .
As such , they used illegal means to obtain their firearms in the first place .
None of this would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these measures .
And I ’ m really sick of the idea that people the courts have deemed a danger can still get guns .
That ’ s already illegal…but only if the court has actually ruled them as such .
However , the laws on the books actually require the court to make an educated ruling , not the red flag nonsense where someone says it so the judge just takes their word for it .
Honestly , there ’ s nothing in the STRONG Ohio bill that would make any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to virtue signal .
He wants to shift any blame for these shootings onto the legislature .
Yet , the laws haven ’ t changed from a year ago when this violence just wasn ’ t happening .
You ’ d think that would be enough to make folks sit up and recognize that there ’ s more to violence than access to weapons , but nope .
That apparently included DeWine from what we can see .
Frankly , I ’ m glad the bill hasn ’ t passed .
I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ richly deserves .

Governor Mike DeWine did what he probably thought he had to do. After all, in the wake of the Dayton mass shooting, he probably figured he needed to float some kind of gun control package just to keep the wolves at bay. Gun control was pretty popular at the moment.
I didn’t think he actually drank the Kool Aid.
It seems, though, I was wrong. Not only did DeWine introduce a gun control bill, but now he’s pushing for the legislature to pass it, despite support for gun control being weaker than it was just a few months ago.
On Tuesday, DeWine called again for the Ohio General Assembly to pass measures that he believes will help stop the rash of gun-related deaths across the state. According to DeWine, in a six day period between September 1 and Labor Day, there were 40 people shot in the state of Ohio. 21 of them died. That number includes Cleveland police detective James Skernivitz and his informant Scott Dingess, who were fatally shot on Thursday night as they sat in Skernivitz’s unmarked police car in the area of West 65th Street and Storer Avenue. Three teens have been charged in the shooting. … In response to the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton, DeWine introduced his ‘STRONG Ohio’ proposals, which would increase and improve background checks and ensure people don’t have firearms if a court has deemed them to be a danger. The legislation also would increase penalties for anyone who provides a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one, and require that certain types of protection orders and arrest warrants be reflected in state and federal law enforcement databases to ensure more accurate background checks.
And yet, there’s zero evidence that any of those measures who have stopped a single one of those 40 people from being shot. Not a one.
See, most of those shootings were carried about by criminals, people who couldn’t pass a background check as they currently stand. As such, they used illegal means to obtain their firearms in the first place. None of this would have been changed by the passage of any of these measures.
And I’m really sick of the idea that people the courts have deemed a danger can still get guns. That’s already illegal…but only if the court has actually ruled them as such. However, the laws on the books actually require the court to make an educated ruling, not the red flag nonsense where someone says it so the judge just takes their word for it.
Honestly, there’s nothing in the STRONG Ohio bill that would make any kind of an impact. DeWine just wants to virtue signal. He wants to shift any blame for these shootings onto the legislature.
Yet, the laws haven’t changed from a year ago when this violence just wasn’t happening. You’d think that would be enough to make folks sit up and recognize that there’s more to violence than access to weapons, but nope.
That apparently included DeWine from what we can see.
Frankly, I’m glad the bill hasn’t passed. I hope it dies the ignoble death it so richly deserves.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--Is Carrying A Gun An Example of "White Privilege"?

That ’ s the argument by Justin McFarlin , a member of Everytown for Gun Safety ’ s Veteran Advisory Council , who opines in a guest column at USA Today that , although he ’ s an NRA certified firearms instructor and a concealed carry holder , he ’ s too afraid to carry a gun in public because of the color of his skin .
I believe in the Second Amendment , but I won ’ t even consider carrying a firearm openly in public .
I haven ’ t exercised my right to carry a concealed handgun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become clear to me that open carry and concealed carry are white privileges — permit or not .
Despite having a license : I am afraid of being killed by police if I carry a gun in public .
I have good reason to be afraid .
In 2016 in Minnesota , a Black school cafeteria worker named Philando Castile was killed during a routine traffic stop after merely mentioning the fact that he was legally in possession of a concealed firearm .
Tamir Rice , a 12-year old Black boy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers in just seconds for holding a toy gun .
John Crawford III was murdered in a Walmart holding a BB gun that was for sale in the store .
There are too many more to mention .
I ’ m not going to lecture McFarlin on why he ’ s wrong to feel the way he does .
As a 40-something year old white guy , I don ’ t know what it ’ s like to carry a gun as a black man , so it would be awfully presumptuous of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel .
I do have some questions , however , starting with this one : does he actually feel any safer when it comes to contact with police if he ’ s unarmed ?
After all , we can also find examples of unarmed black men and women who ’ ve been killed by police .
In fact , USA Today reports that there were at least 14 such deaths in 2019 .
Is McFarlin ’ s fear really about whether or not he carries a gun , or are his fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like himself and law enforcement in general ?
McFarlane actually spends most of his column space railing against the presence of armed protesters across the country .
Well , some of them anyway .
Increasingly , white protesters use open carry not just as an expression of privilege , but as a way to intimidate Black Americans .
At a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville , at protests against the removal of Confederate statues , and at racial justice counter-protests , guns have been used as an implicit symbol of white supremacy .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis couple threatened Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15 and a pistol , and despite being charged with felonies , they were featured speakers at the Republican National Convention .
Day after day , the country that was founded on the words “ All men are created equal ” demonstrates that white citizens may carry firearms in protest , while Black citizens have limited rights to protest at all .
McFarlane ignores the hundreds of black gun owners who assembled to protest in Louisville , Kentucky this past weekend , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Virginia who stood guard at the statue of Robert E. Lee that became the focal point of Black Lives Matter protests this summer .
He also fails to mention the armed black men and women who have rallied and protested at the state capitol in Lansing , Michigan on multiple occasions this year , though he does bring up a group of mostly white protesters who brought guns to the state capitol .
In fact , McFarlin uses the lockdown protests in Lansing as his prime example of why he believes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This country has a long road ahead in the fight for racial justice , but when it comes to open carry , we can take action sooner .
States must prohibit firearms at demonstrations held on public property or at capitol buildings .
If you want to protest , bring signs , not guns .
Weak open carry laws should never be used to enable armed intimidation or suppression of the constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest .
More states should follow the example of the handful that already regulate the open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibiting it or requiring a license .
And where we have these laws , they must be equally enforced .
I carried a firearm on behalf of this country in uniform .
But I can ’ t feel safe carrying my own firearms here at home .
Something must change .
There ’ s a lot that needs to change , starting with the gun control laws and cultural taboos that have de-normalized gun ownership for black Americans .
We need to recognize the role that armed self-defense has played in the civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ida Wells , Ossian Sweet , Martin Luther King , Jr. and Fannie Lou Hamer ( to name just a few of the more famous black Americans who exercised their Second Amendment rights ) .
We don ’ t even have to look back in history .
McFarlin could support the efforts of black gun owners like Maj Toure , Kevin Dixie , Colion Noir , Michael Cargill , Rick Ector , Killer Mike , and many others who are actively working to ensure that the Second Amendment is a right of every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get rid of may-issue gun licensing laws that can prevent black Americans from legally owning and carrying a gun , as well as lead to disparate outcomes in terms of arrests .
McFarlin doesn ’ t say a word about the stop-and-frisk tactics used by Everytown founder Michael Bloomberg , for instance , or Bloomberg ’ s comments about addressing “ gun violence ” by taking young black men and “ throwing them against the wall ” to pat them down for weapons .
If McFarlin is serious about wanting the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s on the wrong team .
It ’ s not the Second Amendment that ’ s enabled discrimination against black gun owners , it ’ s the gun control laws put in place by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety .
McFarlin won ’ t feel any safer carrying his firearms if gun control activists get their way .
In fact , he likely wouldn ’ t be allowed to carry at all .
The Second Amendment isn ’ t about white privilege , but a right of the People to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes that the promise of the Second Amendment has yet to be fully and equally applied , I believe the answer is to fight for the full exercise of that right by all Americans , not to embrace the idea of turning the right into a privilege .

That’s the argument by Justin McFarlin, a member of Everytown for Gun Safety’s Veteran Advisory Council, who opines in a guest column at USA Today that, although he’s an NRA certified firearms instructor and a concealed carry holder, he’s too afraid to carry a gun in public because of the color of his skin.
I believe in the Second Amendment, but I won’t even consider carrying a firearm openly in public. I haven’t exercised my right to carry a concealed handgun in more than four years. The reason: I am Black. It has become clear to me that open carry and concealed carry are white privileges — permit or not. Despite having a license: I am afraid of being killed by police if I carry a gun in public. I have good reason to be afraid. In 2016 in Minnesota, a Black school cafeteria worker named Philando Castile was killed during a routine traffic stop after merely mentioning the fact that he was legally in possession of a concealed firearm. Tamir Rice, a 12-year old Black boy in an open-carry state, was murdered by officers in just seconds for holding a toy gun. John Crawford III was murdered in a Walmart holding a BB gun that was for sale in the store. There are too many more to mention.
I’m not going to lecture McFarlin on why he’s wrong to feel the way he does. As a 40-something year old white guy, I don’t know what it’s like to carry a gun as a black man, so it would be awfully presumptuous of me to try to tell McFarlin how to feel.
I do have some questions, however, starting with this one: does he actually feel any safer when it comes to contact with police if he’s unarmed? After all, we can also find examples of unarmed black men and women who’ve been killed by police. In fact, USA Today reports that there were at least 14 such deaths in 2019. Is McFarlin’s fear really about whether or not he carries a gun, or are his fears fundamentally about the interactions between black men like himself and law enforcement in general?
McFarlane actually spends most of his column space railing against the presence of armed protesters across the country. Well, some of them anyway.
Increasingly, white protesters use open carry not just as an expression of privilege, but as a way to intimidate Black Americans. At a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, at protests against the removal of Confederate statues, and at racial justice counter-protests, guns have been used as an implicit symbol of white supremacy. That was on clear display when a St. Louis couple threatened Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15 and a pistol, and despite being charged with felonies, they were featured speakers at the Republican National Convention. Day after day, the country that was founded on the words “All men are created equal” demonstrates that white citizens may carry firearms in protest, while Black citizens have limited rights to protest at all.
McFarlane ignores the hundreds of black gun owners who assembled to protest in Louisville, Kentucky this past weekend, as well as the armed black protesters in Richmond, Virginia who stood guard at the statue of Robert E. Lee that became the focal point of Black Lives Matter protests this summer.
He also fails to mention the armed black men and women who have rallied and protested at the state capitol in Lansing, Michigan on multiple occasions this year, though he does bring up a group of mostly white protesters who brought guns to the state capitol.
In fact, McFarlin uses the lockdown protests in Lansing as his prime example of why he believes the answers is more gun control laws.
This country has a long road ahead in the fight for racial justice, but when it comes to open carry, we can take action sooner. States must prohibit firearms at demonstrations held on public property or at capitol buildings. If you want to protest, bring signs, not guns. Weak open carry laws should never be used to enable armed intimidation or suppression of the constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest. More states should follow the example of the handful that already regulate the open carry of firearms in public, by prohibiting it or requiring a license. And where we have these laws, they must be equally enforced. I carried a firearm on behalf of this country in uniform. But I can’t feel safe carrying my own firearms here at home. Something must change.
There’s a lot that needs to change, starting with the gun control laws and cultural taboos that have de-normalized gun ownership for black Americans. We need to recognize the role that armed self-defense has played in the civil rights movement, from Harriet Tubman, Ida Wells, Ossian Sweet, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Fannie Lou Hamer (to name just a few of the more famous black Americans who exercised their Second Amendment rights).
We don’t even have to look back in history. McFarlin could support the efforts of black gun owners like Maj Toure, Kevin Dixie, Colion Noir, Michael Cargill, Rick Ector, Killer Mike, and many others who are actively working to ensure that the Second Amendment is a right of every law-abiding American.
We also need to get rid of may-issue gun licensing laws that can prevent black Americans from legally owning and carrying a gun, as well as lead to disparate outcomes in terms of arrests. McFarlin doesn’t say a word about the stop-and-frisk tactics used by Everytown founder Michael Bloomberg, for instance, or Bloomberg’s comments about addressing “gun violence” by taking young black men and “throwing them against the wall” to pat them down for weapons.
If McFarlin is serious about wanting the Second Amendment to apply equally to all Americans, he’s on the wrong team. It’s not the Second Amendment that’s enabled discrimination against black gun owners, it’s the gun control laws put in place by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety. McFarlin won’t feel any safer carrying his firearms if gun control activists get their way. In fact, he likely wouldn’t be allowed to carry at all.
The Second Amendment isn’t about white privilege, but a right of the People to keep and bear arms. If McFarlin believes that the promise of the Second Amendment has yet to be fully and equally applied, I believe the answer is to fight for the full exercise of that right by all Americans, not to embrace the idea of turning the right into a privilege.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--NYC Sees 25-Year High In "Gun Arrests"

NYC Sees 25-Year High In "Gun Arrests"

New York City is the most gun controlled city in the nation .
While it ’ s more Second Amendment-friendly than , say , the United Kingdom , it ’ s still a far cry from your more gun friendly states in the nation .
Things are tightly restricted and they ’ re going to be for the foreseeable future .
After all , the only gun law they ’ ve repealed in recent memory is one that barred people from taking guns out of the city , and they only repealed that in an attempt to stave off a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt at actually liberalizing gun laws in the Big Apple , though , it seems so-called gun crimes are at a 25-year high .
In an interview with Pat Kiernan , Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said 160 gun arrests were made across the five boroughs this past week , accounting for a 25-year high .
Thirty seven arrests were made on Monday .
Shea attributed some of the spike in crime to a shift in budgetary resources away from the NYPD .
There could be a time “ where we won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on something else , ” Shea said .
“ And we ’ re gon na have to pay for it.
” But , the police commissioner stressed there has to be “ real consequences ” for criminals who carry guns .
“ It ’ s good that we got them off the street , but it ’ s bad that people are carrying them ” in the first place , he said .
“ The mindset of the criminal is that there are no consequences.
” So much for the city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Oh , I ’ m sure some will argue that the arrests somehow prove gun laws there are working .
Others will use the arrests to try and indict other states in the country for not having tougher gun laws or some such nonsense .
Yet through it all , there will have to be the understanding that criminals were still getting guns no matter what the laws in New York City said .
That ’ s because criminals , by definition , do not follow the law .
They tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun without any kind of a background check .
They know the black market for guns .
It doesn ’ t matter what other states do because if those states changed their laws right now , it would likely have zero impact on the flow of guns to criminal hands .
New York City ’ s gun control laws have been on the books for over a century .
During that time , crime has risen and fallen , all without appreciably changes to the gun laws .
The city has been among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and among the most peaceful .
If gun control worked as advertised , it would never be that violent to begin with .
No , violence and crime are far more complicated issues than that .
If the solution was as simplistic as gun control advocates like to make it out to be , New York wouldn ’ t be having these issues .
Neither would Chicago , for that matter .
The fact that they are , however , illustrates a point we ’ ve been trying to make for some time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t stop the criminals and it never has .
Other factors have much more impact on them , but gun control does interfere with the law-abiding and their ability to defend themselves .
But anti-gun officials would rather not acknowledge any of that .

New York City is the most gun controlled city in the nation. While it’s more Second Amendment-friendly than, say, the United Kingdom, it’s still a far cry from your more gun friendly states in the nation. Things are tightly restricted and they’re going to be for the foreseeable future. After all, the only gun law they’ve repealed in recent memory is one that barred people from taking guns out of the city, and they only repealed that in an attempt to stave off a Supreme Court decision.
Despite absolutely no attempt at actually liberalizing gun laws in the Big Apple, though, it seems so-called gun crimes are at a 25-year high.
In an interview with Pat Kiernan, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said 160 gun arrests were made across the five boroughs this past week, accounting for a 25-year high. Thirty seven arrests were made on Monday. Shea attributed some of the spike in crime to a shift in budgetary resources away from the NYPD. There could be a time “where we won’t be able be able to spend it on something else,” Shea said. “And we’re gonna have to pay for it.” But, the police commissioner stressed there has to be “real consequences” for criminals who carry guns. “It’s good that we got them off the street, but it’s bad that people are carrying them” in the first place, he said. “The mindset of the criminal is that there are no consequences.”
So much for the city’s gun laws preventing this kind of thing.
Oh, I’m sure some will argue that the arrests somehow prove gun laws there are working. Others will use the arrests to try and indict other states in the country for not having tougher gun laws or some such nonsense. Yet through it all, there will have to be the understanding that criminals were still getting guns no matter what the laws in New York City said.
That’s because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They tend to know when and where to get a gun without any kind of a background check. They know the black market for guns.
It doesn’t matter what other states do because if those states changed their laws right now, it would likely have zero impact on the flow of guns to criminal hands.
New York City’s gun control laws have been on the books for over a century. During that time, crime has risen and fallen, all without appreciably changes to the gun laws. The city has been among the most violent cities in the nation and among the most peaceful. If gun control worked as advertised, it would never be that violent to begin with.
No, violence and crime are far more complicated issues than that.
If the solution was as simplistic as gun control advocates like to make it out to be, New York wouldn’t be having these issues. Neither would Chicago, for that matter.
The fact that they are, however, illustrates a point we’ve been trying to make for some time. That point is that gun control doesn’t stop the criminals and it never has. Other factors have much more impact on them, but gun control does interfere with the law-abiding and their ability to defend themselves.
But anti-gun officials would rather not acknowledge any of that.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--Richmond, Virginia Passes Sweeping Ban On Guns In Public

It ’ s hard to believe that it was less than a year ago when more than 20,000 gun owners took to the streets around the state capitol building in Richmond , Virginia to rally in opposition to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda .
If anti-gun advocates on the Richmond City Council get their way , that rally will likely be the last mass gathering of armed citizens lobbying in defense of their Second Amendment rights .
City council members on Tuesday approved an ordinance pushed by Mayor Levar Stoney that would ban the carrying of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road , alley , sidewalk , public right-of-way or any open public space when it is being used by , or is adjacent to , an event that requires a city permit.
” In addition to the massive rally by gun owners back in January , there ’ ve been a couple of other Second Amendment rallies on Capitol Square over the past several months .
We ’ ve also seen a number of armed protesters around the Robert E. Lee statue in Richmond , which has become the focal point of BLM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under this new ordinance , it ’ s likely that none of this activity would be legal , which raises some serious questions about the constitutionality of the law .
City councilwoman Kim Gray says she believes the language of the ordinance could also spell trouble for legal gun owners who aren ’ t a part of any protest or a permitted event .
Gray ’ s not exactly a Second Amendment advocate , but she ’ s right about the vague language of the bill .
Of course , even the specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutional standpoint .
The city might be able to get away with banning guns in the public space that is being used for a permitted event , but banning the possession of firearms from adjacent areas outside of the permitted event would render the right to carry meaningless .
Under this ordinance , it would be a crime to drive down a city street with your lawfully possessed firearm if there was a street festival or a protest on the next block over .
Gun owners who have no idea that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be committing a crime by simply walking near the gathering .
With the new ordinance taking effect immediately , I ’ m guessing we won ’ t have long to wait until a lawsuit is filed challenging the constitutionality of Richmond ’ s new carry ban .
I suspect , however , that other Virginia cities may soon follow Richmond ’ s lead and pass their own anti-carry statutes in the weeks ahead .

It’s hard to believe that it was less than a year ago when more than 20,000 gun owners took to the streets around the state capitol building in Richmond, Virginia to rally in opposition to Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda. If anti-gun advocates on the Richmond City Council get their way, that rally will likely be the last mass gathering of armed citizens lobbying in defense of their Second Amendment rights.
City council members on Tuesday approved an ordinance pushed by Mayor Levar Stoney that would ban the carrying of firearms “in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way or any open public space when it is being used by, or is adjacent to, an event that requires a city permit.”
“I just think that if you’re going to a public event, you should be able to go there and enjoy yourself, go there for your cause, and not feel under constant threat because of individuals walking around with an AK-47,” Stoney said previously. There were some questions asked in the meeting on Aug. 20 about guns not being allowed “adjacent” to events. The mayor clarified that saying sometimes when there’s a protest or rally, there are counter-protesters who may bring weapons.
In addition to the massive rally by gun owners back in January, there’ve been a couple of other Second Amendment rallies on Capitol Square over the past several months. We’ve also seen a number of armed protesters around the Robert E. Lee statue in Richmond, which has become the focal point of BLM protests in the city since June. Under this new ordinance, it’s likely that none of this activity would be legal, which raises some serious questions about the constitutionality of the law.
City councilwoman Kim Gray says she believes the language of the ordinance could also spell trouble for legal gun owners who aren’t a part of any protest or a permitted event.
During the meeting, Police Chief Gerald Smith said private gun-owning citizens who have homes where protests are taking place outside of would be exempt from the ordinance, but 2nd District council member Kim Gray says the law the language of the law doesn’t specifically say that. “The actual language of the law does not provide an exemption so if I’m stepping on to the sidewalk to get into my car, then I’m potentially in violation of that rule if there is a protest adjacent to that public right of way,” said Gray. “I think the real answers in that prevention lie in leveraging our community leaders.”
Gray’s not exactly a Second Amendment advocate, but she’s right about the vague language of the bill. Of course, even the specific intent of the legislation is problematic from a constitutional standpoint. The city might be able to get away with banning guns in the public space that is being used for a permitted event, but banning the possession of firearms from adjacent areas outside of the permitted event would render the right to carry meaningless.
Under this ordinance, it would be a crime to drive down a city street with your lawfully possessed firearm if there was a street festival or a protest on the next block over. Gun owners who have no idea that an event is even taking place would still be committing a crime by simply walking near the gathering.
With the new ordinance taking effect immediately, I’m guessing we won’t have long to wait until a lawsuit is filed challenging the constitutionality of Richmond’s new carry ban. I suspect, however, that other Virginia cities may soon follow Richmond’s lead and pass their own anti-carry statutes in the weeks ahead.


bearingarms--2020-09-09--Biden, Harris Want CA-Style Gun Laws, But There's A Problem

It ’ s no secret that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have plans should they take the White House in November .
In fairness , that ’ s what presidential campaigns are all about , after all .
It ’ s about telling people what you intend to do should you win in hopes that enough will like that kind of thing and vote for you , all so you can win .
One of the plans Team Biden has is , unsurprisingly , gun control .
While Democrats have started downplaying the issue and even gun control groups are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue is already out there and the candidates aren ’ t taking it back .
Frankly , with their records , even if they ’ d said nothing , we ’ d have known where they were headed .
Yet it seems someone decided to compare the ways the Democratic nominees would make the nation like California , which included guns .
What Biden and Harris are proposing : Few issues unite Democratic voters like gun policy .
And so while Biden has tacked to the center of his party on health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to gun regulations , his proposals are as assertive as any of his erstwhile primary challengers .
Topping that list is his plan to ban both “ assault weapons ” and magazines that hold more than a certain number of rounds — though he has not specified what that limit should be .
Lawmakers have long struggled to define “ assault weapons.
” Biden calls for legislation that would “ prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don ’ t limit the weapon ’ s lethality.
” What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons in 1989 and has been building on that ban ever since .
But there is no technical definition for the term .
For gun restriction advocates , assault weapons fall into that nebulous “ you know it when you see it ” category of vices .
California ’ s ban nonetheless cobbles together its own definition of banned guns based on a loose assemblage of characteristics : a “ semi-automatic , centerfire rifle ” with a detachable magazine and at least one of a handful of other suspect features .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on magazines that hold 10 rounds or more .
Banning a wide category of firearms in the United States is easier said than done .
California ’ s feature-specific definition of an illegal assault weapon has triggered a cottage industry of firearm add-ons and design tweaks that skirt around the letter of the law , while enthusiastically violating its spirit .
It ’ s a never-ending game of legal and regulatory whack-a-mole as Sacramento bans a particular workaround , only for a new one to pop up .
The state ’ s high-capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go of it .
First a district court and then Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal judges have ruled that the state ’ s ban is unconstitutional .
And only a deluded fool would believe that something like that wouldn ’ t take place on a national scale .
The truth of the matter is that if you create a law , someone is going to try to find a way to get around it legally .
Meanwhile , the very people who represent the lion ’ s share of our issues simply won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue using whatever they can get off the black market .
This is especially important since so-called assault rifles are used in only a minute fraction of the crimes committed .
Handguns are far more likely to be used by criminals .
After all , they small and easier to hide than an AR-15 .
In addition to a ban , Team Biden also wants to implement red flag laws on the federal level .
While many argue that these laws work , what we actually see is an approach that even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would merely take firearms away from dangerous people while still allowing those dangerous people to walk the streets unsupervised .
However , they don ’ t always work the way proponents claim .
We have at least one documented case of someone trying to use the law as a way to get back at an enemy .
We have no idea how many others have done so and simply gotten away with it .
At the end of the day , absolutely nothing the Democratic nominees are proposing would do anything to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just allow Democrats to pat themselves on the back in belief they have .

It’s no secret that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have plans should they take the White House in November. In fairness, that’s what presidential campaigns are all about, after all. It’s about telling people what you intend to do should you win in hopes that enough will like that kind of thing and vote for you, all so you can win.
One of the plans Team Biden has is, unsurprisingly, gun control. While Democrats have started downplaying the issue and even gun control groups are playing it down in swing states, the issue is already out there and the candidates aren’t taking it back. Frankly, with their records, even if they’d said nothing, we’d have known where they were headed.
Yet it seems someone decided to compare the ways the Democratic nominees would make the nation like California, which included guns.
Ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines What Biden and Harris are proposing: Few issues unite Democratic voters like gun policy. And so while Biden has tacked to the center of his party on health care and climate policy, when it comes to gun regulations, his proposals are as assertive as any of his erstwhile primary challengers. Topping that list is his plan to ban both “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than a certain number of rounds — though he has not specified what that limit should be. Lawmakers have long struggled to define “assault weapons.” Biden calls for legislation that would “prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality.” What California is doing: California banned assault weapons in 1989 and has been building on that ban ever since. But there is no technical definition for the term. For gun restriction advocates, assault weapons fall into that nebulous “you know it when you see it” category of vices. California’s ban nonetheless cobbles together its own definition of banned guns based on a loose assemblage of characteristics: a “semi-automatic, centerfire rifle” with a detachable magazine and at least one of a handful of other suspect features.
In 2016, California voters also approved a ban on magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. How’s it going here? Banning a wide category of firearms in the United States is easier said than done. California’s feature-specific definition of an illegal assault weapon has triggered a cottage industry of firearm add-ons and design tweaks that skirt around the letter of the law, while enthusiastically violating its spirit. It’s a never-ending game of legal and regulatory whack-a-mole as Sacramento bans a particular workaround, only for a new one to pop up. The state’s high-capacity magazine ban has had an ever tougher go of it. First a district court and then Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal judges have ruled that the state’s ban is unconstitutional.
And only a deluded fool would believe that something like that wouldn’t take place on a national scale. The truth of the matter is that if you create a law, someone is going to try to find a way to get around it legally.
Meanwhile, the very people who represent the lion’s share of our issues simply won’t care. They’ll continue using whatever they can get off the black market. This is especially important since so-called assault rifles are used in only a minute fraction of the crimes committed. Handguns are far more likely to be used by criminals. After all, they small and easier to hide than an AR-15.
In addition to a ban, Team Biden also wants to implement red flag laws on the federal level.
While many argue that these laws work, what we actually see is an approach that even if it were applied precisely as proponents claim would merely take firearms away from dangerous people while still allowing those dangerous people to walk the streets unsupervised.
However, they don’t always work the way proponents claim. We have at least one documented case of someone trying to use the law as a way to get back at an enemy. We have no idea how many others have done so and simply gotten away with it.
At the end of the day, absolutely nothing the Democratic nominees are proposing would do anything to make our country safer. It’ll just allow Democrats to pat themselves on the back in belief they have.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--2A-Loving Union Members Reject Biden's Campaign Pitch

Remember Jerry Wayne ?
He ’ s the union member from Detroit who confronted Joe Biden about his supposed support for the Second Amendment during a campaign stop in Michigan back in March of this year .
When Wayne accused Biden of “ actively trying to end our Second Amendment right ” and “ take away our guns , ” the Democratic candidate said that Wayne was “ full of ***t ” and declared “ I support the Second Amendment.
” Sure thing , Joe .
That ’ s why your own campaign website declares that you believe the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your new “ Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden ” group says that you ’ ll protect the Second Amendment rights when it comes to “ hunting and sporting ” but makes no mention of self-defense at all .
Well , Joe Biden was back in Detroit on Wednesday , and Jerry Wayne was there as well , though he didn ’ t get any face time with the Democrat this time around .
Instead , Wayne was outside of the campaign event attempting to talk with Biden supporters ( with limited success ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about this week ’ s campaign stop , Biden ’ s courting of union votes , and why Wayne believes that plenty of union members will be voting against the Biden/Harris campaign come November .
As Wayne notes , there are lots of union members who are gun owners and strong Second Amendment supporters .
While Wayne acknowledges that for many of his friends and co-workers , their first priority is keeping the union strong , he points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many autoworkers were sent home during the Great Recession a decade ago .
Under the Trump administration , Wayne says that many of these same workers have been on the job and even earning overtime , despite the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdowns .
It ’ s one reason why he believes Biden ’ s messaging isn ’ t resonating with many of the union workers he knows , and why the Second Amendment may play an outsized role in how they vote come November .
Be sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerry in the video window above , and follow him on the socials @ JerryWayneAR14 .
Also , stick around after the interview for even more news , including an armed citizen story from Baltimore , Maryland and a good deed of the day from Orlando , where an 18-year old victim of a hit-and-run helped save the life of the driver who caused the crash .

Remember Jerry Wayne? He’s the union member from Detroit who confronted Joe Biden about his supposed support for the Second Amendment during a campaign stop in Michigan back in March of this year. When Wayne accused Biden of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right” and “take away our guns,” the Democratic candidate said that Wayne was “full of ***t” and declared “I support the Second Amendment.”
Sure thing, Joe. That’s why your own campaign website declares that you believe the Second Amendment is “limited,” and your new “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden” group says that you’ll protect the Second Amendment rights when it comes to “hunting and sporting” but makes no mention of self-defense at all.
Well, Joe Biden was back in Detroit on Wednesday, and Jerry Wayne was there as well, though he didn’t get any face time with the Democrat this time around. Instead, Wayne was outside of the campaign event attempting to talk with Biden supporters (with limited success).
As a consolation prize, Wayne joined me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about this week’s campaign stop, Biden’s courting of union votes, and why Wayne believes that plenty of union members will be voting against the Biden/Harris campaign come November.
As Wayne notes, there are lots of union members who are gun owners and strong Second Amendment supporters. While Wayne acknowledges that for many of his friends and co-workers, their first priority is keeping the union strong, he points to the fact that under the Obama/Biden administration, many autoworkers were sent home during the Great Recession a decade ago. Under the Trump administration, Wayne says that many of these same workers have been on the job and even earning overtime, despite the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdowns.
It’s one reason why he believes Biden’s messaging isn’t resonating with many of the union workers he knows, and why the Second Amendment may play an outsized role in how they vote come November. Be sure to check out the entire interview with Jerry in the video window above, and follow him on the socials @JerryWayneAR14.
Also, stick around after the interview for even more news, including an armed citizen story from Baltimore, Maryland and a good deed of the day from Orlando, where an 18-year old victim of a hit-and-run helped save the life of the driver who caused the crash.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--Virginia Democrat's Laughable Claim On Background Checks

It ’ s not surprising to see gun control groups make false claims about the success of their anti-gun agenda , nor is it particularly shocking to see politicians bloviate in support of gun control laws , but their absurd claims still need to be met with facts if we want an educated populace making informed choices when it comes to supporting or opposing gun control laws .
The most recent absurdity on the part of an anti-gun politician comes from my home state of Virginia , where Del .
Mike Mullin is claiming that the increase in background checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be attributed to the state ’ s new universal background check law , not the record-high number of gun sales that we ’ ve seen across the country in recent months .
Numbers from the state show 20,000 more background checks last month compared to the year before – 38,256 checks in August 2019 versus 58,902 in August 2020 .
In a phone interview , Delegate Mike Mullin , D-Newport News , said the increase in background checks show the law is working .
“ We ’ ve had a huge loophole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ re finally able to make sure people who shouldn ’ t be buying guns aren ’ t , ” he said .
The idea that 20,000 Virginians decided to visit their local gun store to go through a background check on a private firearms sale is less plausible than Ralph Northam appearing in blackface to campaign with Joe Biden .
It ’ s true that NICS checks in Virginia were far higher in July and August of this year ( after the universal background check law took effect ) than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
As it turns out , however , NICS checks in Virginia were also higher in January , February , March , April , May , and June of this year than the same months in 2019 .
In fact , in June of 2019 the FBI reported that there were 33,543 NICS checks performed in the state .
In June of 2020 ( the month before the new background check law went into effect ) there were 84,124 checks .
That ’ s an increase of nearly 200 % , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any requirement for background checks on private sales .
Mullin ’ s claim is mind-bogglingly stupid , but Democrats in Virginia are desperate to demonstrate that their new gun control laws are working , even if there ’ s no evidence that ’ s the case .
In fact , Mullin ’ s statement that “ we ’ re finally able to make sure people who shouldn ’ t be buying guns aren ’ t ” is also laughably untrue , and it ’ s a real shame that Courthouse News reporter Brad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up of the delegate : How exactly does the background check law prevent people from illegally getting ahold of a gun ?
There ’ s virtually no way to proactively enforce the background check law when it comes to private transactions .
At best the background check law offers prosecutors the chance to charge someone with a misdemeanor if they find out after the fact that a gun changed hands without going through a background check , but the law does absolutely nothing to actually prevent those transactions from taking place .
Mullin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m sure he ’ s aware of the unenforceable nature of the background check law that he voted for .
Rather than be honest with his constituents and the press , however , the lawmaker ’ s trying to pretend that the state ’ s new background check law is working well and denying that the increase in background checks has anything to do with the fact that more Virginians than ever before are rejecting the Democrats ’ anti-gun agenda and exercising their right to keep and bear arms .

It’s not surprising to see gun control groups make false claims about the success of their anti-gun agenda, nor is it particularly shocking to see politicians bloviate in support of gun control laws, but their absurd claims still need to be met with facts if we want an educated populace making informed choices when it comes to supporting or opposing gun control laws.
The most recent absurdity on the part of an anti-gun politician comes from my home state of Virginia, where Del. Mike Mullin is claiming that the increase in background checks in Virginia in the month of August can be attributed to the state’s new universal background check law, not the record-high number of gun sales that we’ve seen across the country in recent months.
Numbers from the state show 20,000 more background checks last month compared to the year before – 38,256 checks in August 2019 versus 58,902 in August 2020. In a phone interview, Delegate Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, said the increase in background checks show the law is working. “We’ve had a huge loophole here in Virginia for way too long and we’re finally able to make sure people who shouldn’t be buying guns aren’t,” he said.
The idea that 20,000 Virginians decided to visit their local gun store to go through a background check on a private firearms sale is less plausible than Ralph Northam appearing in blackface to campaign with Joe Biden.
It’s true that NICS checks in Virginia were far higher in July and August of this year (after the universal background check law took effect) than they were in July and August of 2019. As it turns out, however, NICS checks in Virginia were also higher in January, February, March, April, May, and June of this year than the same months in 2019.
In fact, in June of 2019 the FBI reported that there were 33,543 NICS checks performed in the state. In June of 2020 (the month before the new background check law went into effect) there were 84,124 checks. That’s an increase of nearly 200%, and it clearly had nothing to do with any requirement for background checks on private sales.
Mullin’s claim is mind-bogglingly stupid, but Democrats in Virginia are desperate to demonstrate that their new gun control laws are working, even if there’s no evidence that’s the case. In fact, Mullin’s statement that “we’re finally able to make sure people who shouldn’t be buying guns aren’t” is also laughably untrue, and it’s a real shame that Courthouse News reporter Brad Kutner didn’t ask a simple follow-up of the delegate: How exactly does the background check law prevent people from illegally getting ahold of a gun?
There’s virtually no way to proactively enforce the background check law when it comes to private transactions. At best the background check law offers prosecutors the chance to charge someone with a misdemeanor if they find out after the fact that a gun changed hands without going through a background check, but the law does absolutely nothing to actually prevent those transactions from taking place.
Mullin’s a former prosecutor, so I’m sure he’s aware of the unenforceable nature of the background check law that he voted for. Rather than be honest with his constituents and the press, however, the lawmaker’s trying to pretend that the state’s new background check law is working well and denying that the increase in background checks has anything to do with the fact that more Virginians than ever before are rejecting the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda and exercising their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--There's Just One NRA A-Rated Democrat Left In Congress

The most endangered species in Washington , D.C. isn ’ t the panda bear .
It ’ s a pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresscritter .
The NRA ’ s Political Victory Fund has released its grades of candidates in the 2020 elections , and just one single , solitary Democratic member of Congress received an “ A+ ” from the Second Amendment group .
Minnesota Democrat Collin Petersen , who has represented the state ’ s 7th Congressional District since 1991 , not only received the highest grade that the NRA offers , he also has the official endorsement of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the NRA ’ s pro-incumbent policy , though the group did give Petersen ’ s Republican opponent , former Lt .
Governor Michelle Fischbach , a slightly lower “ A ” grade as well .
As the Michael Bloomberg-backed website The Trace notes , however , the real story is that pro-Second Amendment Democrats have become an endangered species in Congress over the past decade .
As recently as 2010 , fully 25 % of congressional Democrats received the highest rating from the NRA .
Now , it ’ s less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 % of Democrats getting an “ F ” from the gun rights organization .
The Trace says this is “ a snapshot of America ’ s widening political polarization , ” but really it ’ s just clear evidence that Democrats have abandoned support for the right to keep and bear arms as the Democratic Party itself has embraced a sweeping anti-gun agenda that ’ s alienated many traditional Democrats .
Later today on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , you can watch my interview with Jerry Wayne , the Detroit-area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms .
Wayne says that many rank-and-file union members have been left cold by the anti-gun stance of the Democratic Party , and he believes that , despite the endorsements for Biden by many unions , the actual members won ’ t be voting blue this November .
I believe it , and Democrats have only themselves to blame .
As a Second Amendment supporter , I ’ ve always believed that our rights are more secure when members of both parties back our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m a conservative , it would be nice to feel like I had truly difficult decision to make when choosing between the Democrat or Republican in the voting booth .
Those days are gone , at least for now , though I still suspect that Democrats are going to eventually have to reckon with the fact that the party wants to re-invent policing and the criminal justice system , while putting an ever-increasing number of gun control laws on the books that turn the exercise of a constitutional right into a criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the criminal justice system is inherently biased , then every new gun law that criminalizes the Second Amendment is disproportionately used to put minorities in prison , many of whom have no serious criminal record .
Ultimately Democrats are going to have to decide what they despise more ; our nation ’ s law enforcement or our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms .

The most endangered species in Washington, D.C. isn’t the panda bear. It’s a pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresscritter. The NRA’s Political Victory Fund has released its grades of candidates in the 2020 elections, and just one single, solitary Democratic member of Congress received an “A+” from the Second Amendment group. Minnesota Democrat Collin Petersen, who has represented the state’s 7th Congressional District since 1991, not only received the highest grade that the NRA offers, he also has the official endorsement of the organization.
That’s not surprising, given the NRA’s pro-incumbent policy, though the group did give Petersen’s Republican opponent, former Lt. Governor Michelle Fischbach, a slightly lower “A” grade as well.
As the Michael Bloomberg-backed website The Trace notes, however, the real story is that pro-Second Amendment Democrats have become an endangered species in Congress over the past decade. As recently as 2010, fully 25% of congressional Democrats received the highest rating from the NRA. Now, it’s less than 1%, with more than 90% of Democrats getting an “F” from the gun rights organization.
The Trace says this is “a snapshot of America’s widening political polarization,” but really it’s just clear evidence that Democrats have abandoned support for the right to keep and bear arms as the Democratic Party itself has embraced a sweeping anti-gun agenda that’s alienated many traditional Democrats.
Later today on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, you can watch my interview with Jerry Wayne, the Detroit-area union member who confronted Joe Biden about his hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms. Wayne says that many rank-and-file union members have been left cold by the anti-gun stance of the Democratic Party, and he believes that, despite the endorsements for Biden by many unions, the actual members won’t be voting blue this November.
I believe it, and Democrats have only themselves to blame. As a Second Amendment supporter, I’ve always believed that our rights are more secure when members of both parties back our right to self-defense, and though I’m a conservative, it would be nice to feel like I had truly difficult decision to make when choosing between the Democrat or Republican in the voting booth.
Those days are gone, at least for now, though I still suspect that Democrats are going to eventually have to reckon with the fact that the party wants to re-invent policing and the criminal justice system, while putting an ever-increasing number of gun control laws on the books that turn the exercise of a constitutional right into a criminal offense. If the Let honestly believes that the criminal justice system is inherently biased, then every new gun law that criminalizes the Second Amendment is disproportionately used to put minorities in prison, many of whom have no serious criminal record. Ultimately Democrats are going to have to decide what they despise more; our nation’s law enforcement or our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--Giffords Tells Tall Tales About Oakland Homicide Rate

Gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords are in a weird place right now ; the Left is pushing to defund the police and “ reimagining the criminal justice system , ” but the traditional gun control models actually require armed police to enforce the gun laws that the anti-gun activists are hoping to put on the books .
The gun control movement is the bastard stepchild of the Left , and I suspect they know it , which is why many of them are now painting police in a negative light and downplaying the push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Giffords , which recently claimed that Oakland , California offers a “ violence intervention strategy ” that doesn ’ t rely on “ flooding the streets with police.
” Here ’ s the biggest problem with Giffords ’ statement : homicides in Oakland are not down .
In fact , they ’ re far higher than they were in 2019 , as the San Jose Mercury News reported just a few days ago .
A 58-year-old man was found fatally stabbed Sunday morning in Jack London Square , authorities said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an Oakland resident , was not immediately released pending the notification of his family .
The man was found about 3:48 a.m. Sunday on the sidewalk in the 200 block of Broadway , near a mobile phone store .
He was pronounced dead at the scene .
The killing is the 66th homicide investigated by Oakland police this year .
Last year at this time police had investigated 51 homicides in the city .
I ’ m actually not opposed to community intervention programs that are designed to de-escalate conflict , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t stop the bleeding .
Giffords is either blatantly lying about the homicide rate in Oakland in order to make it appear that this strategy is working ( as well as to show their allies on the Left that they can be just as anti-police as Black Lives Matter or antifa ) , or their crack team of researchers can ’ t do a simple Google search to find out if the murder rate in Oakland has actually gone up or down .
Either way , this would be embarrassing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that the anti-gun media won ’ t say a word about Giffords ’ false claims .
In truth , we do need police to help reduce the number of homicides .
What we don ’ t need are gun control laws that turn the mere possession of a 17-round magazine or an AR-15 into a criminal offense , make it illegal to purchase ammunition online , and prevent the average Californian from legally carrying a firearm for self-defense .
Giffords still backs each and every one of those gun laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting police on the streets .
Gun control groups are trying to have it both ways at the moment ; continuing to call for more gun laws that must be enforced by armed agents of the State , while proclaiming that those armed law enforcement officers are part of the problem .
It may help them stay in the Left ’ s good graces , at least for the moment , but it ’ s a nonsensical and contradictory stance that relies on falsehoods and ignorance instead of facts and critical thinking .

Gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords are in a weird place right now; the Left is pushing to defund the police and “reimagining the criminal justice system,” but the traditional gun control models actually require armed police to enforce the gun laws that the anti-gun activists are hoping to put on the books. The gun control movement is the bastard stepchild of the Left, and I suspect they know it, which is why many of them are now painting police in a negative light and downplaying the push for new gun laws.
Case in point: Giffords, which recently claimed that Oakland, California offers a “violence intervention strategy” that doesn’t rely on “flooding the streets with police.”
How can we stop violence without flooding the streets with police? Look to Oakland where homicides and shootings are down. Earlier this year, the @Warriors joined local leaders, @LiveFreeUS & Giffords to hear how a violence intervention strategy made progress possible. Watch ⬇ pic.twitter.com/cuKnNLFmp6 — Giffords (@GiffordsCourage) September 9, 2020
Here’s the biggest problem with Giffords’ statement: homicides in Oakland are not down. In fact, they’re far higher than they were in 2019, as the San Jose Mercury News reported just a few days ago.
A 58-year-old man was found fatally stabbed Sunday morning in Jack London Square, authorities said. The name of the man, believed to be an Oakland resident, was not immediately released pending the notification of his family. The man was found about 3:48 a.m. Sunday on the sidewalk in the 200 block of Broadway, near a mobile phone store. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The killing is the 66th homicide investigated by Oakland police this year. Last year at this time police had investigated 51 homicides in the city.
I’m actually not opposed to community intervention programs that are designed to de-escalate conflict, but the fact is that these programs alone won’t stop the bleeding. Giffords is either blatantly lying about the homicide rate in Oakland in order to make it appear that this strategy is working (as well as to show their allies on the Left that they can be just as anti-police as Black Lives Matter or antifa), or their crack team of researchers can’t do a simple Google search to find out if the murder rate in Oakland has actually gone up or down. Either way, this would be embarrassing for the gun control group, except for the fact that the anti-gun media won’t say a word about Giffords’ false claims.
In truth, we do need police to help reduce the number of homicides. What we don’t need are gun control laws that turn the mere possession of a 17-round magazine or an AR-15 into a criminal offense, make it illegal to purchase ammunition online, and prevent the average Californian from legally carrying a firearm for self-defense. Giffords still backs each and every one of those gun laws, despite the fact that enforcing them requires putting police on the streets.
Gun control groups are trying to have it both ways at the moment; continuing to call for more gun laws that must be enforced by armed agents of the State, while proclaiming that those armed law enforcement officers are part of the problem. It may help them stay in the Left’s good graces, at least for the moment, but it’s a nonsensical and contradictory stance that relies on falsehoods and ignorance instead of facts and critical thinking.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--Chicago Suspect In Gun Store Thefts Now Accused Of Murder

An 18-year old Chicago man is now facing murder charges for allegedly stabbing a Walgreens employee , just days after his electronic monitoring bracelet was removed by the Cook County court system .
Sincere Williams was placed on electronic monitoring back in May after he was arrested for allegedly breaking into a gun store and stealing several firearms , but the monitoring device was apparently removed in late August .
Days later , Williams allegedly walked into the Walgreens in Chicago ’ s Wicker Park neighborhood and grabbed 32-year old Olga Calderon , a mother of two who was stocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stabbed ten times and left for dead , while Williams is seen on surveillance footage a few moments later casually walking down the street with blood on his clothes .
Williams ’ defense attorney claims that the 18-year old suffers from schizophrenia and seizures , and argued that he should be released on bond to return home to his mother .
Thankfully , the judge overseeing the case disagreed and ordered the teen held without bond while he awaits trial .
Prosecutors say that Williams is also a suspect in an attempted robbery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Calderon was murdered , raising even more questions about why the teen had his electronic monitoring device removed by the court system .
One possibility : the Cook County Sheriff ’ s Office needed the electronic monitoring device for another offender .
Back in May , Sheriff Tom Dart acknowledged that his office had run out of monitoring devices , and would be holding those with an electronic monitoring order in custody until their orders were revised .
Dart ’ s office said it has provided a list of every current electronic monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s attorney , public defender and chief judge , asking them to review those cases to determine whether it ’ s appropriate to remove anyone from the program .
“ I am calling on all stakeholders to develop a process for ( 1 ) ensuring that EM is being utilized only for defendants who require supervision in the interest of public safety and ( 2 ) removing individuals from EM after a period of successful supervision , ” Dart wrote .
Was Williams one of those cases reviewed by the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chief judge ?
Did they conclude that since Williams wasn ’ t ( at that point ) accused of any violent crimes that the public would be safe if his monitoring device was removed ?
If so , it was a mistake with fatal consequences .
All we know , according to the Chicago Tribune , is that the state ’ s attorney ’ s office “ did not object to the Court ’ s release of this minor based on specific information presented to the Court.
” Because Williams was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County prosecutors say they can ’ t get any more specific than that .
Obviously Cook County State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx doesn ’ t want to make a big deal out of the Sincere Williams case , especially since Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has already blamed Foxx ’ s office for not getting tough on violent criminals .
Still , the public has a right to know why the young man had his electronic monitoring device removed , and Olga Calderon ’ s family shouldn ’ t have to fight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s accused killer was out on the streets unsupervised when he was facing serious criminal charges .

An 18-year old Chicago man is now facing murder charges for allegedly stabbing a Walgreens employee, just days after his electronic monitoring bracelet was removed by the Cook County court system. Sincere Williams was placed on electronic monitoring back in May after he was arrested for allegedly breaking into a gun store and stealing several firearms, but the monitoring device was apparently removed in late August.
Days later, Williams allegedly walked into the Walgreens in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood and grabbed 32-year old Olga Calderon, a mother of two who was stocking shelves at the drugstore.
Judge Arthur Wesley Willis ordered Williams held without bail after prosecutors detailed the case against him, including copious video evidence that shows him stab Calderon and then walk calmly home. “He did not take anything in this case … (video) does show him walk straight to the victim and viciously attack her,” Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy said in court. “I cannot give you a definitive motive here other than sometimes people just do evil things.” Williams even had the forethought to wear two sets of clothing on his way to the Walgreens, then discard the outer layer on his way back, Murphy said.
Calderon was stabbed ten times and left for dead, while Williams is seen on surveillance footage a few moments later casually walking down the street with blood on his clothes.
Williams’ defense attorney claims that the 18-year old suffers from schizophrenia and seizures, and argued that he should be released on bond to return home to his mother. Thankfully, the judge overseeing the case disagreed and ordered the teen held without bond while he awaits trial.
Prosecutors say that Williams is also a suspect in an attempted robbery of that same Walgreens the week before Calderon was murdered, raising even more questions about why the teen had his electronic monitoring device removed by the court system.
One possibility: the Cook County Sheriff’s Office needed the electronic monitoring device for another offender. Back in May, Sheriff Tom Dart acknowledged that his office had run out of monitoring devices, and would be holding those with an electronic monitoring order in custody until their orders were revised.
Dart’s office said it has provided a list of every current electronic monitoring program participant to the offices of the state’s attorney, public defender and chief judge, asking them to review those cases to determine whether it’s appropriate to remove anyone from the program. “I am calling on all stakeholders to develop a process for (1) ensuring that EM is being utilized only for defendants who require supervision in the interest of public safety and (2) removing individuals from EM after a period of successful supervision,” Dart wrote.
Was Williams one of those cases reviewed by the state’s attorney, public defender, and chief judge? Did they conclude that since Williams wasn’t (at that point) accused of any violent crimes that the public would be safe if his monitoring device was removed? If so, it was a mistake with fatal consequences.
All we know, according to the Chicago Tribune, is that the state’s attorney’s office “did not object to the Court’s release of this minor based on specific information presented to the Court.” Because Williams was a juvenile at the time, the Cook County prosecutors say they can’t get any more specific than that.
Obviously Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx doesn’t want to make a big deal out of the Sincere Williams case, especially since Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has already blamed Foxx’s office for not getting tough on violent criminals. Still, the public has a right to know why the young man had his electronic monitoring device removed, and Olga Calderon’s family shouldn’t have to fight to find out why their loved one’s accused killer was out on the streets unsupervised when he was facing serious criminal charges.


bearingarms--2020-09-10--Everytown Files Lawsuit Over Texas' "No Guns Allowed" Signs

In the state of Texas , businesses that want their premises to be off-limits to the carrying of firearms are required to post signage alerting gun owners to that fact .
It ’ s a pretty simple and reasonable requirement , and the signs themselves aren ’ t hard to find .
A new federal lawsuit filed by a coffee shop and a church in the Houston area , however , claims that the requirement is a violation of their First Amendment rights .
The suit , which is being supported by Everytown for Gun Safety ’ s in-house law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of those wanting to ban guns from their property has been burdened by the requirement that they must display the signage as required by the state legislature , instead of being able to use whatever sign they want .
If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they can not avail themselves of Texas ’ s criminal trespass laws .
By contrast , property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was entirely intentional ; the Texas state land commissioner who drafted these requirements admits that he “ intentionally made the sign ’ s language cumbersome ” to discourage businesses from prohibiting entry to customers carrying guns .
Moms Demand Action has been complaining about the signage for at least two years .
Back in 2018 , the Austin American-Statesman devoted an entire article to the issue , highlighting the gun control group ’ s opposition to the signage requirement .
The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “ gaming ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wishes if the sign doesn ’ t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics .
They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs .
The assumption , at least based on the Internet conversations , is that an armed customer can ’ t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn ’ t technically correct .
“ We saw it was being deliberately exploited by ‘ law abiding ’ gun owners , ” Burke said .
“ From a mom ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the hospital with my child and see a no guns sign , I shouldn ’ t have to worry that the mom next to me has a gun.
” Frankly , if you think a “ no guns ” sign is automatically going to stop criminals from carrying a firearm , you ’ ve got much bigger problems with the size of the sign .
This lawsuit is a pretty blatant attempt to not only make it easier for establishments to legally ban guns from their property , but to actually encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the claim that former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson intentionally designed the signage to make it a burden to post , he calls the claim “ bogus “ .
“ They ’ re complaining that the sign is too prominent essentially , ” Patterson told Houston Public Media .
“ But if it ’ s that important to them , would they feel good with a two-inch-by-two-inch sign that had a handgun with a red circle around it and a red diagonal bar across it that nobody ’ s going to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signs are not actually required .
Gun carriers must leave a property if the owner tells them verbally that firearms are not welcome .
The lawsuit addresses this by saying that it would be impractical to advise each person who enters and would require hiring an employee just to do that .
“ Decisions about how to protect worshippers and create a welcome environment are important to any congregation , and the requirements we ’ re challenging make those decisions far more complicated , ” Bruce Beisner , minister of Bay Area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
“ Our hope is to make it easier for houses of worship across the state to put in place the practices around firearms that make sense for them.
” Or , you know , you can just post the required signage and then the problem disappears .
I suspect that this lawsuit isn ’ t going anywhere , but for Texas gun owners it should be another warning sign that Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun group has its eyes on the Lone Star State .
The group is already spending millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to flip the state House , and if they get a foothold in the legislature , expect a spate of gun control legislation to be filed along with their anti-Second Amendment lawsuits .

In the state of Texas, businesses that want their premises to be off-limits to the carrying of firearms are required to post signage alerting gun owners to that fact. It’s a pretty simple and reasonable requirement, and the signs themselves aren’t hard to find. A new federal lawsuit filed by a coffee shop and a church in the Houston area, however, claims that the requirement is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The suit, which is being supported by Everytown for Gun Safety’s in-house law firm, claims that the free speech rights of those wanting to ban guns from their property has been burdened by the requirement that they must display the signage as required by the state legislature, instead of being able to use whatever sign they want.
If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws. By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. This viewpoint-based discrimination was entirely intentional; the Texas state land commissioner who drafted these requirements admits that he “intentionally made the sign’s language cumbersome” to discourage businesses from prohibiting entry to customers carrying guns.
Moms Demand Action has been complaining about the signage for at least two years. Back in 2018, the Austin American-Statesman devoted an entire article to the issue, highlighting the gun control group’s opposition to the signage requirement.
The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics. They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct. “We saw it was being deliberately exploited by ‘law abiding’ gun owners,” Burke said. “From a mom’s perspective, if I’m at the hospital with my child and see a no guns sign, I shouldn’t have to worry that the mom next to me has a gun.”
Frankly, if you think a “no guns” sign is automatically going to stop criminals from carrying a firearm, you’ve got much bigger problems with the size of the sign.
This lawsuit is a pretty blatant attempt to not only make it easier for establishments to legally ban guns from their property, but to actually encourage businesses to take that step.
As for the claim that former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson intentionally designed the signage to make it a burden to post, he calls the claim “bogus“.
“They’re complaining that the sign is too prominent essentially,” Patterson told Houston Public Media. “But if it’s that important to them, would they feel good with a two-inch-by-two-inch sign that had a handgun with a red circle around it and a red diagonal bar across it that nobody’s going to see?” He also pointed out that the signs are not actually required. Gun carriers must leave a property if the owner tells them verbally that firearms are not welcome. The lawsuit addresses this by saying that it would be impractical to advise each person who enters and would require hiring an employee just to do that. “Decisions about how to protect worshippers and create a welcome environment are important to any congregation, and the requirements we’re challenging make those decisions far more complicated,” Bruce Beisner, minister of Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church, said in a statement. “Our hope is to make it easier for houses of worship across the state to put in place the practices around firearms that make sense for them.”
Or, you know, you can just post the required signage and then the problem disappears.
I suspect that this lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, but for Texas gun owners it should be another warning sign that Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group has its eyes on the Lone Star State. The group is already spending millions of dollars this election cycle in an attempt to flip the state House, and if they get a foothold in the legislature, expect a spate of gun control legislation to be filed along with their anti-Second Amendment lawsuits.