bearingarms--2020-11-04--A Bad Election For Anti-Gun Activists

A Bad Election For Anti-Gun Activists

The short version : Last night ’ s election results didn ’ t turn out the way gun control advocates were expecting , and gun owners may have been able to avert the most disastrous of election possibilities ; united control by Democrats of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a deeper dive into the election results ( or at least those that are known so far ) and what they mean for the fight for our Second Amendment rights over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely election outcome , barring any court decisions that might invalidate some disputed votes in swing states , would appear to be a narrow Joe Biden win , with Republicans maintaining control of the U.S. Senate .
A worst-case scenario in the Senate would leave Democrats with a 52-48 majority , which wouldn ’ t give Biden the votes he needs in order to enact his plan to ban so-called assault rifles and high capacity magazines or any of the other items on his gun control wish list , like universal background checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , or bans on online sales of ammunition and gun parts .
It ’ s true that with 52 Democrats , the party could decide to scrap the Senate filibuster for legislation and allow bills to pass with just 51 votes instead of the 60 that are currently needed for cloture , including legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by four justices , but given the fact that Democrats appear to have actually lost ground in the House , and missed out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Maine while losing Alabama , that would be a politically suicidal move .
The Democrats ’ plans to overhaul the Senate rules were predicated on a “ blue wave ” election , and that never materialized in 2020 .
Instead , we got stasis .
A closely divided electorate turned out in numbers not seen since 1900 , and we ’ re just as divided today as we were on Monday night before the polls opened .
Even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate , their losses in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuking the filibuster and ramming through a sweeping gun ban with a bare minimum majority .
Of course , elections have consequences , and if Joe Biden is eventually declared the winner of the 2020 election he can still do damage to the Second Amendment , even without the help of Congress .
We ’ ve already seen the ATF decide to capriciously change their interpretation of the word “ pistol ” in the Gun Control Act in order to block the importation of some AR and AK-style pistols , and the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Biden would use to try to restrict the rights of gun owners as much as possible through administrative and regulatory powers .
If the agency were to declare that all AR and AK-style pistols were actually items that required registration under the National Firearms Act , for instance , millions of gun owners would be impacted , and could face years in a federal prison if they failed to register their guns with the government .
No matter who ultimately wins the presidential election , the fight for our right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next four years .
We ’ re still waiting to see exactly what the battlespace will look like , but as we detail on today ’ s show , at the moment things don ’ t look as bad as they could have been , both at the federal and state level .

The short version: Last night’s election results didn’t turn out the way gun control advocates were expecting, and gun owners may have been able to avert the most disastrous of election possibilities; united control by Democrats of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a deeper dive into the election results (or at least those that are known so far) and what they mean for the fight for our Second Amendment rights over the next couple of years.
The most likely election outcome, barring any court decisions that might invalidate some disputed votes in swing states, would appear to be a narrow Joe Biden win, with Republicans maintaining control of the U.S. Senate. A worst-case scenario in the Senate would leave Democrats with a 52-48 majority, which wouldn’t give Biden the votes he needs in order to enact his plan to ban so-called assault rifles and high capacity magazines or any of the other items on his gun control wish list, like universal background checks, red flag laws, the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or bans on online sales of ammunition and gun parts.
It’s true that with 52 Democrats, the party could decide to scrap the Senate filibuster for legislation and allow bills to pass with just 51 votes instead of the 60 that are currently needed for cloture, including legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by four justices, but given the fact that Democrats appear to have actually lost ground in the House, and missed out on picking up seats in Montana, Iowa, Maine while losing Alabama, that would be a politically suicidal move.
The Democrats’ plans to overhaul the Senate rules were predicated on a “blue wave” election, and that never materialized in 2020. Instead, we got stasis. A closely divided electorate turned out in numbers not seen since 1900, and we’re just as divided today as we were on Monday night before the polls opened. Even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, their losses in the House this year should give them pause before nuking the filibuster and ramming through a sweeping gun ban with a bare minimum majority.
Of course, elections have consequences, and if Joe Biden is eventually declared the winner of the 2020 election he can still do damage to the Second Amendment, even without the help of Congress. We’ve already seen the ATF decide to capriciously change their interpretation of the word “pistol” in the Gun Control Act in order to block the importation of some AR and AK-style pistols, and the agency could be the primary tool that a President Biden would use to try to restrict the rights of gun owners as much as possible through administrative and regulatory powers. If the agency were to declare that all AR and AK-style pistols were actually items that required registration under the National Firearms Act, for instance, millions of gun owners would be impacted, and could face years in a federal prison if they failed to register their guns with the government.
No matter who ultimately wins the presidential election, the fight for our right to keep and bear arms will continue over the next four years. We’re still waiting to see exactly what the battlespace will look like, but as we detail on today’s show, at the moment things don’t look as bad as they could have been, both at the federal and state level.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Regardless Of Outcome, Expect Firearm Sales To Continue

Four years ago , the election outcome had a major impact on the firearm industry .
After a massive buildup expecting the gun-buying surge over the eight years of the Obama administration to continue after a Hillary Clinton victory , no one was really prepared for President Trump .
Many of those who had been buying guns simply stopped .
They no longer felt there was a significant threat to their Second Amendment rights , so they simply held off .
They used their money for other things .
This year saw a new surge of gun sales , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more by pandemic concerns , then violence in so many American cities .
Now , with the election very much in doubt as of when I ’ m writing this , it would be easy to believe that such a surge is dependent on who actually wins .
The thing is , some don ’ t think it ’ ll matter that much this time around .
Eric Ward , a certified firearms instructor based in the northwest Houston area , said 2020 has been an eventful year for his business , 4Ward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said he has done as much as six months ’ worth of business every month since the start of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ You have a combination of several things happening right now , and it ’ s really creating a perfect storm .
It started with COVID-19 back in late February , early March , ” Ward said .
“ The natural response psychologically that we believe humans have to fear , uncertainty and even anxiety is they feel the need to protect themselves .
So they go buy guns.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election , he expects to see continued demand for firearms and ammunition .
If President Donald Trump is re-elected , he said he anticipates “ more of the same ” as the COVID-19 pandemic continues .
If former Vice President Joe Biden claims victory , Ward said many people would look to make purchases out of fear of tighter gun restrictions in the future .
According to his official campaign website , if elected , Biden promises to require background checks for all gun sales , end the online sale of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of existing assault weapons , and ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines .
The plan mentions a National Vital Statistics Report that said 40,000 people die from firearm injuries annually .
“ When people start getting worried about these types of things , there is a massive and immediate onslaught in the market to buy everything someone possibly can , ” Ward said .
“ The only thing that we can comfortably say is truly going to happen—there ’ s going to be chaos and unrest … regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , I agree with Ward except on why gun sales will continue under President Trump .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I think they will , but not because of the pandemic .
Instead , I figure they ’ ll continue as leftists continue to burn everything to the ground simply because the rest of us won ’ t sit down , shut up , and do what we ’ re told to do by our progressive betters .
They ’ ll riot and loot and people will get nervous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can because of those fears .
As for what a Biden win might mean , well , he ’ s got that one nailed .
If Biden wins , then expect him to push quickly for gun control to pass .
I don ’ t know that he ’ ll manage it , but he ’ ll at least try .
That ’ ll be enough reason for most to buy guns .
Either way , it ’ ll be good business for the firearm industry , though I suspect they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least he ’ s not trying to shut them down .

Four years ago, the election outcome had a major impact on the firearm industry. After a massive buildup expecting the gun-buying surge over the eight years of the Obama administration to continue after a Hillary Clinton victory, no one was really prepared for President Trump.
Many of those who had been buying guns simply stopped. They no longer felt there was a significant threat to their Second Amendment rights, so they simply held off. They used their money for other things.
This year saw a new surge of gun sales, though. This time, it was prompted more by pandemic concerns, then violence in so many American cities. Now, with the election very much in doubt as of when I’m writing this, it would be easy to believe that such a surge is dependent on who actually wins.
The thing is, some don’t think it’ll matter that much this time around.
Eric Ward, a certified firearms instructor based in the northwest Houston area, said 2020 has been an eventful year for his business, 4Ward Defense. Compared to last year, he said he has done as much as six months’ worth of business every month since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. “You have a combination of several things happening right now, and it’s really creating a perfect storm. It started with COVID-19 back in late February, early March,” Ward said. “The natural response psychologically that we believe humans have to fear, uncertainty and even anxiety is they feel the need to protect themselves. So they go buy guns.” … Ward said regardless of who wins the presidential election, he expects to see continued demand for firearms and ammunition. If President Donald Trump is re-elected, he said he anticipates “more of the same” as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. If former Vice President Joe Biden claims victory, Ward said many people would look to make purchases out of fear of tighter gun restrictions in the future. According to his official campaign website, if elected, Biden promises to require background checks for all gun sales, end the online sale of firearms and ammunition, regulate the possession of existing assault weapons, and ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The plan mentions a National Vital Statistics Report that said 40,000 people die from firearm injuries annually. “When people start getting worried about these types of things, there is a massive and immediate onslaught in the market to buy everything someone possibly can,” Ward said. “The only thing that we can comfortably say is truly going to happen—there’s going to be chaos and unrest … regardless of who wins.”
For the most part, I agree with Ward except on why gun sales will continue under President Trump.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they will, but not because of the pandemic. Instead, I figure they’ll continue as leftists continue to burn everything to the ground simply because the rest of us won’t sit down, shut up, and do what we’re told to do by our progressive betters. They’ll riot and loot and people will get nervous. They’ll buy guns as they can because of those fears.
As for what a Biden win might mean, well, he’s got that one nailed. If Biden wins, then expect him to push quickly for gun control to pass. I don’t know that he’ll manage it, but he’ll at least try. That’ll be enough reason for most to buy guns.
Either way, it’ll be good business for the firearm industry, though I suspect they’d prefer a Trump win. At least he’s not trying to shut them down.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Last NRA "A"-Rated Democrat House Member Loses Election

Blue Dog Democrats have been an endangered species in Congress for a few election cycles now , but they ’ re nearly extinct in the House of Representatives now that Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson has been defeated in the state ’ s 7th Congressional District .
Peterson , who ’ d represented the sprawling district in northern Minnesota since 1991 , lost by double digits to Republican challenger Michelle Fischbach , a former state senator and Lt .
Governor .
Peterson was endorsed by the NRA , thanks to his long record of support for the Second Amendment , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rating from the Second Amendment organization , which largely neutralized any advantage he would have had over a moderate , “ gunsense ” Republican .
Tuesday was pretty brutal for rural Democrats , and not just in Minnesota .
Earlier , I wrote about the race in NM-02 , where Republican Yvette Herrell defeated incumbent Democrat Xochitl Torres Small , and so far Democrats have not been able to pick up a single rural-dominated seat in the House that was held by Republicans .
Gun control may not have been the determining factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but when an actual pro-gun Democrat ( as opposed to one who merely claims that they support the right ) gets tossed after 30-years in office , it should be a wake up call to the Democratic party nationally that their brand is downright toxic outside of big cities and suburbs .
Will this lead to a new breed of Blue Dog Democrats who vote in support of the Second Amendment ?
It ’ s way too early to tell , but keep an eye on Maine ’ s Jared Golden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite Donald Trump winning his congressional district .
In 2018 , the Democratic congressman had a “ D ” rating with the NRA , but improved to a “ B ” this election cycle .
If Democrats are serious about making up lost ground among rural voters , they ’ ll need to recruit more candidates like him , and Golden himself may need to further solidify his support for the Second Amendment before the midterm elections in two years .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Blue Dog Democrats have been an endangered species in Congress for a few election cycles now, but they’re nearly extinct in the House of Representatives now that Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson has been defeated in the state’s 7th Congressional District.
Peterson, who’d represented the sprawling district in northern Minnesota since 1991, lost by double digits to Republican challenger Michelle Fischbach, a former state senator and Lt. Governor. Peterson was endorsed by the NRA, thanks to his long record of support for the Second Amendment, but Fischbach herself earned an “A” rating from the Second Amendment organization, which largely neutralized any advantage he would have had over a moderate, “gunsense” Republican.
Peterson, 76, represented a rare kind of rural Democrat within the party. He did not support Trump’s impeachment and frequently voted in favor of gun rights and anti-abortion legislation. Ultimately, the national polarization trend led to his downfall. Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District will now be represented by Michelle Fischbach, a GOP recruit and former lieutenant governor. Fischbach, who turned 55 on Nov. 3, ran a campaign tying Peterson to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and left-wing lawmakers. President Donald Trump’s endorsement featured prominently in her ads. She also earned broad support from anti-abortion groups, and her husband and mother-in-law hold leadership positions in the movement. Fischbach served only one year as lieutenant governor in Minnesota but had been a state senator for 22 years. Her victory adds one more seat to the Republican minority, although the House remains in Democratic hands by a wide margin. Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District is a largely rural area that runs almost the entire western length of the state and has an economy driven by agriculture.
Tuesday was pretty brutal for rural Democrats, and not just in Minnesota. Earlier, I wrote about the race in NM-02, where Republican Yvette Herrell defeated incumbent Democrat Xochitl Torres Small, and so far Democrats have not been able to pick up a single rural-dominated seat in the House that was held by Republicans.
Gun control may not have been the determining factor in Peterson’s race in Minnesota, but when an actual pro-gun Democrat (as opposed to one who merely claims that they support the right) gets tossed after 30-years in office, it should be a wake up call to the Democratic party nationally that their brand is downright toxic outside of big cities and suburbs.
Will this lead to a new breed of Blue Dog Democrats who vote in support of the Second Amendment? It’s way too early to tell, but keep an eye on Maine’s Jared Golden, a Democrat who won re-election on Tuesday despite Donald Trump winning his congressional district. In 2018, the Democratic congressman had a “D” rating with the NRA, but improved to a “B” this election cycle. If Democrats are serious about making up lost ground among rural voters, they’ll need to recruit more candidates like him, and Golden himself may need to further solidify his support for the Second Amendment before the midterm elections in two years.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Montana Sen. Daines' Win A Big One For Gun Rights

With the voting done , the 2020 elections are all over except for the counting .
And the probable legal challenges that will probably arise , of course .
As per usual , the media–both the mainstream and the new media–will try and look at what happened and pontificate upon it .
By now , I ’ ve already done a fair bit of it .
Now , I ’ m going to engage in a bit more .
After all , when it comes to gun rights , we need all the wins we can get , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
So just why did such a popular governor fail to unseat a senator ?
Well , that ’ s a good question .
Part of it may be Bullock ’ s past of embracing gun control .
Bullock , in the past , has advocated for things like universal background checks and assault weapon bans .
He ’ s also apparently flip-flopped on the issue several times in the past .
He ’ s even tried to buff up his bonafides and failed spectacularly .
It seems that Montana voters might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t trust him .
One should also remember that we ’ re a different nation than we were four years ago .
While it ’ s only a handful of years , the truth is that we ’ re more divided than ever before in my lifetime .
People are looking at politics more like a team sport , for obvious reasons .
Plus , Montanans like their guns .
It ’ s a state where firearms aren ’ t just a way of life but are a life essential .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in a place where it may take law enforcement an hour to get to your house if you call with an emergency .
You don ’ t just give up your guns and trust the police will protect you when that ’ s the reality you live in .
Bullock , for all they might have liked about him in the past , sought to overturn that applecart .
His past support for gun control , as well as his continued support for at least some measures , made it so folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
They couldn ’ t trust him .
Not with their essential right to keep and bear arms in the balance .
In the process , though , they may just have saved the rest of us .
Daine ’ s win comes with the fate of the Senate very much in doubt as of this writing .
We ’ re looking at a potential 50-50 split or even a slight edge to Democrats .
That edge would be even more pronounced with a Bullock win .
Without that , the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breathing room .
Especially if the worst happens with some of the other big races still undecided as of this writing .

With the voting done, the 2020 elections are all over except for the counting. And the probable legal challenges that will probably arise, of course.
As per usual, the media–both the mainstream and the new media–will try and look at what happened and pontificate upon it. By now, I’ve already done a fair bit of it.
Now, I’m going to engage in a bit more. After all, when it comes to gun rights, we need all the wins we can get, and we got a big one in Montana Tuesday night.
In particular, Sen. Steve Daines win.
So just why did such a popular governor fail to unseat a senator? Well, that’s a good question. Part of it may be Bullock’s past of embracing gun control.
Bullock, in the past, has advocated for things like universal background checks and assault weapon bans. He’s also apparently flip-flopped on the issue several times in the past. He’s even tried to buff up his bonafides and failed spectacularly.
It seems that Montana voters might have liked Bullock, but they didn’t trust him.
One should also remember that we’re a different nation than we were four years ago. While it’s only a handful of years, the truth is that we’re more divided than ever before in my lifetime. People are looking at politics more like a team sport, for obvious reasons.
Plus, Montanans like their guns. It’s a state where firearms aren’t just a way of life but are a life essential. Most in the state live rurally. They live in a place where it may take law enforcement an hour to get to your house if you call with an emergency. You don’t just give up your guns and trust the police will protect you when that’s the reality you live in.
Bullock, for all they might have liked about him in the past, sought to overturn that applecart. His past support for gun control, as well as his continued support for at least some measures, made it so folks in Montana just couldn’t embrace him. They couldn’t trust him. Not with their essential right to keep and bear arms in the balance.
In the process, though, they may just have saved the rest of us. Daine’s win comes with the fate of the Senate very much in doubt as of this writing. We’re looking at a potential 50-50 split or even a slight edge to Democrats. That edge would be even more pronounced with a Bullock win. Without that, the rest of us get a slight bit of breathing room.
Especially if the worst happens with some of the other big races still undecided as of this writing.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Bloomberg Proves Money Doesn't Equal Election Victories

Michael Bloomberg will go down as one of the biggest losers of the 2020 election cycle , even though he wasn ’ t on the ballot on Tuesday .
The anti-gun sugar daddy and former mayor of New York spent more than a billion dollars in his bid to win the Democratic nomination , and when his four-month campaign failed to achieve lift off , he vowed to devote his resources to helping Democrats not only win the White House , but to take control of state legislatures around the country .
It turns out that Bloomberg is much better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influencing elections .
In Florida , where Bloomberg vowed to spend $ 100-million to deliver the state to Joe Biden , Trump not only won handily , but Republicans picked up a pair of House seats in the Miami-Dade area , cutting into the Democratic control of the U.S. House .
Even Bloomberg ’ s efforts to restore voting rights to felons most likely to vote Democrat wasn ’ t enough to get Biden over the top .
In Iowa , Bloomberg ’ s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety spent $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state House .
The actual result ?
Big Republican gains .
Not only did the GOP maintain control of the state House , they actually picked up enough seats to flip the state Senate and turn it red as well .
Everytown spent more than $ 2-million to flip the Texas state House , with similar results .
Republicans seemed poised to hold onto their majority in the Texas House on Tuesday , fighting off a well-financed attempt by Democrats to flip the lower chamber for the first time in nearly two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success solidifies the balance of power heading into a legislative session that state lawmakers say will be their toughest in years , and it almost certainly means the next speaker of the House — to be elected when lawmakers convene in January — will be a Republican .
The issues before the Legislature will include a budget strained by recession , state responses to the pandemic and a once-in-a-decade redistricting process — always a divisive and partisan affair .
It was unclear on election night how many seats the Republicans and Democrats will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it appeared from incomplete returns that it will be close to the 83-67 split between the two parties during the 2019 legislative session .
Minnesota was another state targeted by Everytown .
The group spend more than $ 1-million in an effort to flip the state Senate , which would have given Democrats complete control of the state legislature as well as the executive branch , and while there are still some races that have yet to be called , it looks like the GOP may actually pick up a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to flip a couple of Republican senate districts , but it ’ s highly unlikely that they ’ ll be able to pick off three more GOP state senators , leaving the chamber in control of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers who ’ ve resisted calls for things like red flag gun seizure laws .
Bloomberg ’ s gun control groups also spent heavily in Arizona , Pennsylvania , and North Carolina state legislative races .
Arizona still has several races outstanding , and one or both chambers could still flip to Democrats , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in control of the statehouses in Pennsylvania and North Carolina .
Even if Democrats in Arizona manage to take control of the state House , Senate , or both , I don ’ t think Michael Bloomberg is going to get credit .
Instead , the losses will rightfully be seen as just part of an awful night for the GOP in Arizona .
If nothing else , Michael Bloomberg has shown us that money isn ’ t everything in politics .
His massive spending failed to deliver the gun control majorities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote was able to overcome the spending gap and ensure that in state legislatures from Texas to North Carolina , anti-gun legislation will face a hostile reception .

Michael Bloomberg will go down as one of the biggest losers of the 2020 election cycle, even though he wasn’t on the ballot on Tuesday. The anti-gun sugar daddy and former mayor of New York spent more than a billion dollars in his bid to win the Democratic nomination, and when his four-month campaign failed to achieve lift off, he vowed to devote his resources to helping Democrats not only win the White House, but to take control of state legislatures around the country.
It turns out that Bloomberg is much better at spending money than he is at influencing elections. In Florida, where Bloomberg vowed to spend $100-million to deliver the state to Joe Biden, Trump not only won handily, but Republicans picked up a pair of House seats in the Miami-Dade area, cutting into the Democratic control of the U.S. House. Even Bloomberg’s efforts to restore voting rights to felons most likely to vote Democrat wasn’t enough to get Biden over the top.
In Iowa, Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety spent $1-million in an attempt to flip the state House. The actual result? Big Republican gains. Not only did the GOP maintain control of the state House, they actually picked up enough seats to flip the state Senate and turn it red as well.
Everytown spent more than $2-million to flip the Texas state House, with similar results.
Republicans seemed poised to hold onto their majority in the Texas House on Tuesday, fighting off a well-financed attempt by Democrats to flip the lower chamber for the first time in nearly two decades. The GOP’s likely electoral success solidifies the balance of power heading into a legislative session that state lawmakers say will be their toughest in years, and it almost certainly means the next speaker of the House — to be elected when lawmakers convene in January — will be a Republican. The issues before the Legislature will include a budget strained by recession, state responses to the pandemic and a once-in-a-decade redistricting process — always a divisive and partisan affair. It was unclear on election night how many seats the Republicans and Democrats will hold when the Legislature convenes in January, but it appeared from incomplete returns that it will be close to the 83-67 split between the two parties during the 2019 legislative session.
Minnesota was another state targeted by Everytown. The group spend more than $1-million in an effort to flip the state Senate, which would have given Democrats complete control of the state legislature as well as the executive branch, and while there are still some races that have yet to be called, it looks like the GOP may actually pick up a couple of seats.
As of Election Day, Republicans had a 35-32 majority in the state Senate, while the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party has a 75-59 majority in the state House. Republicans are projected to pick up two seats in the south Twin Cities metro. DFL Sen. Matt Little, of Lakeville, is projected to lose his Senate seat to Republican challenger Zach Duckworth. DFL State Sen. Greg Clausen, of Apple Valley, is projected to lose to Republican Jose Jiminez.
Democrats may be able to flip a couple of Republican senate districts, but it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be able to pick off three more GOP state senators, leaving the chamber in control of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers who’ve resisted calls for things like red flag gun seizure laws.
Bloomberg’s gun control groups also spent heavily in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina state legislative races. Arizona still has several races outstanding, and one or both chambers could still flip to Democrats, but it looks like pro-2A lawmakers will remain in control of the statehouses in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Even if Democrats in Arizona manage to take control of the state House, Senate, or both, I don’t think Michael Bloomberg is going to get credit. Instead, the losses will rightfully be seen as just part of an awful night for the GOP in Arizona.
If nothing else, Michael Bloomberg has shown us that money isn’t everything in politics. His massive spending failed to deliver the gun control majorities that Everytown promised, and instead the 2A vote was able to overcome the spending gap and ensure that in state legislatures from Texas to North Carolina, anti-gun legislation will face a hostile reception.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Gun Grabber Kelly Wins In Arizona

Gun Grabber Kelly Wins In Arizona

Former astronaut Mark Kelly is now Senator-elect Mark Kelly .
The gun-control advocate defeated incumbent Martha McSally in Tuesday ’ s general election , meaning he ’ s going to Washington .
Democrat Mark Kelly has unseated Republican incumbent Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona ’ s special election , a call that came hours after Kelly told supporters he was confident that when all votes are counted in Arizona ’ s U.S. Senate race , “ we ’ re going to be successful in this mission.
” “ This hasn ’ t been a typical year , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tonight is about getting to work , ” he said Tuesday night to a small group of supporters in Tucson .
The Associated Press called the race for Kelly at 12:51 a.m. Wednesday .
Kelly , a first-time candidate , retired NASA astronaut and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , D-Ariz. , won on a message of partisan independence , science-based decision-making , affordable health care and insurance coverage for preexisting medical conditions against the backdrop of a lethal pandemic .
He also ran on gun control to some degree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ win actually mean for gun control ?
The loss of McSally in the Senate means Democrats gain ground in the chamber that may well be just as vital as the White House , in my opinion .
That ’ s going to hurt .
The thing is , though , Kelly is just one person .
Plus , his win doesn ’ t mean as much as some might think .
While I won ’ t go into great detail , Martha McSally isn ’ t a great candidate .
This was her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of them .
Arizona voters simply don ’ t respond positively to the former fighter pilot .
In fact , they respond quite the opposite .
In fact , it sure looks like McSally is directly responsible for turning Arizona blue .
Kelly ’ s win may , at least to some degree , have more to do with who he was running against than it does with him .
Of course , that may just be me rationalizing someone I vehemently dislike winning a major office .
Regardless , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights .
Just not as much as he and the Democrats like to believe .
While plenty of Senate races remain undecided–at least one of Georgia ’ s won ’ t be decided this week as it ’ s headed to a runoff–the worst-case scenario has Democrats hold a mild majority in the Senate .
Yes , Kelly will be part of that , to be sure , but it won ’ t be enough to break the filibuster which means nothing goes through unless Senate Republicans agree to it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the left ’ s more radical notions .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I ’ m not thrilled that Kelly won .
My hope is that Arizona voters will decide one term is enough and he ’ ll be bounced come time for reelection .
Then again , I don ’ t really get a say since I don ’ t live in Arizona .
Still , it should be interesting to see just how quickly Kelly tries to establish some gun control through the Senate .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be productive .

Former astronaut Mark Kelly is now Senator-elect Mark Kelly. The gun-control advocate defeated incumbent Martha McSally in Tuesday’s general election, meaning he’s going to Washington.
Democrat Mark Kelly has unseated Republican incumbent Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona’s special election, a call that came hours after Kelly told supporters he was confident that when all votes are counted in Arizona’s U.S. Senate race, “we’re going to be successful in this mission.” “This hasn’t been a typical year, and that’s why tonight is not about celebrating. Tonight is about getting to work,” he said Tuesday night to a small group of supporters in Tucson. The Associated Press called the race for Kelly at 12:51 a.m. Wednesday. Kelly, a first-time candidate, retired NASA astronaut and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., won on a message of partisan independence, science-based decision-making, affordable health care and insurance coverage for preexisting medical conditions against the backdrop of a lethal pandemic.
He also ran on gun control to some degree.
However, what does Kelly’s win actually mean for gun control? The loss of McSally in the Senate means Democrats gain ground in the chamber that may well be just as vital as the White House, in my opinion. That’s going to hurt.
The thing is, though, Kelly is just one person.
Plus, his win doesn’t mean as much as some might think.
While I won’t go into great detail, Martha McSally isn’t a great candidate. This was her second Senate race, and she lost both of them. Arizona voters simply don’t respond positively to the former fighter pilot. In fact, they respond quite the opposite. In fact, it sure looks like McSally is directly responsible for turning Arizona blue.
Not a good thing for a Republican.
Kelly’s win may, at least to some degree, have more to do with who he was running against than it does with him.
Of course, that may just be me rationalizing someone I vehemently dislike winning a major office. Regardless, though, he still represents a threat to our gun rights. Just not as much as he and the Democrats like to believe.
While plenty of Senate races remain undecided–at least one of Georgia’s won’t be decided this week as it’s headed to a runoff–the worst-case scenario has Democrats hold a mild majority in the Senate. Yes, Kelly will be part of that, to be sure, but it won’t be enough to break the filibuster which means nothing goes through unless Senate Republicans agree to it. That’ll put the kibosh on many of the left’s more radical notions.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not thrilled that Kelly won. My hope is that Arizona voters will decide one term is enough and he’ll be bounced come time for reelection. Then again, I don’t really get a say since I don’t live in Arizona.
Still, it should be interesting to see just how quickly Kelly tries to establish some gun control through the Senate. I don’t think he’s going to be productive.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Two Big 2A House Wins Out West (And One Big Senate Loss)

It ’ s looking like gun owners actually had a pretty good night in House races across the country , though anti-gun Democrats are still expected to remain in control of the chamber .
In both Colorado and New Mexico , “ gunsense ” candidates went down to defeat in two races that focused in large part on gun control and Second Amendment issues .
Lauren Boebert , the owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle , Colorado , won the 3rd Congressional District seat over Democrat Dianne Mitsch Bush , with the Democrat conceding late Tuesday night .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win this election and have the opportunity to be the first mom to serve Colorado ’ s Third Congressional District , ” Boebert said in a statement .
In her own statement , Mitsch Bush said , “ The voters have spoken .
I did not get enough votes to win.
” While CO-3 is a heavily Republican district , Democrats across the country targeted Boebert for defeat , pouring money into the race in an attempt to flip the seat .
It looks like Boebert will end up wining by 5-6 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong voice for gun owners in the U.S. House .
In New Mexico ’ s 2nd Congressional District , Democrat Xochitl Torres Small was unseated by Republican Yvette Herrell in a race in which Torres Small ’ s supposed support for the Second Amendment became a big issue .
The Democrat cut a campaign ad featuring her hunting in the desert , but the fact that she voted for universal background checks while calling herself a champion of the right to keep and bear arms undoubtably hurt her in her re-election bid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big seat by winning the Arizona senate seat held by Martha McSally .
Mark Kelly , co-founder of the Giffords gun control group along with his wife Gabrielle Giffords , has been declared the winner of the race , which wasn ’ t exactly unexpected .
McSally , in my opinion , was extremely ineffective in how she framed the gun debate , going after the Giffords organization for supporting candidates like Ilhan Omar of Minnesota rather than talking about the anti-gun laws that Kelly and his gun control group supports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the campaign trail , but my guess is that he ’ ll quickly become one of the biggest champions of gun control in the U.S. Senate .
For now , at least , it looks like he might not be in a position to actually ensure passage of any anti-gun bills if the GOP maintains control of the chamber .
If Arizona does end up going for Joe Biden , there are going to be a lot of think pieces written about what caused the state to turn blue , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign of McSally .
Yes , Trump ’ s disparagement of John McCain cost him the support of at least some Republicans , but McSally gave them little reason to hold their nose and vote for the GOP .
In fact , at the moment Trump is running a closer race in Arizona than McSally , which indicates that McSally may have actually hurt Trump more than the president himself .

It’s looking like gun owners actually had a pretty good night in House races across the country, though anti-gun Democrats are still expected to remain in control of the chamber. In both Colorado and New Mexico, “gunsense” candidates went down to defeat in two races that focused in large part on gun control and Second Amendment issues.
Lauren Boebert, the owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado, won the 3rd Congressional District seat over Democrat Dianne Mitsch Bush, with the Democrat conceding late Tuesday night.
“It is an incredible honor and privilege to win this election and have the opportunity to be the first mom to serve Colorado’s Third Congressional District,” Boebert said in a statement. She thanked supporters in a Facebook Live video. In her own statement, Mitsch Bush said, “The voters have spoken. I did not get enough votes to win.”
While CO-3 is a heavily Republican district, Democrats across the country targeted Boebert for defeat, pouring money into the race in an attempt to flip the seat. It looks like Boebert will end up wining by 5-6 points, and she’ll be a strong voice for gun owners in the U.S. House.
In New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District, Democrat Xochitl Torres Small was unseated by Republican Yvette Herrell in a race in which Torres Small’s supposed support for the Second Amendment became a big issue. The Democrat cut a campaign ad featuring her hunting in the desert, but the fact that she voted for universal background checks while calling herself a champion of the right to keep and bear arms undoubtably hurt her in her re-election bid.
Unfortunately, gun control advocates picked up a big seat by winning the Arizona senate seat held by Martha McSally. Mark Kelly, co-founder of the Giffords gun control group along with his wife Gabrielle Giffords, has been declared the winner of the race, which wasn’t exactly unexpected. McSally, in my opinion, was extremely ineffective in how she framed the gun debate, going after the Giffords organization for supporting candidates like Ilhan Omar of Minnesota rather than talking about the anti-gun laws that Kelly and his gun control group supports.
Kelly largely ducked the gun control issue on the campaign trail, but my guess is that he’ll quickly become one of the biggest champions of gun control in the U.S. Senate. For now, at least, it looks like he might not be in a position to actually ensure passage of any anti-gun bills if the GOP maintains control of the chamber.
If Arizona does end up going for Joe Biden, there are going to be a lot of think pieces written about what caused the state to turn blue, but I think a big component was the lackluster campaign of McSally. Yes, Trump’s disparagement of John McCain cost him the support of at least some Republicans, but McSally gave them little reason to hold their nose and vote for the GOP. In fact, at the moment Trump is running a closer race in Arizona than McSally, which indicates that McSally may have actually hurt Trump more than the president himself.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--Texas Flipping Strategy Didn't Quite Work Out As Expected

Anti-gun advocates had an audacious plan .
In addition to hoping to take the White House–something still very much in doubt as of this writing– , they hoped to flip the state of Texas .
Of course , only some might think of it as audacious .
Others might think of it as ridiculous .
After all , Texas is Texas , right .
However , in some people ’ s minds , there was a precedent .
They ’ d already flipped Virginia , so Texas was simply the next step .
They even planned to use the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ask them , “ How did that work out for ya ?
” Millions of dollars were spent trying to flip Texas blue , only for President Trump to take the state by 10 points .
They flipped zero House seats and zero state legislature seats that I could find .
In other words , for all that money , they accomplished nothing .
Nicely done , folks .
Nicely done indeed .
So how did that happen ?
Well , first , you need to understand that Texas and Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always had a fairly liberal population surrounding the D.C. area .
That gave anti-gun liberals a toe-hold in the state .
It kept the state from ever being fully red .
You see , while Virginia may have broken for Republicans over a long number of elections , it started breaking Democrat in 2008 .
Governor Ralph Northam was elected .
Then they flipped the legislature .
In other words , it was a long , slow process that eventually succeeded .
Texas , however , isn ’ t Virginia .
While there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the state , they ’ re in places where they ’ re not likely to grow with legal voters .
Further , it ’ s a red state that ’ s notorious for its love of its guns .
It was into this furnace that anti-gunners opted to shovel their money .
They tossed piles of cash into the fire , believing that if they just threw enough in , things would change .
Yet , the problem people tend to forget about is that money doesn ’ t trump principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most part , support the Second Amendment .
They love their gun rights and they understand that gun control doesn ’ t make anyone safer .
They ’ ve seen what happens when maniacs break the law and no one is there to stop them .
They ’ ve seen heroes stop mass shootings , too .
They ’ ve seen all of that .
Did people really think that all it would take would be to throw money at the state ?
Oh , but they did .
See , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason their anti-gun policies lack support is because we ’ re just too ignorant to embrace them .
They figured they could spend enough money “ educating ” people then suddenly everyone in Texas would join the cause .
They expected their wins to be pretty small , sure , but they were sure they ’ d come .
In 2016 , Trump won Texas by nine points .
On Tuesday , as of this writing , he appears to have won by 10 points .
In other words , they lost ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But hey , if they want to keep wasting money , go right ahead .

Anti-gun advocates had an audacious plan. In addition to hoping to take the White House–something still very much in doubt as of this writing–, they hoped to flip the state of Texas.
Of course, only some might think of it as audacious. Others might think of it as ridiculous. After all, Texas is Texas, right.
However, in some people’s minds, there was a precedent. They’d already flipped Virginia, so Texas was simply the next step. They even planned to use the same strategy to flip Texas.
This morning, we ask them, “How did that work out for ya?”
Millions of dollars were spent trying to flip Texas blue, only for President Trump to take the state by 10 points. They flipped zero House seats and zero state legislature seats that I could find. In other words, for all that money, they accomplished nothing.
Nicely done, folks. Nicely done indeed.
So how did that happen?
Well, first, you need to understand that Texas and Virginia were never particularly alike. Virginia has always had a fairly liberal population surrounding the D.C. area. That gave anti-gun liberals a toe-hold in the state. It kept the state from ever being fully red.
You see, while Virginia may have broken for Republicans over a long number of elections, it started breaking Democrat in 2008. Governor Ralph Northam was elected. Then they flipped the legislature. In other words, it was a long, slow process that eventually succeeded.
Texas, however, isn’t Virginia. While there are liberal enclaves, particularly in southern parts of the state, they’re in places where they’re not likely to grow with legal voters.
Further, it’s a red state that’s notorious for its love of its guns.
It was into this furnace that anti-gunners opted to shovel their money. They tossed piles of cash into the fire, believing that if they just threw enough in, things would change.
Yet, the problem people tend to forget about is that money doesn’t trump principle.
The people of Texas, for the most part, support the Second Amendment. They love their gun rights and they understand that gun control doesn’t make anyone safer. They’ve seen what happens when maniacs break the law and no one is there to stop them. They’ve seen heroes stop mass shootings, too. They’ve seen all of that.
Did people really think that all it would take would be to throw money at the state? Oh, but they did.
See, the powers that be figured that the only reason their anti-gun policies lack support is because we’re just too ignorant to embrace them. They figured they could spend enough money “educating” people then suddenly everyone in Texas would join the cause. They expected their wins to be pretty small, sure, but they were sure they’d come.
They didn’t.
In 2016, Trump won Texas by nine points. On Tuesday, as of this writing, he appears to have won by 10 points. In other words, they lost ground.
So much for flipping Texas blue. But hey, if they want to keep wasting money, go right ahead.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--How The 2A Is Faring In The Elections (So Far)

We still don ’ t know who the next president will be , nor do we know who will control the U.S. Senate , but we do know that Tuesday was not another blue wave for Democrats and gun control activists .
When all the votes are cast , it looks like the gun control movement will have suffered a significant defeat in Texas , where they failed to flip the state House , and the addition of a pro-gun governor will likely lead to the expansion of constitutional carry in 2021 .
Tom ’ s going to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement failed to deliver the Lone Star State later this morning , but for now suffice it to say that having Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke , Joe Biden ’ s point man on gun control , stumping for Democrats across the state for months didn ’ t help the gun control cause .
Despite huge turnout in deep blue Harris County Republicans were able to hold the line by maintaining control of the suburbs , dominating the rural turnout , and cutting into Democrat margins in the Rio Grande @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate Greg Gianforte won over Democrat Mike Cooney , and with the state legislature remaining in the hands of the GOP it seems likely that constitutional carry will become law in the state next year .
Current governor Steve Bullock , who lost his U.S. Senate bid to incumbent Republican Steve Daines , has previously vetoed a constitutional carry bill , but Gianforte vowed on the campaign trail to sign such a measure if he was elected .
If Montana lawmakers approve a permitless carry bill next session , Montana would become the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying of a concealed firearm without a license , as long as the gun owner was legally allowed to possess their gun .
Just eight states across the country still maintain restrictive and subjective “ may issue ” concealed carry licensing laws , and Montana adopting constitutional carry would be a huge blow to gun control activists .
Montana ’ s ballot initiative dealing with firearms preemption , on the other hand , is not yet assured of passage .
With 93 % of the vote in , approval for LR-130 stands at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few hundred raw votes separating the two sides .
If the resolution passes , local gun control efforts will be further limited by the state of Montana , but if the measure fails , the law in the state will remain as it currently stands .
In Oregon , Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance measures appear to have won approval of voters in Umatilla and Columbia counties , though similar ordinances appear headed to defeat in at least Clatsop and Coos counties .
As we previously discussed , public officials in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in opposition , complaining that the ordinances would be unconstitutional and subject to a court challenge , which may have been reason enough for voters in Coos and Clatsop to reject the initiative .
Perhaps the biggest takeaway of the night for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters is that it looks like the U.S. Senate will remain in control of Republicans , though there ’ s still a chance for Democrats to take a slim majority .
If the Democrats only have 51 or 52 seats , however , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuke the legislative filibuster , pack the Supreme Court , and approve sweeping gun control laws like Joe Biden ’ s gun ban plan .
If Democrats had been able to pick up seats in Iowa , Montana , Maine , and their dream pick-up in South Carolina , they would have likely proclaimed a mandate to govern , but that ’ s going to be a much tougher argument to make given the closeness of the election .
The presidential race looks almost certain to head to the courts , given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona , and North Carolina , but thanks to high turnout on the part of gun owners , I feel pretty good about the chances that we may have been able to stave off the nightmare scenario of executive and legislative branches of the federal government unified under an anti-gun majority .
This was not a blue wave election , and gun control activists are going to be bitterly disappointed with the results .

We still don’t know who the next president will be, nor do we know who will control the U.S. Senate, but we do know that Tuesday was not another blue wave for Democrats and gun control activists. When all the votes are cast, it looks like the gun control movement will have suffered a significant defeat in Texas, where they failed to flip the state House, and the addition of a pro-gun governor will likely lead to the expansion of constitutional carry in 2021.
Tom’s going to have a closer look at how the gun control movement failed to deliver the Lone Star State later this morning, but for now suffice it to say that having Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, Joe Biden’s point man on gun control, stumping for Democrats across the state for months didn’t help the gun control cause. Despite huge turnout in deep blue Harris County Republicans were able to hold the line by maintaining control of the suburbs, dominating the rural turnout, and cutting into Democrat margins in the Rio Grande Valley.
In Montana, Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte won over Democrat Mike Cooney, and with the state legislature remaining in the hands of the GOP it seems likely that constitutional carry will become law in the state next year. Current governor Steve Bullock, who lost his U.S. Senate bid to incumbent Republican Steve Daines, has previously vetoed a constitutional carry bill, but Gianforte vowed on the campaign trail to sign such a measure if he was elected.
If Montana lawmakers approve a permitless carry bill next session, Montana would become the 17th state to allow for the lawful carrying of a concealed firearm without a license, as long as the gun owner was legally allowed to possess their gun. Just eight states across the country still maintain restrictive and subjective “may issue” concealed carry licensing laws, and Montana adopting constitutional carry would be a huge blow to gun control activists.
Montana’s ballot initiative dealing with firearms preemption, on the other hand, is not yet assured of passage. With 93% of the vote in, approval for LR-130 stands at 50.5% of the vote, with just a few hundred raw votes separating the two sides. If the resolution passes, local gun control efforts will be further limited by the state of Montana, but if the measure fails, the law in the state will remain as it currently stands.
In Oregon, Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance measures appear to have won approval of voters in Umatilla and Columbia counties, though similar ordinances appear headed to defeat in at least Clatsop and Coos counties. As we previously discussed, public officials in the four counties voting on the measures came out in opposition, complaining that the ordinances would be unconstitutional and subject to a court challenge, which may have been reason enough for voters in Coos and Clatsop to reject the initiative.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway of the night for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters is that it looks like the U.S. Senate will remain in control of Republicans, though there’s still a chance for Democrats to take a slim majority. If the Democrats only have 51 or 52 seats, however, it will be much more difficult for them to nuke the legislative filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and approve sweeping gun control laws like Joe Biden’s gun ban plan. If Democrats had been able to pick up seats in Iowa, Montana, Maine, and their dream pick-up in South Carolina, they would have likely proclaimed a mandate to govern, but that’s going to be a much tougher argument to make given the closeness of the election.
The presidential race looks almost certain to head to the courts, given the narrow margins in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina, but thanks to high turnout on the part of gun owners, I feel pretty good about the chances that we may have been able to stave off the nightmare scenario of executive and legislative branches of the federal government unified under an anti-gun majority. This was not a blue wave election, and gun control activists are going to be bitterly disappointed with the results.


bearingarms--2020-11-04--With Election Still Too Close To Call, Americans Brace

I ’ m not breaking any news by telling you that , as of this morning , the election is still too close to call .
More and more , it looks like the election will come down to Pennsylvania and their 20 electoral votes .
And frankly , this is scaring the crap out of a lot of Americans on both sides of the aisle .
Normally , Americans go to bed on election Tuesday and wake up to find out who won the election .
While there are often some states still up for grab here and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes and will be set to take office the following January .
This year is a smidge different .
With legions of absentee ballots–an effort pushed by both parties as a way to get turnout amid fears of COVID-19–many states were simply not equipped to give quick numbers , unlike previous years .
Now , as Americans lay in bed facing what they may believe to be Schrodinger ’ s Election–until they look , their candidate has both won and lost–they will get out of bed to find that absolutely nothing has changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights ?
Well , who the hell knows ?
After all , we know that anti-gunner Mark Kelly has won his Senate race against Martha McSally , but that really shouldn ’ t be overly surprising .
Arizona has started trending blue over the last couple of elections and McSally wasn ’ t exactly a beloved candidate .
While I , personally , respect her , the truth is that she ’ d lost her previous Senate bid and only served in that chamber because she was appointed to fill the vacancy left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that she couldn ’ t hold onto the seat isn ’ t overly shocking to much of anyone , though disappointing .
However , that ’ s just one seat in the Senate .
Instead of one side celebrating and the other planning for the midterms , everyone seems to be holding their collective breaths .
We simply don ’ t know what ’ s coming , and that can be frightening .
Instead of the feared rioting and looting , we ’ re on pause as we wait for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bracing for the worst .
Honestly , that ’ s an uncomfortable place to be for all of us .
I ’ ve dealt with an uncertain election before .
I voted in the 2000 election , after all .
The Bush-Gore race was one for the ages , of course , so I ’ ve been here before .
At the end of that race , though , no one was really afraid of us seeing riots .
We may not have liked what the other guy represented , but few of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there aren ’ t any riots to report this morning , thankfully , but that ’ s only because everyone is still holding out hope that their guy will still pull it out .
Again , it all seems to hinge on Pennsylvania .
This would , of course , be the same state where they elected a governor who encouraged and supported a local mayor to violate the state ’ s preemption law regarding gun control .
You ’ ll excuse me if I ’ m less than confident .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing , Trump is winning the state .
However , there are a lot of votes left to count .
It ’ s set up to be a long day or two as things currently stand .

I’m not breaking any news by telling you that, as of this morning, the election is still too close to call. More and more, it looks like the election will come down to Pennsylvania and their 20 electoral votes.
And frankly, this is scaring the crap out of a lot of Americans on both sides of the aisle.
Normally, Americans go to bed on election Tuesday and wake up to find out who won the election. While there are often some states still up for grab here and there, someone’s garnered 270 electoral votes and will be set to take office the following January.
This year is a smidge different.
With legions of absentee ballots–an effort pushed by both parties as a way to get turnout amid fears of COVID-19–many states were simply not equipped to give quick numbers, unlike previous years.
Now, as Americans lay in bed facing what they may believe to be Schrodinger’s Election–until they look, their candidate has both won and lost–they will get out of bed to find that absolutely nothing has changed.
What does this mean for gun rights? Well, who the hell knows?
After all, we know that anti-gunner Mark Kelly has won his Senate race against Martha McSally, but that really shouldn’t be overly surprising. Arizona has started trending blue over the last couple of elections and McSally wasn’t exactly a beloved candidate. While I, personally, respect her, the truth is that she’d lost her previous Senate bid and only served in that chamber because she was appointed to fill the vacancy left by John McCain’s death.
The fact that she couldn’t hold onto the seat isn’t overly shocking to much of anyone, though disappointing.
However, that’s just one seat in the Senate.
Instead of one side celebrating and the other planning for the midterms, everyone seems to be holding their collective breaths. We simply don’t know what’s coming, and that can be frightening. Instead of the feared rioting and looting, we’re on pause as we wait for the results to come in.
Americans are bracing for the worst.
Honestly, that’s an uncomfortable place to be for all of us. I’ve dealt with an uncertain election before. I voted in the 2000 election, after all. The Bush-Gore race was one for the ages, of course, so I’ve been here before.
At the end of that race, though, no one was really afraid of us seeing riots. We may not have liked what the other guy represented, but few of us feared outright civil war.
Today, we do.
Sure, there aren’t any riots to report this morning, thankfully, but that’s only because everyone is still holding out hope that their guy will still pull it out. Again, it all seems to hinge on Pennsylvania.
This would, of course, be the same state where they elected a governor who encouraged and supported a local mayor to violate the state’s preemption law regarding gun control. You’ll excuse me if I’m less than confident.
Then again, though, as of this writing, Trump is winning the state. However, there are a lot of votes left to count.
It’s set up to be a long day or two as things currently stand.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Poor Parenting A Bigger Issue Than Unlocked-Up Guns

I ’ m a proponent of locking up your guns when they ’ re not in use .
I really think a lot of problems can be avoided if firearms are secured , particularly with young children running around the house .
However , I ’ m constantly amazed at how many people think that those who fail to do so are universally the ones at fault when a child–usually not the gun owner ’ s child–finds a gun .
In fact , some think it ’ s justified to cut off contact with grandparents who don ’ t lock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you fall on the political spectrum and gun control , we trust that everyone agrees that firearms should be kept out of the hands of young children .
The statistics on accidental gun injury and death of children in the U.S. are nothing short of nauseating — 102 deaths , 141 injuries so far in 2020 , according to Everytown .
So when one mother put her foot down about not letting her children visit her gun-toting in-laws ’ house , we absolutely get where she ’ s coming from .
“ My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun for protection , ” Reddit user Katzchen wrote in the AITA forum .
“ They do not keep it locked up in a safe .
They will not tell us where it is except that it ’ s in their bedroom , but my husband is fairly sure it ’ s under their mattress.
” Though Katzchen used to let her children visit the in-laws on their own , now that her gun-curious son is 5 and her daughter is 3 , she has determined that they ’ re not safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She won ’ t let them go over unless she or her husband are there to make sure the bedroom door is locked .
When the mother-in-law found out that the kids stay unaccompanied at their maternal grandparents ’ house all the time , and Katzchen explained why , the grandmother started to cry .
The father-in-law argued his case again .
“ He told me it wasn ’ t even loaded , ” Katzchen wrote .
“ I asked him to show me and he refused .
He said there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it needs to be accessible for self-defense.
” The article then goes on to bring up all the cases of kids finding guns with many of them hurting themselves .
Now , these are all tragedies .
No one will dispute that fact .
Not really .
However , I ’ m going to point out something that most people aren ’ t interested in talking about , and that ’ s how the fault in many of these cases rests with the parents .
Like the ones above in the quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on safety on the gun owner , but what about teaching your children not to plunder through other people ’ s things ?
A firearm kept in a grandparent ’ s bedroom should be just as secure from young hands that have been taught not to rifle through other people ’ s possessions as one locked in the most secure gun safes imaginable .
Correction , anti-gun parents don ’ t , apparently .
A firearm locked up , as the father-in-law above notes , isn ’ t available for self-defense purposes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready much faster than it can be unlocked , thus making it a viable option in many people ’ s minds .
Parents asked about whether there ’ s a gun in the house may well say there isn ’ t .
After all , it ’ s no one else ’ s business if there is , so there ’ s no reason to answer such a question honestly .
You can never be sure if a parent is being honest with you .
If you teach your kids to respect other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual firearm safety lessons–then you ’ ll do more to keep your kids safe than complaining that someone isn ’ t meeting your arbitrary standards of safety .

I’m a proponent of locking up your guns when they’re not in use. I really think a lot of problems can be avoided if firearms are secured, particularly with young children running around the house.
However, I’m constantly amazed at how many people think that those who fail to do so are universally the ones at fault when a child–usually not the gun owner’s child–finds a gun.
In fact, some think it’s justified to cut off contact with grandparents who don’t lock up their firearms.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum and gun control, we trust that everyone agrees that firearms should be kept out of the hands of young children. The statistics on accidental gun injury and death of children in the U.S. are nothing short of nauseating — 102 deaths, 141 injuries so far in 2020, according to Everytown. So when one mother put her foot down about not letting her children visit her gun-toting in-laws’ house, we absolutely get where she’s coming from. “My in-laws (80M and 70F) have a gun for protection,” Reddit user Katzchen wrote in the AITA forum. “They do not keep it locked up in a safe. They will not tell us where it is except that it’s in their bedroom, but my husband is fairly sure it’s under their mattress.” Though Katzchen used to let her children visit the in-laws on their own, now that her gun-curious son is 5 and her daughter is 3, she has determined that they’re not safe in a house with unsecured guns. She won’t let them go over unless she or her husband are there to make sure the bedroom door is locked. When the mother-in-law found out that the kids stay unaccompanied at their maternal grandparents’ house all the time, and Katzchen explained why, the grandmother started to cry. The father-in-law argued his case again. “He told me it wasn’t even loaded,” Katzchen wrote. “I asked him to show me and he refused. He said there is no point in keeping it in a safe because it needs to be accessible for self-defense.”
The article then goes on to bring up all the cases of kids finding guns with many of them hurting themselves. Now, these are all tragedies. No one will dispute that fact. Not really.
However, I’m going to point out something that most people aren’t interested in talking about, and that’s how the fault in many of these cases rests with the parents.
Like the ones above in the quote above, they put the entire onus on safety on the gun owner, but what about teaching your children not to plunder through other people’s things? A firearm kept in a grandparent’s bedroom should be just as secure from young hands that have been taught not to rifle through other people’s possessions as one locked in the most secure gun safes imaginable.
Yet parents don’t.
Correction, anti-gun parents don’t, apparently. A firearm locked up, as the father-in-law above notes, isn’t available for self-defense purposes. Even an unloaded gun can be made ready much faster than it can be unlocked, thus making it a viable option in many people’s minds.
Parents asked about whether there’s a gun in the house may well say there isn’t. After all, it’s no one else’s business if there is, so there’s no reason to answer such a question honestly. You can never be sure if a parent is being honest with you.
If you teach your kids to respect other people’s property–especially in conjunction with actual firearm safety lessons–then you’ll do more to keep your kids safe than complaining that someone isn’t meeting your arbitrary standards of safety.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Will Gun Owners Keep Pennsylvania Red?

Will Gun Owners Keep Pennsylvania Red?

With Pennsylvania expected to be a crucially important state for both Joe Biden and Donald Trump , gun owners could provide the president with the margin of victory… if they turn out .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , the unofficial dean of Pennsylvania politics Salena Zito gives us a preview of what to watch for on Tuesday night as the returns start coming in .
While we most likely won ’ t know tonight who won Pennsylvania , since mail-in ballots can be accepted for several more days , we should be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to with the in-person voting .
In western Pennsylvania , according to Zito , that starts with keeping Biden ’ s margin of victory in Allegheny County to around 60 % of the vote .
Trump also needs to run up his numbers in southwestern Pennsylvania .
Washington , Fayette , Westmoreland , Greene , and Cambria Counties — This cluster of western Pennsylvania counties turned out in a big way for Trump in 2016 .
He needs not only to match his 2016 success but also outperform those numbers by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
Fayette , Washington , and Cambria had a Democratic majority in voter registrations in 2016 , but Trump won them with at least 60 % of the vote .
As Zito notes , the voter registration in three of these counties has flipped from a Democratic to Republican majority over the past four years , though many of the Democrats may well have been voting Republican in presidential elections for a few cycles .
This part of the state is also home to a lot of gun owners , with Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of NRA dinners in the country for many years running , and a high turnout in the southwestern portion of the state will help counter Biden ’ s lead in Pittsburgh , Harrisburg , and Philadelphia .
Zito also points to several counties in the northern part of the state that she believes could deliver larger margins to Trump in 2020 than they did four years ago .
Tioga , Bradford , Lycoming , and Clinton Counties — Trump needs to increase turnout in these areas by 2.5 % .
He also needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but their cultural connection to Lackawanna could be a drag .
Erie County — This is the bellwether .
Trump barely won there in 2016 , with 48 % to Clinton ’ s 46.4 % .
He is struggling to match that and needs to break even there if he is going to win the state .
Zito tells me that many voters in these counties skeptically viewed Trump in 2016 as another New York City liberal , not all that different from Hillary Clinton , but if the Trump campaign successfully targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could gain ground thanks to voters who stayed home four years ago .
This is another part of the state that ’ s home to a lot of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters , and Biden ’ s gun ban plan won ’ t play well there .
If Trump is able to pick up just a few thousand votes in each of these northern counties , he could once again turn Pennsylvania red and make Joe Biden ’ s path to victory much more difficult .
In fact , Zito says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden ’ s path to victory than to Trump ’ s , though you ’ ll have to watch the video window above to find out why she thinks that ’ s the case .

With Pennsylvania expected to be a crucially important state for both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, gun owners could provide the president with the margin of victory… if they turn out. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the unofficial dean of Pennsylvania politics Salena Zito gives us a preview of what to watch for on Tuesday night as the returns start coming in.
While we most likely won’t know tonight who won Pennsylvania, since mail-in ballots can be accepted for several more days, we should be able to see if Donald Trump is performing where he needs to with the in-person voting. In western Pennsylvania, according to Zito, that starts with keeping Biden’s margin of victory in Allegheny County to around 60% of the vote. Trump also needs to run up his numbers in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Washington, Fayette, Westmoreland, Greene, and Cambria Counties — This cluster of western Pennsylvania counties turned out in a big way for Trump in 2016. He needs not only to match his 2016 success but also outperform those numbers by 3 percentage points to have a good night. Fayette, Washington, and Cambria had a Democratic majority in voter registrations in 2016, but Trump won them with at least 60% of the vote.
As Zito notes, the voter registration in three of these counties has flipped from a Democratic to Republican majority over the past four years, though many of the Democrats may well have been voting Republican in presidential elections for a few cycles. This part of the state is also home to a lot of gun owners, with Washington County having one of the largest Friends of NRA dinners in the country for many years running, and a high turnout in the southwestern portion of the state will help counter Biden’s lead in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.
Zito also points to several counties in the northern part of the state that she believes could deliver larger margins to Trump in 2020 than they did four years ago.
Tioga, Bradford, Lycoming, and Clinton Counties — Trump needs to increase turnout in these areas by 2.5%. He also needs to hold neighboring Wyoming and Susquehanna, but their cultural connection to Lackawanna could be a drag. Erie County — This is the bellwether. Trump barely won there in 2016, with 48% to Clinton’s 46.4%. He is struggling to match that and needs to break even there if he is going to win the state.
Zito tells me that many voters in these counties skeptically viewed Trump in 2016 as another New York City liberal, not all that different from Hillary Clinton, but if the Trump campaign successfully targeted these voters this election cycle, he could gain ground thanks to voters who stayed home four years ago. This is another part of the state that’s home to a lot of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, and Biden’s gun ban plan won’t play well there. If Trump is able to pick up just a few thousand votes in each of these northern counties, he could once again turn Pennsylvania red and make Joe Biden’s path to victory much more difficult. In fact, Zito says she thinks Pennsylvania is actually more critical to Biden’s path to victory than to Trump’s, though you’ll have to watch the video window above to find out why she thinks that’s the case.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Second Amendment On The Ballot In Several Local/State Elections

Voters in four Oregon counties will decide today whether or not their towns will join the swelling ranks of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , in an election-year test of the resolutions and ordinances that have been approved by hundreds of cities and counties across the country over the past two years .
Clatsop , Coos , Columbia , and Umatilla counties are holding voter referendums that will decide the passage or defeat of a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance that would , in the words of supporters , ” impose a directive ordering that the County government SHALL NOT use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state or federal regulations concerning firearms and firearm accessories.
” Any county agency or employee found guilty of violating the law would face a Class A violation , plus a $ 2000 fine for the employee , $ 4000 for the offending agency .
The SASO defends the Right to Keep and Bear Arms .
It employs the idea of “ Shall not be infringed ” by eliminating local enforcement of the many state and federal restrictions limiting the ability of individuals to protect themselves , their families , and others .
Rob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protect the Second Amendment , which has been pushing for the referendums , says that the ordinance up for a vote today has far more teeth to it than many of the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have been adopted in states like Illinois , New Mexico , and Virginia .
The SASO is unique in the fact that it differentiates itself from the feckless resolutions other counties in other states have enacted .
The ordinance would punish local government officials who have violated an individual ’ s Second Amendment rights , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity.
” Politicians would have to pay for committing unconstitutional crimes and ignoring their Oaths of Office .
Currently , there is a growing trend of defunding the police , disarming the citizens , and discharging the criminals , which will only result in an exponential wave of crime and death unless the electorate is willing to act .
A more ominously twisted aspect is that District Attorneys are now charging citizens with crimes for using firearms and other weapons to defend their lives , homes , and property from the mob .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defense against anarchy and lawlessness .
We must be willing to defend our cities and counties from criminals , looters , rioters , and unethical politicians with the protections and values enumerated in the US Constitution .
The votes in Oregon will be a true test of grassroots support for the issue , with many local officials opposed to the language of the ordinance , which they say is unenforceable and would be subject to a court challenge if approved .
Given the rural and conservative bent of the counties , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of winning over voters , and the referendums are likely to draw at least some support from non-gun owners who want to send a “ leave me alone ” message to politicians in the state capitol of Salem and Washington , D.C .
In Montana , meanwhile , voters across the state have the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment against local gun control laws by approving LR-130 , which would further codify the state ’ s firearm preemption statutes .
Everytown for Gun Safety has already dropped $ 100,000 trying to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be approved handily by voters in the Big Sky State .
For the first time in several election cycles there are no gun control initiatives on any statewide ballots , but I ’ m glad that voters in Oregon and Montana will have the chance to stand up for their right to keep and bear arms and strengthen legal protections for the Second Amendment .
We ’ ll have results on all these issues as the votes come in , though we may not learn the final results until a few @ @ @ @

Voters in four Oregon counties will decide today whether or not their towns will join the swelling ranks of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, in an election-year test of the resolutions and ordinances that have been approved by hundreds of cities and counties across the country over the past two years.
Clatsop, Coos, Columbia, and Umatilla counties are holding voter referendums that will decide the passage or defeat of a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance that would, in the words of supporters, ” impose a directive ordering that the County government SHALL NOT use any county resources or employees to enforce state or federal regulations concerning firearms and firearm accessories.”
Any county agency or employee found guilty of violating the law would face a Class A violation, plus a $2000 fine for the employee, $4000 for the offending agency. The SASO defends the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It employs the idea of “Shall not be infringed” by eliminating local enforcement of the many state and federal restrictions limiting the ability of individuals to protect themselves, their families, and others.
Rob Taylor, chairman of the Committee to Protect the Second Amendment, which has been pushing for the referendums, says that the ordinance up for a vote today has far more teeth to it than many of the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have been adopted in states like Illinois, New Mexico, and Virginia.
The SASO is unique in the fact that it differentiates itself from the feckless resolutions other counties in other states have enacted. The ordinance would punish local government officials who have violated an individual’s Second Amendment rights, which would challenge the practice of “qualified immunity.” Politicians would have to pay for committing unconstitutional crimes and ignoring their Oaths of Office. Currently, there is a growing trend of defunding the police, disarming the citizens, and discharging the criminals, which will only result in an exponential wave of crime and death unless the electorate is willing to act. A more ominously twisted aspect is that District Attorneys are now charging citizens with crimes for using firearms and other weapons to defend their lives, homes, and property from the mob. We the people are the last line of defense against anarchy and lawlessness. We must be willing to defend our cities and counties from criminals, looters, rioters, and unethical politicians with the protections and values enumerated in the US Constitution.
The votes in Oregon will be a true test of grassroots support for the issue, with many local officials opposed to the language of the ordinance, which they say is unenforceable and would be subject to a court challenge if approved. Given the rural and conservative bent of the counties, I think the measures stand a good chance of winning over voters, and the referendums are likely to draw at least some support from non-gun owners who want to send a “leave me alone” message to politicians in the state capitol of Salem and Washington, D.C.
In Montana, meanwhile, voters across the state have the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment against local gun control laws by approving LR-130, which would further codify the state’s firearm preemption statutes. Everytown for Gun Safety has already dropped $100,000 trying to defeat the measure, but I suspect that it will be approved handily by voters in the Big Sky State.
For the first time in several election cycles there are no gun control initiatives on any statewide ballots, but I’m glad that voters in Oregon and Montana will have the chance to stand up for their right to keep and bear arms and strengthen legal protections for the Second Amendment. We’ll have results on all these issues as the votes come in, though we may not learn the final results until a few days from now.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Why Keeping The Senate As Vital As The White House

Two years ago , Republicans not just held onto the Senate during the midterm elections , but actually made gains .
Much of that was probably because the American people were less than thrilled by the shenanigans during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
Now , the balance of power is set to potentially shift as the White House and House of Representatives are up for election , as well as much of the Senate .
A lot of people are pontificating on just what will happen today regarding the election .
They ’ re also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the pro-gun world , the best-case scenario is Republican wins across the board , thus holding the White House and Senate while taking back control of the House .
Will that happen , though ?
According to the polls , it ’ s not likely .
Then again , the polls haven ’ t exactly been right over the last half-decade .
Still , it ’ s unlikely that we ’ ll see a GOP clean-sweep .
In the end , we may need the Senate more than anything else .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ d prefer that clean sweep .
Barring that , holding the White House and the Senate is next best .
However , holding the Senate is vital regardless of who wins the White House .
As we ’ ve seen over the last four years , President Trump has essentially reshaped the judiciary while not doing anything except filling vacancies in the federal court system .
Vacant seats left over from previous administrations were filled quickly and efficiently thanks to the presidency and the Senate being held by the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve gotten something we never would have suspected as possible a few years ago : Pro-gun wins in the Ninth Circuit .
It may not matter much in the grand scheme of things , but appointing judges and getting them confirmed matters .
Yet if you can ’ t appoint judges , the next best thing is control over who actually gets confirmed .
While holding the White House is ideal , holding the Senate is essential .
They control who gets to actually be a federal judge and who doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguard our gun rights by making sure anti-gun judges don ’ t reach the bench .
Then there ’ s the matter of Biden ’ s radical anti-gun agenda .
If he wins and Democrats hold the House , the Senate will be the only shield we could possibly have against that radical agenda .
No legislation can pass without the Senate ’ s approval , that ’ s not something a GOP-controlled Senate is likely to do .
Sure , we might have at least two more years of a stalemate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control laws at the federal level .
However , there ’ s a flipside to this .
See , if Trump wins but Republicans lose the Senate , then that chamber can disrupt the president ’ s attempts to fill additional seats with pro-gun judges .
While he ’ s filled a lot of vacancies , there will be more appointments to be made .
I ’ d much prefer we see pro-gun judges fill those vacancies .
In the end , though , we ’ ll have to wait and see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital to any gun rights hopes .

Two years ago, Republicans not just held onto the Senate during the midterm elections, but actually made gains. Much of that was probably because the American people were less than thrilled by the shenanigans during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, the balance of power is set to potentially shift as the White House and House of Representatives are up for election, as well as much of the Senate.
A lot of people are pontificating on just what will happen today regarding the election. They’re also speculating on what will come next.
In the pro-gun world, the best-case scenario is Republican wins across the board, thus holding the White House and Senate while taking back control of the House.
Will that happen, though? According to the polls, it’s not likely. Then again, the polls haven’t exactly been right over the last half-decade. Still, it’s unlikely that we’ll see a GOP clean-sweep.
In the end, we may need the Senate more than anything else.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’d prefer that clean sweep. Barring that, holding the White House and the Senate is next best.
However, holding the Senate is vital regardless of who wins the White House.
As we’ve seen over the last four years, President Trump has essentially reshaped the judiciary while not doing anything except filling vacancies in the federal court system. Vacant seats left over from previous administrations were filled quickly and efficiently thanks to the presidency and the Senate being held by the same party.
It’s from there we’ve gotten something we never would have suspected as possible a few years ago: Pro-gun wins in the Ninth Circuit. It may not matter much in the grand scheme of things, but appointing judges and getting them confirmed matters.
Yet if you can’t appoint judges, the next best thing is control over who actually gets confirmed.
While holding the White House is ideal, holding the Senate is essential. They control who gets to actually be a federal judge and who doesn’t. That means they can safeguard our gun rights by making sure anti-gun judges don’t reach the bench.
Then there’s the matter of Biden’s radical anti-gun agenda.
If he wins and Democrats hold the House, the Senate will be the only shield we could possibly have against that radical agenda. No legislation can pass without the Senate’s approval, that’s not something a GOP-controlled Senate is likely to do. Sure, we might have at least two more years of a stalemate, but that’s preferable to insane gun control laws at the federal level.
However, there’s a flipside to this.
See, if Trump wins but Republicans lose the Senate, then that chamber can disrupt the president’s attempts to fill additional seats with pro-gun judges. While he’s filled a lot of vacancies, there will be more appointments to be made. I’d much prefer we see pro-gun judges fill those vacancies.
In the end, though, we’ll have to wait and see. Either way, the Senate is vital to any gun rights hopes.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Irony Alert: Rapper Glokk9 Arrested For Illegal Gun Possession

Police in Orlando , Florida arrested 20-year old Jacquavius Smith a couple of weeks ago after pulling over a car to check the tint on its windows .
After smelling marijuana , police ended up searching the car and found a Glock 17 that had been reported stolen , and a few days later police recovered Smith ’ s fingerprints from the gun .
That ’ s a no-no , given the fact that Smith is already a convicted felon at the tender age of 20 , and he ’ s currently being held behind bars without bail in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While Smith could be looking at several years in a federal prison on the criminal charges if they ’ re referred to the U.S. Attorney , at least he ’ s staying on brand by allegedly possessing a stolen Glock .
Smith , an aspiring rapper , is also known as Glokk9 or 9lokknine , but police say the young man is better known in the department for his alleged gang activity than his recordings .
The Orange County Sheriff ’ s Office said Smith is part of The Army street gang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of shootings throughout the area .
“ He is associated with the All Family No Friends gang .
That would be him , ” said Lt. Paul Volkerson with the Orange County Sheriff ’ s Office Violent Crime Unit in an October 15 interview with News 6 .
Smith ’ s attorney insists the rapper is not part of a gang .
“ Glokk9 is neither the leader nor a member of a street gang .
He has had no involvement in any of the shootings other than being shot at , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email to News 6 .
According to police , Smith was arrested as part of a gang sweep in October that resulted in more than 75 arrests , including 20-year old Javarri Walker , another local rapper who ’ s also known as Hotboii438 .
The Orlando PD ’ s Volkerson says that All Family No Friends and 438 are some of the most violent gangs in the city , but attorneys for the men dispute that they ’ re involved in gang activity at all .
“ Javarri Walker is not now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member , ” wrote his attorney Raven Liberty .
“ 438 is also not a gang , it is a state road that runs through the Pine Hills Community where Mr. Walker grew up .
Young black men residing in the same zip code does not equate to a gang , nor does it justify the Orange County Sheriffs Department ’ s fabrication of such , in an effort to mislead the public and deflect from the murder of Salaythis Melvin , by the inept hands of one of their deputies .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker a/k/a Hotboii are ones that are celebrating his success and soon to be released debut album title “ Double00baby ” , rather than the recent onslaught of stories assassinating his character and reputation .
Got ta love a lawyer who uses his client ’ s arrest to try to promote his new album , though I ’ d say that Walker has done a decent job of impugning his own character and reputation with lyrics like this .
Red beam so precisive , yeah Heat you , no Hibachi , yeah ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just copped a .40 , I put the red beam on the side of him We bring all the noise , I spent some money just to silence him ( I spent a check ) They say if I live by him ( If I live ) One day I ’ ma die by him I ’ m dying on my own ( Yeah ) So I ’ m riding on my own ( Oh , yeah ) Smith , meanwhile , may be best known for his feature on the 2018 song @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who ’ s also now behind bars facing two murder charges in connection with the death of two of his associates last year .
Given the fact that Smith is currently being held without bond , he ’ ll likely have plenty of time to work on new material behind bars , though it might be awhile before he has a chance to record any of it .

Police in Orlando, Florida arrested 20-year old Jacquavius Smith a couple of weeks ago after pulling over a car to check the tint on its windows. After smelling marijuana, police ended up searching the car and found a Glock 17 that had been reported stolen, and a few days later police recovered Smith’s fingerprints from the gun.
That’s a no-no, given the fact that Smith is already a convicted felon at the tender age of 20, and he’s currently being held behind bars without bail in the Orange County jail on felon-in possession charges.
While Smith could be looking at several years in a federal prison on the criminal charges if they’re referred to the U.S. Attorney, at least he’s staying on brand by allegedly possessing a stolen Glock. Smith, an aspiring rapper, is also known as Glokk9 or 9lokknine, but police say the young man is better known in the department for his alleged gang activity than his recordings.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office said Smith is part of The Army street gang, and he is connected to a series of shootings throughout the area. “He is associated with the All Family No Friends gang. That would be him,” said Lt. Paul Volkerson with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Violent Crime Unit in an October 15 interview with News 6. Smith’s attorney insists the rapper is not part of a gang. “Glokk9 is neither the leader nor a member of a street gang. He has had no involvement in any of the shootings other than being shot at,” attorney David Bigney wrote in an email to News 6.
According to police, Smith was arrested as part of a gang sweep in October that resulted in more than 75 arrests, including 20-year old Javarri Walker, another local rapper who’s also known as Hotboii438. The Orlando PD’s Volkerson says that All Family No Friends and 438 are some of the most violent gangs in the city, but attorneys for the men dispute that they’re involved in gang activity at all.
“Javarri Walker is not now nor has he ever been a gang member,” wrote his attorney Raven Liberty. “438 is also not a gang, it is a state road that runs through the Pine Hills Community where Mr. Walker grew up. Young black men residing in the same zip code does not equate to a gang, nor does it justify the Orange County Sheriffs Department’s fabrication of such, in an effort to mislead the public and deflect from the murder of Salaythis Melvin, by the inept hands of one of their deputies. The only articles that should be mentioning Javarri Walker a/k/a Hotboii are ones that are celebrating his success and soon to be released debut album title “Double00baby”, rather than the recent onslaught of stories assassinating his character and reputation.
Gotta love a lawyer who uses his client’s arrest to try to promote his new album, though I’d say that Walker has done a decent job of impugning his own character and reputation with lyrics like this.
Red beam so precisive, yeah
Heat you, no Hibachi, yeah (Heat you, no Hibachi)
I just copped a .40, I put the red beam on the side of him
We bring all the noise, I spent some money just to silence him (I spent a check)
They say if I live by him (If I live)
One day I’ma die by him
I’m dying on my own (Yeah)
So I’m riding on my own (Oh, yeah)
Smith, meanwhile, may be best known for his feature on the 2018 song “223s” by rapper YNW Melly, who’s also now behind bars facing two murder charges in connection with the death of two of his associates last year. Given the fact that Smith is currently being held without bond, he’ll likely have plenty of time to work on new material behind bars, though it might be awhile before he has a chance to record any of it.