bearingarms--2020-07-16--Hawley Calls For Investigation Into St. Louis Prosecutor Over McCloskey Case

Mark and Patricia McCloskey , the St. Louis couple who displayed their firearms as protesters marched past their home in a private community last month , still haven ’ t officially been charged with any crime , but it ’ s clear that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is hoping to bring charges soon .
The pair had a search warrant served on them last week , and police confiscated the rifle and inoperable handgun that the couple brought outside their home during the protest .
On Wednesday , police confirmed that they had presented an “ unlawful use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Attorney ’ s office , and charges could come as early as today .
In the meantime , U.S .
Senator Josh Hawley is calling for a federal civil rights investigation into Gardner ’ s handling of the case .
In a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr , Hawley says that Gardner ’ s investigation is an “ unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment ” .
“ There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound .
The only possible motivation for the investigation , then , is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
” Gardner has fired back at Hawley , Missouri Gov .
Brad Parson , and President Donald Trump , telling the Washington Post death threats and racial abusethat she ’ s received as the McCloskey ’ s story has been amplified by politicians .
Calling the threats a “ modern day night ride , ” the prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate in it , in the larger context of racism and cronyism , is scary.
” I believe that any charges Gardner might bring against the McCloskeys will be motivated by politics far more than any attempt at justice , but there ’ s absolutely no excuse for threatening the life of a prosecutor .
Period .
There ’ s also no justification for Gardner to accuse the president , Missouri ’ s governor , and one of its senators from acting like a 2020 version of the Klan for speaking out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that wild accusation is likely to open Gardner up to more complaints that she ’ s politicizing the incident at the McCloskey home at the expense of the facts .
The governor on Tuesday suggested he wanted Gardner removed from office , saying the state legislature should consider ways to remove local elected officials in future legislative sessions .
“ We ’ ve got to explain to him why it ’ s very difficult for an elected official in this state , for a governor , to remove somebody from office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor , ” Parson said of Trump at the briefing .
“ I don ’ t want to make it sound like he ’ s going to come in and remove somebody from office , but I ’ ll guarantee you that the president ’ s focused on what ’ s happening here.
” Gardner said Missouri officials , such as U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and state Attorney General Eric Schmitt , and Trump “ are all using their political platforms to tell a locally elected prosecutor what to do .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dehumanize me , to put my life , my office ’ s life , as well as my family , in danger ?
” Politicians weighing in on a case doesn ’ t dehumanize Gardner , nor does it put anyone ’ s life in danger .
Again , there ’ s absolutely no justification for threatening Gardner because she ’ s investigating the McCloskeys , but there ’ s also no justification in Gardner proclaiming that the threats are the fault of Republican officials .
People are responsible for their own actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters , violent agitators , legal gun owners , prosecutors , senators , presidents , or keyboard commandoes .
This entire situation has turned into a three-ring circus , and I ’ m not sure that the tent is coming down anytime soon .
Gardner is clearly positioning herself as the victim of GOP politicians , and given the fact that she ’ s running for re-election this year , why wouldn ’ t she try to use the McCloskey case and the reaction to it for her own political advantage ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right thing to do , but it shouldn ’ t come as a big surprise .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who displayed their firearms as protesters marched past their home in a private community last month, still haven’t officially been charged with any crime, but it’s clear that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is hoping to bring charges soon. The pair had a search warrant served on them last week, and police confiscated the rifle and inoperable handgun that the couple brought outside their home during the protest. On Wednesday, police confirmed that they had presented an “unlawful use of a weapon” case to the Circuit Attorney’s office, and charges could come as early as today.
In the meantime, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley is calling for a federal civil rights investigation into Gardner’s handling of the case. In a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr, Hawley says that Gardner’s investigation is an “unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment”.
“There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound. The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
Gardner has fired back at Hawley, Missouri Gov. Brad Parson, and President Donald Trump, telling the Washington Post death threats and racial abusethat she’s received as the McCloskey’s story has been amplified by politicians. Calling the threats a “modern day night ride,” the prosecutor added that for “the president to participate in it, in the larger context of racism and cronyism, is scary.”
I believe that any charges Gardner might bring against the McCloskeys will be motivated by politics far more than any attempt at justice, but there’s absolutely no excuse for threatening the life of a prosecutor. Period.
There’s also no justification for Gardner to accuse the president, Missouri’s governor, and one of its senators from acting like a 2020 version of the Klan for speaking out in support of the McCloskeys. In fact, that wild accusation is likely to open Gardner up to more complaints that she’s politicizing the incident at the McCloskey home at the expense of the facts.
The governor on Tuesday suggested he wanted Gardner removed from office, saying the state legislature should consider ways to remove local elected officials in future legislative sessions. “We’ve got to explain to him why it’s very difficult for an elected official in this state, for a governor, to remove somebody from office, or what powers you have as a governor,” Parson said of Trump at the briefing. “I don’t want to make it sound like he’s going to come in and remove somebody from office, but I’ll guarantee you that the president’s focused on what’s happening here.” Gardner said Missouri officials, such as U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and state Attorney General Eric Schmitt, and Trump “are all using their political platforms to tell a locally elected prosecutor what to do. That is dangerous … Why is it okay to dehumanize me, to put my life, my office’s life, as well as my family, in danger?”
Politicians weighing in on a case doesn’t dehumanize Gardner, nor does it put anyone’s life in danger. Again, there’s absolutely no justification for threatening Gardner because she’s investigating the McCloskeys, but there’s also no justification in Gardner proclaiming that the threats are the fault of Republican officials. People are responsible for their own actions, whether we’re talking about protesters, violent agitators, legal gun owners, prosecutors, senators, presidents, or keyboard commandoes.
This entire situation has turned into a three-ring circus, and I’m not sure that the tent is coming down anytime soon. Gardner is clearly positioning herself as the victim of GOP politicians, and given the fact that she’s running for re-election this year, why wouldn’t she try to use the McCloskey case and the reaction to it for her own political advantage? I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but it shouldn’t come as a big surprise.


bearingarms--2020-07-16--Judge Deals Remington A Setback In Sandy Hook Case

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is fairly clear .
It ’ s illegal to sue a firearm manufacturer because of what a third party does with one of their products .
The law sprung up because of the malicious lawsuits against gun companies by gun control activists .
They were trying to sue gun makers into oblivion with frivolous litigation .
Congress , in a rare moment of wisdom , moved to block such things .
Now , though , they ’ re trying a different tactic .
Worse , though , is that the courts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that information 10 Sandy Hook families are seeking from gunmaker Remington in a wrongful death lawsuit are “ fair game , ” and Remington must “ act in good faith ” to provide it .
“ The obligation to act in good faith and provide documents within their knowledge , possession , or power rests on ( Remington ) , and it is fair game for the ( families ) to discover whether the defendants met their obligations , ” wrote Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis in a ruling on Tuesday .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gunmaker back to the negotiating table with lawyers for nine families who lost loved ones and a teacher who was shot in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting , as the two sides prepare for a 2021 trial .
Tuesday ’ s ruling against Remington represents the families ’ latest victory in their six-year battle charging the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting with reckless marketing , in violation of Connecticut ’ s Unfair Trade Practices Act .
In mid-June , Bellis permitted the families ’ attorneys to question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about its internal organization and procedures — questions which Remington considered invasive and improper .
Unfortunately , the setbacks Remington has endured are taking this case and turning it from one where the gun grabbers had little to no chance of winning and giving them a great deal of hope that maybe they will .
However , I ’ m not convinced that will be the case .
You see , part of the problem is that they ’ re targeting Remington ’ s marketing .
They ’ re claiming that Remington marketed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet there are a couple of problems I see with this .
After all , the Sandy Hook shooter didn ’ t buy the gun in the first place .
He murdered his own mother and stole her Remington AR-15 .
Second , I don ’ t see how you can blame Remington for claiming the weapon is super-deadly when the media has been making that case for ages now , well before Sandy Hook took place .
Finally , it seems to me that this is also a free speech issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraudulent claims about their products , but we generally allow them to market their guns any way they want to beyond that .
Trying to attack the marketing is an attempt to punish a company for trying to sell their products in a way the anti-gun jihadists simply don ’ t approve of .
It should be noted , though , that so far , most of Remington ’ s setbacks have been procedural .
None of these ruling are on the merits of the case itself , which means that none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to lose this case .
Regardless , though , this illustrates just how important it is for pro-gun forces to win in November .
After all , which gun rights supporters in control of the House , the Senate , and the White House , maybe we can amend the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to cut off this particular foolishness as well .

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is fairly clear. It’s illegal to sue a firearm manufacturer because of what a third party does with one of their products.
The law sprung up because of the malicious lawsuits against gun companies by gun control activists. They were trying to sue gun makers into oblivion with frivolous litigation. Congress, in a rare moment of wisdom, moved to block such things.
Now, though, they’re trying a different tactic. Worse, though, is that the courts are letting them.
A judge has ruled that information 10 Sandy Hook families are seeking from gunmaker Remington in a wrongful death lawsuit are “fair game,” and Remington must “act in good faith” to provide it. “The obligation to act in good faith and provide documents within their knowledge, possession, or power rests on (Remington), and it is fair game for the (families) to discover whether the defendants met their obligations,” wrote Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis in a ruling on Tuesday. The ruling sends the nation’s oldest gunmaker back to the negotiating table with lawyers for nine families who lost loved ones and a teacher who was shot in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as the two sides prepare for a 2021 trial. Tuesday’s ruling against Remington represents the families’ latest victory in their six-year battle charging the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting with reckless marketing, in violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In mid-June, Bellis permitted the families’ attorneys to question the gunmaker’s executives under oath about its internal organization and procedures — questions which Remington considered invasive and improper.
Unfortunately, the setbacks Remington has endured are taking this case and turning it from one where the gun grabbers had little to no chance of winning and giving them a great deal of hope that maybe they will.
However, I’m not convinced that will be the case.
You see, part of the problem is that they’re targeting Remington’s marketing. They’re claiming that Remington marketed this gun as uber-deadly or something. Yet there are a couple of problems I see with this.
After all, the Sandy Hook shooter didn’t buy the gun in the first place. He murdered his own mother and stole her Remington AR-15.
Second, I don’t see how you can blame Remington for claiming the weapon is super-deadly when the media has been making that case for ages now, well before Sandy Hook took place.
Finally, it seems to me that this is also a free speech issue. Companies aren’t allowed to make fraudulent claims about their products, but we generally allow them to market their guns any way they want to beyond that. Trying to attack the marketing is an attempt to punish a company for trying to sell their products in a way the anti-gun jihadists simply don’t approve of.
It should be noted, though, that so far, most of Remington’s setbacks have been procedural. None of these ruling are on the merits of the case itself, which means that none of them really tell us that Remington is going to lose this case. Regardless, though, this illustrates just how important it is for pro-gun forces to win in November.
After all, which gun rights supporters in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, maybe we can amend the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to cut off this particular foolishness as well.


bearingarms--2020-07-16--LA Clippers Owner Makes Massive Donation To Bloomberg Gun Control Group

I ’ m pretty sure that Everytown for Gun Safety was doing just fine thanks to the financial largess of their billionaire founder Michael Bloomberg , but the gun control organization now has a second anti-gun sugar daddy to thank after Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer cut the group a $ 7-million check this week .
According to Sportsnauts ‘ s Vincent Frank , the donation to Everytown is Ballmer ’ s largest political contribution ever , and comes as the league is embracing “ social justice ” causes ahead of the resumption of its season later this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume on July 30 at Walt Disney World in Orlando .
The backdrop will be widespread protests following the murder of George Floyd back on May 25 .
In reality , the Association has been more active on the political front than other professional sports leagues .
That has included big-time figures calling for an end to gun violence in the United States .
Ballmer ’ s latest donation is yet another representation of this .
Ballmer ’ s wife , Connie , donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign against current President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it turns out , this isn ’ t Ballmer ’ s first foray into the gun control movement .
Back in 2014 , Ballmer and his wife spent more than $ 500,000 backing a ballot initiative in Washington State that imposed universal background checks on all firearms transfers in the state .
The former Microsoft CEO was joined by a host of other wealthy tech executives , and the measure passed fairly handily .
Since then , however , the law has rarely been used to arrest or prosecute individuals who purchased a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a background check .
The last mention of any prosecution that I can find is from 2017 , when a resident stole a .22 rifle from a Cabela ’ s and then sold it to a drug dealer .
According to KNKX , that prosecution was only the second time that the background check law had been invoked to charge someone , though the law had been in effect for more than two years at that point .
Not only has the law rarely been enforced , but crime rates in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the background check mandate took effect .
In 2014 , Washington State ’ s homicide rate was 2.5 per 100,000 , but by 2018 it had climbed to 3.1 per 100,000 .
Violent crime overall has also increased in the state since 2014 , jumping from 286 violent crimes per 100,000 people to 311 crimes per 100,000 in 2018 .
If Ballmer cared about results , he probably wouldn ’ t be pouring his money into efforts to impose unconstitutional , ineffective , and unenforceable gun control measures on the general public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to your name , however , you can afford to throw away a few million on restricting the rights of your fellow Americans in the name of public safety .

I’m pretty sure that Everytown for Gun Safety was doing just fine thanks to the financial largess of their billionaire founder Michael Bloomberg, but the gun control organization now has a second anti-gun sugar daddy to thank after Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer cut the group a $7-million check this week.
According to Sportsnauts‘s Vincent Frank, the donation to Everytown is Ballmer’s largest political contribution ever, and comes as the league is embracing “social justice” causes ahead of the resumption of its season later this month.
The 2019-20 NBA campaign is slated to resume on July 30 at Walt Disney World in Orlando. The backdrop will be widespread protests following the murder of George Floyd back on May 25. In reality, the Association has been more active on the political front than other professional sports leagues. That has included big-time figures calling for an end to gun violence in the United States. Ballmer’s latest donation is yet another representation of this. Ballmer’s wife, Connie, donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign against current President Donald Trump back in 2016.
As it turns out, this isn’t Ballmer’s first foray into the gun control movement. Back in 2014, Ballmer and his wife spent more than $500,000 backing a ballot initiative in Washington State that imposed universal background checks on all firearms transfers in the state. The former Microsoft CEO was joined by a host of other wealthy tech executives, and the measure passed fairly handily.
Since then, however, the law has rarely been used to arrest or prosecute individuals who purchased a firearm in a private sale without going through a background check. The last mention of any prosecution that I can find is from 2017, when a resident stole a .22 rifle from a Cabela’s and then sold it to a drug dealer. According to KNKX, that prosecution was only the second time that the background check law had been invoked to charge someone, though the law had been in effect for more than two years at that point.
Not only has the law rarely been enforced, but crime rates in Washington State have gone the wrong way since the background check mandate took effect. In 2014, Washington State’s homicide rate was 2.5 per 100,000, but by 2018 it had climbed to 3.1 per 100,000. Violent crime overall has also increased in the state since 2014, jumping from 286 violent crimes per 100,000 people to 311 crimes per 100,000 in 2018.
If Ballmer cared about results, he probably wouldn’t be pouring his money into efforts to impose unconstitutional, ineffective, and unenforceable gun control measures on the general public. When you’ve got $72-billion to your name, however, you can afford to throw away a few million on restricting the rights of your fellow Americans in the name of public safety.


bearingarms--2020-07-16--Black Community Wants NYPD Anti-Crime Unit Back

As violence scours America ’ s inner cities , people are looking everywhere for answers .
Some , obviously , are calling for gun control but seem unable to comprehend that all the gun control they credited for reducing crime in places like New York haven ’ t changed , so why would new laws be any different ?
Others are trying different approaches , hoping to cut off violence before it can happen .
That ’ s not necessarily a bad thing , but it can ’ t be your only approach .
In the New York black community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-crime unit .
Leaders in the black community in New York City are calling on the New York City Police Department to deal with the recent crime surge in the city by reinstating the plainclothes anti-crime unit that the department recently dismantled as anti-police sentiment exploded in the wake of the death of George Floyd .
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams , a former cop , “ became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit — undercover cops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street , ” CBS New York reported .
“ This , as shootings for the week went up 277 % , 49 compared to 13 in 2019 .
The number of victims is up 253 % , 60 compared to 17 in 2019.
” “ I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate , ” Adams said .
“ Right now , bad guys are saying if you don ’ t see a blue and white you can do whatever you want.
” Another person argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their hands .
That ’ s some pretty serious rhetoric being slung around , but they ’ re not necessarily wrong .
What the anti-crime unit did was that they didn ’ t target law-abiding gun owners so much as the armed criminals .
They went after illegal guns , guns that end up in the hands of people who aren ’ t going to follow any law , much less any gun law .
By focusing on that , they could impact the violence in the Big Apple .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spike in violence erupted after Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s administration dismantled the anti-crime unit .
Of course , I ’ d argue the entire NYPD should be considered an “ anti-crime unit , ” but that ’ s neither here nor there .
The unit was disbanded amid calls for defunding the police throughout the entire nation .
New York , trying to be wokest of the woke , jumped on it and took apart the anti-crime unit .
However , as we ’ ve seen , the results aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Frankly , they have to do something at this point , and undoing what may have been a colossal mistake is probably a good place to start .
However , I don ’ t think that will solve all of New York ’ s problems .
The truth is that the violence we ’ re seeing isn ’ t just confined to the Five Boroughs .
It ’ s all over the country in cities of various sizes .
That means there ’ s more to it than disbanding an anti-crime unit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that de Blasio will actually do any such thing .
From what I ’ ve seen of the mayor , he ’ s not inclined to undo anything he did more for optics than anything else .
That ’ s all disbanding the unit actually was .

As violence scours America’s inner cities, people are looking everywhere for answers. Some, obviously, are calling for gun control but seem unable to comprehend that all the gun control they credited for reducing crime in places like New York haven’t changed, so why would new laws be any different?
Others are trying different approaches, hoping to cut off violence before it can happen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can’t be your only approach.
In the New York black community, some apparently want a return of the anti-crime unit.
Leaders in the black community in New York City are calling on the New York City Police Department to deal with the recent crime surge in the city by reinstating the plainclothes anti-crime unit that the department recently dismantled as anti-police sentiment exploded in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, a former cop, “became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit — undercover cops whose job was to get guns off the street,” CBS New York reported. “This, as shootings for the week went up 277%, 49 compared to 13 in 2019. The number of victims is up 253%, 60 compared to 17 in 2019.” “I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate,” Adams said. “Right now, bad guys are saying if you don’t see a blue and white you can do whatever you want.”
Another person argued that the mayor and the state legislature had blood on their hands. That’s some pretty serious rhetoric being slung around, but they’re not necessarily wrong.
What the anti-crime unit did was that they didn’t target law-abiding gun owners so much as the armed criminals. They went after illegal guns, guns that end up in the hands of people who aren’t going to follow any law, much less any gun law.
By focusing on that, they could impact the violence in the Big Apple.
It’s probably not a coincidence that this spike in violence erupted after Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration dismantled the anti-crime unit.
Of course, I’d argue the entire NYPD should be considered an “anti-crime unit,” but that’s neither here nor there.
The unit was disbanded amid calls for defunding the police throughout the entire nation. New York, trying to be wokest of the woke, jumped on it and took apart the anti-crime unit. However, as we’ve seen, the results aren’t exactly filling anyone with any confidence.
Frankly, they have to do something at this point, and undoing what may have been a colossal mistake is probably a good place to start. However, I don’t think that will solve all of New York’s problems.
The truth is that the violence we’re seeing isn’t just confined to the Five Boroughs. It’s all over the country in cities of various sizes. That means there’s more to it than disbanding an anti-crime unit or any other police unit.
Not that de Blasio will actually do any such thing. From what I’ve seen of the mayor, he’s not inclined to undo anything he did more for optics than anything else. That’s all disbanding the unit actually was.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--Of Course: Left Now Blaming The Spike In Crime On Gun Sales

You knew it was only a matter of time , right ?
Back in March , when the first stay-at-home orders were issued and Americans started flocking to gun stores , we were told by gun control advocates that there was no reason to purchase a firearm , because crime wasn ’ t going to go up even though cities were clearing out jails and telling officers not to make arrests for many crimes .
As former ATF agent turned gun control flack David Chipman told the Washington Times just a few months ago : Well , it hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re already seeing a “ zombie ” outbreak , or at least a surge in violent crime in many American cities .
What do you do if you ’ re a gun control advocates who just a few months ago was dismissive of the idea of civil unrest and a spike in crime ?
Blame all those new gun owners , of course .
The Washington Post claims two new studies show that the spike in crime followed the first surge in gun sales in the spring , which in turn must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the increase in shootings in Democrat-controlled cities around the country .
I ’ ve already debunked one of the studies a few days ago , but let ’ s take a look at the second study cited by Post reporter Christopher Ingraham , which purports to document the tie between gun sales and an increase in shootings .
Here are a few things the study apparently didn ’ t correct for : arrest rates , police reforms , the size and frequency of violent protests , and who ’ s actually in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Virginia , the closet town of any size to where I live , we ’ ve seen the same surge in gun sales that has been documented around the country , but our crime rate ’ s remained incredibly low .
In New York City , on the other hand , shootings have increased by more than 300 % compared to July of 2019 .
There hasn ’ t been a surge of new gun owners in the Big Apple , because most folks who applied back in March for their premises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can keep at home still haven ’ t received permission from the NYPD to exercise their right to keep an arm in the house .
According to the authors of the study from the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center , however , it ’ s those pesky Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights that are to blame .
Here ’ s another problem for the study ’ s authors : while shootings are soaring in New York City , New Jersey , Baltimore , Chicago , Portland , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re declining in other parts of the country .
Palm Beach County , Florida , for instance , has actually seen a 30 % decline in homicides through the first six months of 2020 .
Are we really supposed to believe that there simply haven ’ t been enough gun sales in south Florida to impact the violent crime rate , but gun sales are responsible for the dramatic increase in homicides in New York City ?
West Palm Beach saw a 67 percent decrease in the number of homicides during the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to the same period last year — nine .
City police credit the decrease in homicides not to the pandemic but rather to an increase in personnel focused on combating open-air drug sales and violent crime .
Police spokesman Sgt .
David Lefont pointed to the roll out of the department ’ s GHOST unit — Gang-Habitual Offender Suppression Team — at the beginning of the year .
So , West Palm Beach rolls out a special unit designed to focus on the most violent offenders , and homicides decrease .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere , police reforms have dismantled units that focus on gang violence , and shootings have soared .
I know it sounds crazy , but perhaps things like de-policing in high-crime neighborhoods has far more to do with the increase in violent crime than a growing number of law-abiding gun owners .
Even the anti-gun study ’ s authors admit that they can ’ t prove that the increase in gun sales caused the spike in violent crime , but outlets like the Washington Post will gloss over that inconvenient fact in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you read that right .
The increase in violent crime in Democrat-run cities is largely the result of racist white Americans buying up guns , according to the Washington Post , and every gun that ’ s sold just sends us further along our path towards a dystopian future .
Never mind the fact that for decades , violent crime has been dropping as Americans purchased tens of millions of firearms and millions of us obtained their concealed carry licenses .
Never mind the fact that gun ownership among non-white Americans is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of concerns over racism ) .
Never mind any and every bit of evidence that doesn ’ t point to American gun owners as racist rednecks who are shooting up their cities with the new guns they just bought .
Crime is spiking for a number of reasons , but the primary one is that criminals believe they can get away breaking the law .
They ’ ve seen the court closures and the early releases because of coronavirus concerns .
They ’ ve seen a move away from patrolling high-crime neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and community leaders call for defunding police while refusing to hold violent criminals accountable .
They ’ ve seen their neighbors grow more distrustful of police , even as they ’ ve become more frightened of the emboldened criminals causing such misery in their neighborhoods .
Criminals see these things and believe , not unreasonably , that their chances of getting away with murder ( or assault , or robbery ) are pretty good right now .
The nation ’ s crime spike has much more to do with blue mayors and governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post and the anti-gun academics it loves to amplify will continue to place the blame on you instead of where it belongs ; on the politicians that are failing to protect their cities and the criminals emboldened by that catastrophic abdication of responsibility .

You knew it was only a matter of time, right? Back in March, when the first stay-at-home orders were issued and Americans started flocking to gun stores, we were told by gun control advocates that there was no reason to purchase a firearm, because crime wasn’t going to go up even though cities were clearing out jails and telling officers not to make arrests for many crimes. As former ATF agent turned gun control flack David Chipman told the Washington Times just a few months ago:
“If we can imagine how horrible this crisis is … the people who hoarded the guns might decide six months from now – once they see no zombies around but they’ve run out of tuna and beef jerky – that they need the money to buy food,” Chipman said.
Well, it hasn’t been six months, but we’re already seeing a “zombie” outbreak, or at least a surge in violent crime in many American cities. What do you do if you’re a gun control advocates who just a few months ago was dismissive of the idea of civil unrest and a spike in crime? Blame all those new gun owners, of course.
The Washington Post claims two new studies show that the spike in crime followed the first surge in gun sales in the spring, which in turn must mean that those gun sales are responsible for the increase in shootings in Democrat-controlled cities around the country. I’ve already debunked one of the studies a few days ago, but let’s take a look at the second study cited by Post reporter Christopher Ingraham, which purports to document the tie between gun sales and an increase in shootings.
Led by Julia Schleimer, the team similarly found a massive increase in gun-buying during the first half of the year. They then focused on the question of whether, at the state level, those purchases are linked to an increase in gun violence. To do that, they turned to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, an organization that maintains a real-time database of shootings by scouring news reports, police reports and public records. The analysis attempts to correct for a number of other factors that would plausibly affect rates of gun violence, such as covid-19 cases and deaths, the presence of stay-at-home orders, social distancing adherence, demographic factors and even temperature and precipitation. In the end, they estimated, firearm violence nationally jumped nearly 8 percent from March through May because of excess gun-buying; that’s “776 additional injuries associated with purchasing spikes.” That may be an undercount: The Brookings study indicated gun sales jumped even higher in June, with potentially even greater effects on rates of gun violence.
Here are a few things the study apparently didn’t correct for: arrest rates, police reforms, the size and frequency of violent protests, and who’s actually in charge of these cities. In Farmville, Virginia, the closet town of any size to where I live, we’ve seen the same surge in gun sales that has been documented around the country, but our crime rate’s remained incredibly low. In New York City, on the other hand, shootings have increased by more than 300% compared to July of 2019. There hasn’t been a surge of new gun owners in the Big Apple, because most folks who applied back in March for their premises license in order to purchase a gun they can keep at home still haven’t received permission from the NYPD to exercise their right to keep an arm in the house.
According to the authors of the study from the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, however, it’s those pesky Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights that are to blame.
Here’s another problem for the study’s authors: while shootings are soaring in New York City, New Jersey, Baltimore, Chicago, Portland, and other big blue cities, they’re declining in other parts of the country. Palm Beach County, Florida, for instance, has actually seen a 30% decline in homicides through the first six months of 2020. Are we really supposed to believe that there simply haven’t been enough gun sales in south Florida to impact the violent crime rate, but gun sales are responsible for the dramatic increase in homicides in New York City?
West Palm Beach saw a 67 percent decrease in the number of homicides during the first half of 2020 — three — as compared to the same period last year — nine. City police credit the decrease in homicides not to the pandemic but rather to an increase in personnel focused on combating open-air drug sales and violent crime. Police spokesman Sgt. David Lefont pointed to the roll out of the department’s GHOST unit — Gang-Habitual Offender Suppression Team — at the beginning of the year.
So, West Palm Beach rolls out a special unit designed to focus on the most violent offenders, and homicides decrease. In Portland, New York City, and elsewhere, police reforms have dismantled units that focus on gang violence, and shootings have soared. I know it sounds crazy, but perhaps things like de-policing in high-crime neighborhoods has far more to do with the increase in violent crime than a growing number of law-abiding gun owners.
Even the anti-gun study’s authors admit that they can’t prove that the increase in gun sales caused the spike in violent crime, but outlets like the Washington Post will gloss over that inconvenient fact in order to spout nonsense like this:
Taken together, the findings paint a particularly bleak picture of the United States in 2020. Reeling from a pandemic, an economic downturn and a national reckoning with racism and police brutality, many Americans are choosing to arm themselves in the hope, perhaps, of protecting themselves in the event that circumstances get worse. The research suggests that at least some of the spike in gun purchases is driven by racist beliefs and attitudes among white Americans. And while many new gun buyers are motivated by wanting to secure their safety, the research also suggests that every gun purchased is a step toward a more violent society.
Yep, you read that right. The increase in violent crime in Democrat-run cities is largely the result of racist white Americans buying up guns, according to the Washington Post, and every gun that’s sold just sends us further along our path towards a dystopian future. Never mind the fact that for decades, violent crime has been dropping as Americans purchased tens of millions of firearms and millions of us obtained their concealed carry licenses. Never mind the fact that gun ownership among non-white Americans is increasing (admittedly, in large part because of concerns over racism). Never mind any and every bit of evidence that doesn’t point to American gun owners as racist rednecks who are shooting up their cities with the new guns they just bought.
Crime is spiking for a number of reasons, but the primary one is that criminals believe they can get away breaking the law. They’ve seen the court closures and the early releases because of coronavirus concerns. They’ve seen a move away from patrolling high-crime neighborhoods. They’ve seen local politicians and community leaders call for defunding police while refusing to hold violent criminals accountable. They’ve seen their neighbors grow more distrustful of police, even as they’ve become more frightened of the emboldened criminals causing such misery in their neighborhoods.
Criminals see these things and believe, not unreasonably, that their chances of getting away with murder (or assault, or robbery) are pretty good right now. The nation’s crime spike has much more to do with blue mayors and governors than new firearm purchases, but the Washington Post and the anti-gun academics it loves to amplify will continue to place the blame on you instead of where it belongs; on the politicians that are failing to protect their cities and the criminals emboldened by that catastrophic abdication of responsibility.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--The Gun Bans Of August

The Gun Bans Of August

Typically , August is a pretty slow month for state legislatures , but that ’ s not going to be the case in Virginia this year .
Technically , the state ’ s legislative session ended back in February , but Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s said that he ’ ll be calling lawmakers back for a special session sometime this summer , and it ’ s looking like late August is the most likely choice for that session to kick off .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I ’ m joined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gilbert ( R-Shenandoah ) , who tells me that even though Northam ’ s call for a special session was originally meant to tackle budget shortfalls caused by the coronavirus shutdowns , Democrats are viewing the session as an opportunity to push for sweeping policy changes to policing and the state ’ s gun laws .
Already this year Democrats approved a half-dozen measures that took effect on July 1st , but a ban on so-called assault weapons , large capacity magazines , and suppressors that was the centerpiece of Northam ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state Senate .
While nothing ’ s been announced officially , Del .
Gilbert says he expects that HB961 could be brought up in just a few weeks once lawmakers return to Richmond .
In February , four Democrat state senators voted against the bill , saying they had concerns with some of the specific language , but none of them declared that they were opposed in principal to a ban on some of the most commonly owned firearms , magazines , and accessories in the state .
Northam tried watering down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for firearms already in the hands of tens of thousands of Virginia gun owners , but even that wasn ’ t enough to get the four Democrats , most of whom represent rural parts of the state , on board in support of the measure .
On the one hand , I think it would be a huge tactical error for Democrats to make another attempt at passing a gun ban just months before the 2020 elections , even if they won ’ t be on the ballot in November ( the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be held until 2021 ) .
On the other hand , Democrats do believe this is a winning issue for them , believe it or not , and if they succeed in approving a ban , they would undoubtably view it as a legislative victory that will translate into increased voter enthusiasm for Democrats like Joe Biden when Election Day rolls around .
So , even though I think it would be a mistake , I fully expect that Democrats won ’ t be able to resist the pull to pass a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners were able to rally opposition to the bill this past winter , but we ’ re likely going to have to do it again late this summer and maybe into early fall .
Gilbert says Second Amendment supporters need to be contacting their legislators now to demand that they reject any gun control proposals that might be introduced in the special session , and the Virginia Citizens Defense League has actually set up a widget that allows folks to contact their legislators with just a few easy steps .
So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , and that ’ s before the special session has even been officially announced .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Del .
Todd Gilbert above , and stick around afterwards for more news , including an Illinois man facing murder charges who received probation for an aggravated robbery just a few months ago , a Cleveland man forced to defend his pregnant girlfriend from an attack by her dog , and a Good Samaritan in the right place at the right time to save a man from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Outer Banks .

Typically, August is a pretty slow month for state legislatures, but that’s not going to be the case in Virginia this year. Technically, the state’s legislative session ended back in February, but Gov. Ralph Northam’s said that he’ll be calling lawmakers back for a special session sometime this summer, and it’s looking like late August is the most likely choice for that session to kick off.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I’m joined by Virginia delegate and House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), who tells me that even though Northam’s call for a special session was originally meant to tackle budget shortfalls caused by the coronavirus shutdowns, Democrats are viewing the session as an opportunity to push for sweeping policy changes to policing and the state’s gun laws.
Already this year Democrats approved a half-dozen measures that took effect on July 1st, but a ban on so-called assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and suppressors that was the centerpiece of Northam’s anti-gun agenda failed to get out of the state Senate. While nothing’s been announced officially, Del. Gilbert says he expects that HB961 could be brought up in just a few weeks once lawmakers return to Richmond.
In February, four Democrat state senators voted against the bill, saying they had concerns with some of the specific language, but none of them declared that they were opposed in principal to a ban on some of the most commonly owned firearms, magazines, and accessories in the state. Northam tried watering down the bill to include a grandfather clause for firearms already in the hands of tens of thousands of Virginia gun owners, but even that wasn’t enough to get the four Democrats, most of whom represent rural parts of the state, on board in support of the measure.
On the one hand, I think it would be a huge tactical error for Democrats to make another attempt at passing a gun ban just months before the 2020 elections, even if they won’t be on the ballot in November (the state’s next legislative elections won’t be held until 2021). On the other hand, Democrats do believe this is a winning issue for them, believe it or not, and if they succeed in approving a ban, they would undoubtably view it as a legislative victory that will translate into increased voter enthusiasm for Democrats like Joe Biden when Election Day rolls around.
So, even though I think it would be a mistake, I fully expect that Democrats won’t be able to resist the pull to pass a gun ban in this August. Virginia gun owners were able to rally opposition to the bill this past winter, but we’re likely going to have to do it again late this summer and maybe into early fall. Gilbert says Second Amendment supporters need to be contacting their legislators now to demand that they reject any gun control proposals that might be introduced in the special session, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League has actually set up a widget that allows folks to contact their legislators with just a few easy steps. So far, more than 12,000 people have done so, and that’s before the special session has even been officially announced.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Del. Todd Gilbert above, and stick around afterwards for more news, including an Illinois man facing murder charges who received probation for an aggravated robbery just a few months ago, a Cleveland man forced to defend his pregnant girlfriend from an attack by her dog, and a Good Samaritan in the right place at the right time to save a man from a killer riptide on North Carolina’s Outer Banks.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--UK Government Blasted For Racist Weapons Policy

Anti-gunners often point to the United Kingdom as some kind of beacon of sane thought on firearms .
They routinely argue that we ’ re doing it all wrong and we should follow the lead of England .
Meanwhile , we ’ re also living in a world where just about everything is supposedly racist , even in England .
What do these two things have in common with one another ?
Well , it seems “ enlightened ” anti-gun England is just as racist about weapons policy as American anti-gunners have been .
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state people should not bring “ knives , replica guns , hammers or wrenches ” to hearings , and for searching visitors on arrival .
Similar physical security checks and bag searches are not in operation at the Infected Blood Inquiry , another high profile UK public inquiry where the majority of participants are white , HuffPost UK has learned .
But at the Grenfell hearings , where many of those impacted are from Black , Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds ( BAME ) , far tougher security checks are in place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and security guidance includes a detailed section on “ weapons ” and other items that can not be brought into the building .
Yvette Williams , of the Justice4Grenfell campaign group , said the differences were indicative of racial stereotyping of BAME and working class people presenting a greater risk .
“ I think it plays into racial stereotypes .
It plays into class politics as well , ” she said .
“ There ’ s a feeling that we need a higher level of security rather than the demographic who they assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It plays to stereotypes that we ’ re more of a risk , we ’ re more likely to be aggressive , we ’ re more likely to have a criminal element .
We don ’ t have the same level of behaviours as the upper middle classes.
” Of course , it ’ s also possible that Williams is reading too much into this .
We ’ ve seen people believe they ’ re being persecuted when nothing of the sort is going on , but instead , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , different organizations and different people come up with different policies .
It ’ s not like all these inquiries answer to the same person or anything , right ?
Well , the British government has argued that the inquiries themselves come up with the rules , but you ’ d think someone would have to approve them or something .
Of course , this shouldn ’ t be surprising .
Most gun control laws in this country have their roots in an effort to disarm minorities so they wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments .
Why should England be any different ?
In fairness , this might be precisely what they claim .
The people responsible for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry may have included the same policy–an idiotic policy , to be sure–if they were in charge of the blood inquiry .
Somehow , I doubt it , though .

Anti-gunners often point to the United Kingdom as some kind of beacon of sane thought on firearms. They routinely argue that we’re doing it all wrong and we should follow the lead of England.
Meanwhile, we’re also living in a world where just about everything is supposedly racist, even in England.
What do these two things have in common with one another? Well, it seems “enlightened” anti-gun England is just as racist about weapons policy as American anti-gunners have been.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has been accused of racism over security guidelines which state people should not bring “knives, replica guns, hammers or wrenches” to hearings, and for searching visitors on arrival. Similar physical security checks and bag searches are not in operation at the Infected Blood Inquiry, another high profile UK public inquiry where the majority of participants are white, HuffPost UK has learned. But at the Grenfell hearings, where many of those impacted are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (BAME), far tougher security checks are in place. Bag searches are carried out on entry and security guidance includes a detailed section on “weapons” and other items that cannot be brought into the building. Yvette Williams, of the Justice4Grenfell campaign group, said the differences were indicative of racial stereotyping of BAME and working class people presenting a greater risk. “I think it plays into racial stereotypes. It plays into class politics as well,” she said. “There’s a feeling that we need a higher level of security rather than the demographic who they assume are part of the contaminated blood inquiry. “It plays to stereotypes that we’re more of a risk, we’re more likely to be aggressive, we’re more likely to have a criminal element. We don’t have the same level of behaviours as the upper middle classes.”
Of course, it’s also possible that Williams is reading too much into this. We’ve seen people believe they’re being persecuted when nothing of the sort is going on, but instead, there is an innocent explanation for everything.
I mean, different organizations and different people come up with different policies. It’s not like all these inquiries answer to the same person or anything, right?
The disparity in security checks exists despite the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the Infected Blood Inquiry being sponsored and overseen by the same group of officials at the Cabinet Office and headed by the same senior civil servant.
Oh.
Well, the British government has argued that the inquiries themselves come up with the rules, but you’d think someone would have to approve them or something.
Of course, this shouldn’t be surprising. Most gun control laws in this country have their roots in an effort to disarm minorities so they wouldn’t be able to withstand oppression by racist governments. Why should England be any different?
In fairness, this might be precisely what they claim. The people responsible for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry may have included the same policy–an idiotic policy, to be sure–if they were in charge of the blood inquiry.
Somehow, I doubt it, though.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--Using "Contact Tracing" For Gun Control

Using "Contact Tracing" For Gun Control

One of the many buzzwords that took over the media amid the COVID-19 story was the term “ contact tracing.
” The idea was that by seeing who infected people had contact with , we could slow the spread of the disease .
After all , if they had contact with someone infected , there was a strong possibility they were infected and should self-quarantine and/or be tested themselves .
However , some are considering using contact tracing for something else .
It did not take the gun control crowd long to find ways to piggy-back onto the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recently-published article by a college professor , suggesting that COVID-19 contact tracing should be studied seriously as a solution to the problem of gun violence in America , reveals the partisan political agenda underlying much of the ongoing debate about the pandemic .
In the midst of all this , COVID contact tracing , using the power of ubiquitous “ smart ” phones to map patterns of contacts by individuals known to have or suspected of having contracted the virus , surfaced as a way to slow the spread of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing have to some extent tempered the rush to implement such programs ( or perhaps simply caused officials to do so less publicly ) .
Its emergence as a means of more broadly controlling people , however , has been seized by Nanny State advocates as a way to pursue government control of non-medical issues including , of course , gun control .
A recently-published article by Northwestern University sociology professor Andrew Papachristos is illustrative of this movement to employ invasive contact tracing to address other problems , such as gun violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no substance whatsoever .
Not once does the professor actually say how contact tracing data would solve gun violence , only that “ research ” of it – as some deus ex machina device – would magically solve the problem .
That nonsense , such as the kind promoted by Papachristos , would be taken seriously even to the extent of publication demonstrates the degree to which the Left will seize on virtually any occurrence , whether a viral pandemic , a police shooting , and especially the never-ending crusade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vehicle with which to further their political agenda .
This is part of the problem with thinking of violence as a public health issue .
It makes people start thinking of it as some kind of disease , which leads some to claim that contact tracing may be useful .
You see , violence isn ’ t contagious .
Someone doesn ’ t shoot their neighbor because they caught an infection from someone who shot the guy down the street .
Acts of violence , regardless of the weapon , are far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are numerous factors that determine whether someone is likely to become a violent criminal or not .
It doesn ’ t take things like economics , family life , or anything else into account .
That ’ s because all of that is , as noted earlier , complicated .
It ’ s not a simple problem and simple solutions won ’ t fix it .
Yet that ’ s about all the left has to offer , especially when it comes to guns .

One of the many buzzwords that took over the media amid the COVID-19 story was the term “contact tracing.” The idea was that by seeing who infected people had contact with, we could slow the spread of the disease. After all, if they had contact with someone infected, there was a strong possibility they were infected and should self-quarantine and/or be tested themselves.
However, some are considering using contact tracing for something else.
It did not take the gun control crowd long to find ways to piggy-back onto the COVID-19 pandemic scare and press their extremist agenda. A recently-published article by a college professor, suggesting that COVID-19 contact tracing should be studied seriously as a solution to the problem of gun violence in America, reveals the partisan political agenda underlying much of the ongoing debate about the pandemic. … In the midst of all this, COVID contact tracing, using the power of ubiquitous “smart” phones to map patterns of contacts by individuals known to have or suspected of having contracted the virus, surfaced as a way to slow the spread of the virus. The glaringly-obvious privacy problems inherent in contact tracing have to some extent tempered the rush to implement such programs (or perhaps simply caused officials to do so less publicly). Its emergence as a means of more broadly controlling people, however, has been seized by Nanny State advocates as a way to pursue government control of non-medical issues including, of course, gun control. A recently-published article by Northwestern University sociology professor Andrew Papachristos is illustrative of this movement to employ invasive contact tracing to address other problems, such as gun violence. In this particular proposal, however, there is no substance whatsoever. Not once does the professor actually say how contact tracing data would solve gun violence, only that “research” of it – as some deus ex machina device – would magically solve the problem. That nonsense, such as the kind promoted by Papachristos, would be taken seriously even to the extent of publication demonstrates the degree to which the Left will seize on virtually any occurrence, whether a viral pandemic, a police shooting, and especially the never-ending crusade to undermine the Second Amendment, as a vehicle with which to further their political agenda.
This is part of the problem with thinking of violence as a public health issue. It makes people start thinking of it as some kind of disease, which leads some to claim that contact tracing may be useful.
It’s not, though.
You see, violence isn’t contagious. Someone doesn’t shoot their neighbor because they caught an infection from someone who shot the guy down the street. Acts of violence, regardless of the weapon, are far more complicated than any disease vectors. There are numerous factors that determine whether someone is likely to become a violent criminal or not.
It doesn’t take things like economics, family life, or anything else into account. That’s because all of that is, as noted earlier, complicated. It’s not a simple problem and simple solutions won’t fix it.
Yet that’s about all the left has to offer, especially when it comes to guns.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--She Vowed To Protect The 2A. Now's She's Hired A Veteran Gun Control Activist.

Rep. Xochitl Torres Small is a first-term congresswoman representing New Mexico ’ s 2nd Congressional district ; a sprawling and typically conservative portion of the state that hadn ’ t sent a Democrat to Congress in years before Torres Small scored an upset in the 2018 blue wave .
Back then Torres Small presented herself as a supporter of the Second Amendment , even cutting an ad featuring her firing a shotgun while pretending to hunt .
CBS News covered the ad upon its release , calling it a signal “ to the conservative district she hopes to represent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat who wants to take away its guns.
” After she narrowly won election , however , Torres Small quickly embraced the Democrats ’ gun control agenda , voting in favor of universal background checks while still presenting herself as a “ gun owner and hunter ” in interactions with residents .
The Las Cruces Sun-News highlighted one exchange back in 2019 .
Asked for her preferred action on gun regulations , on a night falling about a month after the Aug. 3 mass shooting in nearby El Paso , Torres Small said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bear arms ) comes with its responsibilities , and that ’ s why I voted for comprehensive background checks .
Because I think , like most gun owners do , that we have to act responsibly and make sure we ’ re keeping our communities safe.
” Reminding the audience that she was a gun-owner and hunter , Torres Small said that she reviews gun control legislation asking “ the questions a gun owner would ask.
” Well , here ’ s one question a gun owner would ask : why on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment supporter hire a veteran of Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety to be her campaign manager ?
The Las Cruces Democrat recently announced that she had hired Emma Caccamo to win reelection in what is expected to be a close race in southern New Mexico ’ s swing district .
Caccamo is the former campaign manager for Democratic U.S. House hopeful Teresa Leger Fernandez in northern New Mexico .
Before working for Leger Fernandez , Caccamo served as deputy political director for Everytown for Gun Safety , a nonpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and against gun violence .
But some conservatives see the group and any proposed gun control measures as an attack on gun rights .
Michael Horanburg , campaign manager for Torres Small ’ s Republican challenger Yvette Herrell , said the hire reeked of hypocrisy from the Democratic congresswoman who shot a rifle in 2018 campaign television ads and often reminded voters in the rural region she was a hunter .
“ This is yet another example of Xochitl Torres Small saying one thing to get elected and doing the opposite when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By hiring a radical anti-gun operative to run her campaign Torres Small is again proving she does not support our Second Amendment , and that her actions are totally out of step with the values of New Mexico ’ s Second District.
” Caccamo wasn ’ t just some low-level staffer or volunteer with Everytown for Gun Safety .
The role of deputy political director meant that Caccamo was intimately involved in developing strategies to gut the Second Amendment rights of Americans , including those living in Torres Small ’ s congressional district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than four years at Everytown for Gun Safety , according to her LinkedIn profile , starting out as “ special assistant to the president ” in 2014 and working her way up the ranks of the anti-gun organization until she was named deputy political director in January of 2019 .
Caccamo served in that role for six months before departing the organization in June of last year to become campaign manager for Teresa Leger Fernandez , another New Mexico Democrat who ’ s running in the state ’ s 3rd congressional district .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Small campaign as its new manager , and it ’ s no surprise that Republicans in the district are pointing to the hire as yet another sign that Torres Small says one thing when she ’ s at home in the conservative district , and something else entirely when she ’ s voting in Washington , D.C .
The race between Torres Small and GOP challenger Yvette Herrell is a rematch of 2018 , when the Democrat ended up winning 51-49 over the Republican , who spent nearly a decade in the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s embrace of a longtime staffer of the biggest gun control group in the country should raise some eyebrows in the district , and while her campaign has so far avoided making any comment about the new hire , you can be sure that voters will be demanding answers in the days to come .

Rep. Xochitl Torres Small is a first-term congresswoman representing New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional district; a sprawling and typically conservative portion of the state that hadn’t sent a Democrat to Congress in years before Torres Small scored an upset in the 2018 blue wave. Back then Torres Small presented herself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, even cutting an ad featuring her firing a shotgun while pretending to hunt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHViPTnf3lQ
CBS News covered the ad upon its release, calling it a signal “to the conservative district she hopes to represent that she’s not the kind of Democrat who wants to take away its guns.”
After she narrowly won election, however, Torres Small quickly embraced the Democrats’ gun control agenda, voting in favor of universal background checks while still presenting herself as a “gun owner and hunter” in interactions with residents. The Las Cruces Sun-News highlighted one exchange back in 2019.
Asked for her preferred action on gun regulations, on a night falling about a month after the Aug. 3 mass shooting in nearby El Paso, Torres Small said, “The second amendment right (to bear arms) comes with its responsibilities, and that’s why I voted for comprehensive background checks. Because I think, like most gun owners do, that we have to act responsibly and make sure we’re keeping our communities safe.” Reminding the audience that she was a gun-owner and hunter, Torres Small said that she reviews gun control legislation asking “the questions a gun owner would ask.”
Well, here’s one question a gun owner would ask: why on earth would anyone claiming to be a Second Amendment supporter hire a veteran of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety to be her campaign manager?
The Las Cruces Democrat recently announced that she had hired Emma Caccamo to win reelection in what is expected to be a close race in southern New Mexico’s swing district. Caccamo is the former campaign manager for Democratic U.S. House hopeful Teresa Leger Fernandez in northern New Mexico. Before working for Leger Fernandez, Caccamo served as deputy political director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonpartisan advocacy group that pushes for gun control and against gun violence. But some conservatives see the group and any proposed gun control measures as an attack on gun rights. Michael Horanburg, campaign manager for Torres Small’s Republican challenger Yvette Herrell, said the hire reeked of hypocrisy from the Democratic congresswoman who shot a rifle in 2018 campaign television ads and often reminded voters in the rural region she was a hunter. “This is yet another example of Xochitl Torres Small saying one thing to get elected and doing the opposite when it matters,” Horanburg said. “By hiring a radical anti-gun operative to run her campaign Torres Small is again proving she does not support our Second Amendment, and that her actions are totally out of step with the values of New Mexico’s Second District.”
Caccamo wasn’t just some low-level staffer or volunteer with Everytown for Gun Safety. The role of deputy political director meant that Caccamo was intimately involved in developing strategies to gut the Second Amendment rights of Americans, including those living in Torres Small’s congressional district. In fact, Caccamo spent more than four years at Everytown for Gun Safety, according to her LinkedIn profile, starting out as “special assistant to the president” in 2014 and working her way up the ranks of the anti-gun organization until she was named deputy political director in January of 2019.
Caccamo served in that role for six months before departing the organization in June of last year to become campaign manager for Teresa Leger Fernandez, another New Mexico Democrat who’s running in the state’s 3rd congressional district. Now she’s joined the Torres Small campaign as its new manager, and it’s no surprise that Republicans in the district are pointing to the hire as yet another sign that Torres Small says one thing when she’s at home in the conservative district, and something else entirely when she’s voting in Washington, D.C.
The race between Torres Small and GOP challenger Yvette Herrell is a rematch of 2018, when the Democrat ended up winning 51-49 over the Republican, who spent nearly a decade in the New Mexico state legislature. Torres Small’s embrace of a longtime staffer of the biggest gun control group in the country should raise some eyebrows in the district, and while her campaign has so far avoided making any comment about the new hire, you can be sure that voters will be demanding answers in the days to come.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--Newport News Bans Open Carry In ANY Public Spaces

After the shooting in Virginia Beach , I ’ m not overly surprised to see some local governments in the Hampton Roads area looking to restrict guns as much as possible .
While they haven ’ t tripped over themselves as much as I figured some would , it was bound to happen .
It seems Newport News has stepped up to the plate and now has placed a ban open carry in various public spaces .
The approved ordinance prohibits “ the open possession , carrying , or transportation of any firearm , ammunition for a firearm , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1 ) any building , or portion thereof , owned by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the City ; ( 2 ) any building , or portion thereof , that is being used for governmental purposes by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the City ; ( 3 ) any recreation or community center facility , or public park , owned or operated by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any public street , road , alley , or sidewalk , or right-of-way , or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public.
” Now , while I disagree with regulating guns in public buildings , I at least understand the motivation there .
Even though the ordinance doesn ’ t impact concealed carry , openly carried guns freak some people out .
They don ’ t get that a gun exposed on the hip is one that ’ s rarely used for a criminal act .
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun and so governments want to feed into that hysteria .
However , the problem is that the law goes beyond just that .
It actually prohibits open carry almost everywhere else .
For one thing , if you want to open carry while you go for a walk , you can ’ t .
Sidewalks , roads , alleys , or anything of that sort is now off-limits for such carry .
In other words , if you don ’ t own a vehicle of your own and don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re just slap out of luck with regard to carrying a firearm for self-defense .
While the law doesn ’ t prohibit carry on buses , it does prohibit carrying to and from bus stops .
Further , that last bit that reads “ or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public ” is somewhat troubling , too .
You see , the term “ open to the public ” may include private businesses that are simply open to the public can come in for whatever reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues with firearms in their place of business .
Hell , it includes gun stores that may welcome it .
In other words , this simple ordinance goes well beyond limiting what you can do on city property , it also dictates that others can ’ t accept such carry in their own places of business , even if they want to .
That ’ s going way too far .
Then again , it ’ s not like the city of Newport News gives a damn about anyone ’ s rights anyway @ @ @ @ @

After the shooting in Virginia Beach, I’m not overly surprised to see some local governments in the Hampton Roads area looking to restrict guns as much as possible.
While they haven’t tripped over themselves as much as I figured some would, it was bound to happen.
It seems Newport News has stepped up to the plate and now has placed a ban open carry in various public spaces.
Newport News City Council voted new gun regulations on Tuesday night. … The approved ordinance prohibits “the open possession, carrying, or transportation of any firearm, ammunition for a firearm, or any components or combination thereof in: (1) any building, or portion thereof, owned by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the City; (2) any building, or portion thereof, that is being used for governmental purposes by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the City; (3) any recreation or community center facility, or public park, owned or operated by the City or any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the City; and (4) any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk, or right-of-way, or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public.”
Now, while I disagree with regulating guns in public buildings, I at least understand the motivation there. Even though the ordinance doesn’t impact concealed carry, openly carried guns freak some people out. They don’t get that a gun exposed on the hip is one that’s rarely used for a criminal act. No, they just freak at the sight of a gun and so governments want to feed into that hysteria.
However, the problem is that the law goes beyond just that. It actually prohibits open carry almost everywhere else.
For one thing, if you want to open carry while you go for a walk, you can’t. Sidewalks, roads, alleys, or anything of that sort is now off-limits for such carry. In other words, if you don’t own a vehicle of your own and don’t have a concealed carry license, you’re just slap out of luck with regard to carrying a firearm for self-defense. While the law doesn’t prohibit carry on buses, it does prohibit carrying to and from bus stops.
Further, that last bit that reads “or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public” is somewhat troubling, too.
You see, the term “open to the public”may include private businesses that are simply open to the public can come in for whatever reasons. Many of them may have zero issues with firearms in their place of business. Hell, it includes gun stores that may welcome it.
In other words, this simple ordinance goes well beyond limiting what you can do on city property, it also dictates that others can’t accept such carry in their own places of business, even if they want to.
That’s going way too far.
Then again, it’s not like the city of Newport News gives a damn about anyone’s rights anyway, now do they?


bearingarms--2020-07-15--Bloomberg Gun Group Eyes MN Senate Takeover With Million Dollar Ad Blitz

Everytown for Gun Safety announced on Tuesday that it ’ s planning to spend at least one million dollars this election cycle in an effort to flip the Minnesota state senate , where Republicans have a slim three-seat majority .
Those GOP votes have led to defeat for a couple of important agenda items for the anti-gun group , including a so-called universal background check bill and a red flag firearms seizure bill pushed by Gov .
Tim Walz and Democrats in the legislature .
The Northfield News reports that the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control group will target a dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defending some vulnerable Democrats in the state House as well .
Charlie Kelly , a national senior advisor for the fund , said $ 1 million could go “ extraordinarily far ” in Minnesota because they need only a net gain of two Senate seats .
The targeted districts include some that Walz won in 2018 .
Coupled with fieldwork by 200,000 Moms Demand Action supporters in Minnesota , he said , they could have an “ outsized impact ” on the races .
“ Our boots on the ground were a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor ’ s mansion ( in 2018 ) and you ’ re going to see that again in 2020 , ” he predicted .
The group also claims credit for helping Democrats take control of the full Virginia Assembly in 2019 on an aggressive gun control platform and the enactment of new laws there earlier this year .
“ No one knows the power of suburban moms better than Moms Demand Action , ” said Jessica Deweerth , a Minneapolis mother of two and co-leader of the Moms ’ state chapter .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see action.
” At a time of record-high gun sales and growing unrest in Minnesota ’ s biggest city , will the suburbs really embrace the Bloombergian gun control agenda ?
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus doesn ’ t think so .
“ We don ’ t have Michael Bloomberg in order to give us millions of dollars to spend on elections , but we do have a very motivated and grassroots-driven base , ” said Rob Doar , political director of the gun rights group .
He said his group typically spends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on legislative races .
But Doar downplayed the impact that Everytown and Moms Demand Action could have , saying every political cause claims credit when there ’ s a shift in political power .
He said he thinks President Donald Trump will be a much bigger factor in the November elections .
Not necessarily to the benefit of the GOP , I might add .
Doar says that Trump ’ s style “ does not relate well ” to Minnesota , though in 2016 , Trump nearly carried the state , losing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statewide in an election that saw 75 % voter turnout .
Doar know Minnesota politics better than I do , but I can ’ t help but think that beyond Donald Trump , voters are also going to be thinking about the push by Minneapolis City Council members to dismantle the city ’ s police department , as well as the response to the coronavirus on the part of Democrat Gov .
Tim Walz .
It may very well be that many suburban moms like the idea of more gun control , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulling public safety officers out of their local schools .
How do they vote in November ?
The anti-gun ad campaign against the dozen Republican state senators could have an impact on some voters , but the biggest key to political survival for those politicians is to turn out their base in November , and a million-dollar ad buy from Bloomberg may actually help the GOP candidates with their messaging .
“ Don ’ t let an out-of-state and out-of-touch billionaire gut your Second Amendment rights , ” is a pretty solid message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being true .
Bloomberg ’ s spending doesn ’ t guarantee that his candidates are going to win in November , but the state needs every gun owner to be engaged and involved as Election Day draws near , and reminding them of what ’ s at stake will be crucial to increasing their turnout .

Everytown for Gun Safety announced on Tuesday that it’s planning to spend at least one million dollars this election cycle in an effort to flip the Minnesota state senate, where Republicans have a slim three-seat majority. Those GOP votes have led to defeat for a couple of important agenda items for the anti-gun group, including a so-called universal background check bill and a red flag firearms seizure bill pushed by Gov. Tim Walz and Democrats in the legislature.
The Northfield News reports that the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control group will target a dozen Republican state senators this fall while also defending some vulnerable Democrats in the state House as well.
Charlie Kelly, a national senior advisor for the fund, said $1 million could go “extraordinarily far” in Minnesota because they need only a net gain of two Senate seats. The targeted districts include some that Walz won in 2018. Coupled with fieldwork by 200,000 Moms Demand Action supporters in Minnesota, he said, they could have an “outsized impact” on the races. “Our boots on the ground were a big part of flipping the House and the governor’s mansion (in 2018) and you’re going to see that again in 2020,” he predicted. The group also claims credit for helping Democrats take control of the full Virginia Assembly in 2019 on an aggressive gun control platform and the enactment of new laws there earlier this year. “No one knows the power of suburban moms better than Moms Demand Action,” said Jessica Deweerth, a Minneapolis mother of two and co-leader of the Moms’ state chapter. “They’re upset and ready to see action.”
At a time of record-high gun sales and growing unrest in Minnesota’s biggest city, will the suburbs really embrace the Bloombergian gun control agenda? The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus doesn’t think so.
“We don’t have Michael Bloomberg in order to give us millions of dollars to spend on elections, but we do have a very motivated and grassroots-driven base,” said Rob Doar, political director of the gun rights group. He said his group typically spends “a few hundred thousand dollars” on legislative races. But Doar downplayed the impact that Everytown and Moms Demand Action could have, saying every political cause claims credit when there’s a shift in political power. He said he thinks President Donald Trump will be a much bigger factor in the November elections.
Not necessarily to the benefit of the GOP, I might add. Doar says that Trump’s style “does not relate well” to Minnesota, though in 2016, Trump nearly carried the state, losing to Hillary Clinton by less than 50,000 votes statewide in an election that saw 75% voter turnout.
Doar know Minnesota politics better than I do, but I can’t help but think that beyond Donald Trump, voters are also going to be thinking about the push by Minneapolis City Council members to dismantle the city’s police department, as well as the response to the coronavirus on the part of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. It may very well be that many suburban moms like the idea of more gun control, but hate the idea of defunding police or pulling public safety officers out of their local schools. How do they vote in November?
The anti-gun ad campaign against the dozen Republican state senators could have an impact on some voters, but the biggest key to political survival for those politicians is to turn out their base in November, and a million-dollar ad buy from Bloomberg may actually help the GOP candidates with their messaging. “Don’t let an out-of-state and out-of-touch billionaire gut your Second Amendment rights,” is a pretty solid message, and it has the added benefit of being true. Bloomberg’s spending doesn’t guarantee that his candidates are going to win in November, but the state needs every gun owner to be engaged and involved as Election Day draws near, and reminding them of what’s at stake will be crucial to increasing their turnout.


bearingarms--2020-07-15--David Hogg Illustrates Anti-Gun Hypocrisy

Ever since Parkland , David Hogg has done everything he could to push gun control in every way imaginable .
I think he feels obligated to fire back at anything the NRA says , as part of that .
If the NRA tweeted that the sky was blue , he ’ d probably take issue with that as well .
However , Hogg recently took issue with something the NRA said , referring to the AR-15 as a “ modern musket , ” and managed to put his foot in it .
In particular , his own hypocrisy regarding firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know how to speak without profanity , so this is pretty mild for him .
Yet he also misses the damn point .
He misses it so much it ’ s almost impressive .
After all , no one is saying that the AR-15 is literally a musket .
We ’ re saying that it fills the same role as the musket back in the day .
It ’ s a weapon they can use to defend either their home or their nation as necessary .
But I ’ m not here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fun as that might be , there ’ s something far more important to discuss , something pointed out by Juanita Broderick .
And , really , that ’ s an excellent point .
Raz Simone handed out AR-15s to people in the CHOP in clear violation of state law .
We have this on video .
Even left-leaning Snopes confirmed it .
And Hogg was silent on that .
So were most other anti-gun jihadists .
They were absolutely silent despite the clear violations of Washington state law .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background checks , yet here we have Simone handing out guns to people without any such check .
He didn ’ t know if he was handing a firearm to a convicted felon or what .
The problem was , though , the people who want to enforce these rules on you and me were silent about what was taking place in the CHOP .
For all the rhetoric from people like Hogg that gun control isn ’ t a partisan issue , they ’ re partisan as hell in how they approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call out Republicans when they make comments that can be construed as anti-gun , yet Hogg will just pretend someone like Simone doesn ’ t exist because it goes against his personal politics .
Yet let ’ s also not beat up on Hogg too badly .
After all , he ’ s far from alone .
We didn ’ t hear from a lot of anti-gunners on what transpired , either .
Fred Gutenberg , Alyssa Milano , Shannon Watts , and Michael Bloomberg were all pretty quiet as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hypocrisy problem .
For all their claims that their position is non-partisan , they ’ re marching in lock-step with Democrats .
They won ’ t say anything that could possibly conflict with a Democratic talking point , even when it ’ s a clear violation of a law they all advocated for in Washington and they want implemented nation-wide .
Of course , many of them also wonder why so few of us take them seriously .
Well , this is why .
Hogg , a student at Harvard now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control as the cure to all our ills…so long as it ’ s their ideological opponents who are the ones with the guns .
Can ’ t imagine why we wouldn ’ t just give up our guns knowing that little tidbit , now can we ?

Ever since Parkland, David Hogg has done everything he could to push gun control in every way imaginable. I think he feels obligated to fire back at anything the NRA says, as part of that. If the NRA tweeted that the sky was blue, he’d probably take issue with that as well.
However, Hogg recently took issue with something the NRA said, referring to the AR-15 as a “modern musket,” and managed to put his foot in it. In particular, his own hypocrisy regarding firearms.
6 minutes 20 seconds Is all it took for the shooter at my high school to fire over 100 rounds from his AR-15 to shoot 34 people. In that same amount of time even the most trained person would have only been able to fire 18 rounds with a musket. Modern day musket my ass https://t.co/ED2Tyxxdrc — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) July 12, 2020
Because really, Hogg doesn’t know how to speak without profanity, so this is pretty mild for him.
Yet he also misses the damn point. He misses it so much it’s almost impressive. After all, no one is saying that the AR-15 is literally a musket. We’re saying that it fills the same role as the musket back in the day. It’s a weapon they can use to defend either their home or their nation as necessary.
But I’m not here to dissect Hogg’s stupid comments. Fun as that might be, there’s something far more important to discuss, something pointed out by Juanita Broderick.
Where was your outrage when the leader of Chaz was handing out AR-15’s like candy? https://t.co/hwKoE3cT0y — Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) July 13, 2020
And, really, that’s an excellent point. Raz Simone handed out AR-15s to people in the CHOP in clear violation of state law. We have this on video. Even left-leaning Snopes confirmed it.
And Hogg was silent on that. So were most other anti-gun jihadists. They were absolutely silent despite the clear violations of Washington state law. After all, this is a state with universal background checks, yet here we have Simone handing out guns to people without any such check. He didn’t know if he was handing a firearm to a convicted felon or what.
Frankly, he didn’t care.
The problem was, though, the people who want to enforce these rules on you and me were silent about what was taking place in the CHOP.
For all the rhetoric from people like Hogg that gun control isn’t a partisan issue, they’re partisan as hell in how they approach gun control. I’m willing to call out Republicans when they make comments that can be construed as anti-gun, yet Hogg will just pretend someone like Simone doesn’t exist because it goes against his personal politics.
Yet let’s also not beat up on Hogg too badly. After all, he’s far from alone. We didn’t hear from a lot of anti-gunners on what transpired, either. Fred Gutenberg, Alyssa Milano, Shannon Watts, and Michael Bloomberg were all pretty quiet as well.
And that’s because anti-gunners have a hypocrisy problem. For all their claims that their position is non-partisan, they’re marching in lock-step with Democrats. They won’t say anything that could possibly conflict with a Democratic talking point, even when it’s a clear violation of a law they all advocated for in Washington and they want implemented nation-wide.
Of course, many of them also wonder why so few of us take them seriously. Well, this is why.
Hogg, a student at Harvard now, is just one of many hypocrites touting gun control as the cure to all our ills…so long as it’s their ideological opponents who are the ones with the guns.
Can’t imagine why we wouldn’t just give up our guns knowing that little tidbit, now can we?


bearingarms--2020-07-15--MO Gov Says Trump's Offered To Help The McCloskeys

As St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner continues to weigh charges against the St. Louis couple who displayed their firearms as protesters made their way through the private neighborhood where the pair live , President Donald Trump is offering to lend a hand to Mark and Patricia McCloskey .
That ’ s according to Missouri Gov .
Brad Parson , who spoke to the president earlier this week .
At a Tuesday press conference , Parsons blasted the attempt to prosecute the McCloskeys for protecting their property .
“ The couple had every right to protect their property , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing .
“ They have the ability to do that as private citizens like everyone else.
” Parson argues that the couple should not have to face legal ramifications for their second amendment right .
“ But what they should not go through is a prosecutor attempting to take their constitutional rights away by plotting charges against them for protecting their property , ” Parson said .
As for his conversation with the president , the governor said that , “ He understands the situation in Missouri , he understands the situation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off and to not do their job and try to attack law-abiding citizens , ” adding that Trump told Parson that he would do “ everything he could ” to help the couple .
So what can the president actually do for the McCloskeys ?
He doesn ’ t have the authority to order Gardner to drop her case , and if the couple were convicted on state-level charges , the president doesn ’ t have the power to pardon them or commute their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or folks within his administration are reaching out to law enforcement to ensure that there ’ s some sort of police presence on the ground when protesters target the McCloskeys again .
In fact , while talking with Sean Hannity on Fox News earlier this week , Mark McCloskey was asked about rumors that the president “ sent in people ” to protect the neighborhood .
His response ?
“ That ’ s the information we have , ” McCloskey responded .
“ I think we got help from the very top .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , from the federal government , from the state government , the local police department .
That night everybody stood up like champs but it came from the top down .
“ I can ’ t express my appreciation enough for everybody involved , ” he added .
St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner , meanwhile , accused Gov .
Parson and President Trump of inserting politics into the case , according to the Washington Post .
Gardner has no real room to talk , considering she accused the McCloskeys of trampling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within hours of the incident outside of their home .
All indications are that the prosecutor had already decided that the McCloskeys needed to be punished before she ever determined if a crime had been committed .

As St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner continues to weigh charges against the St. Louis couple who displayed their firearms as protesters made their way through the private neighborhood where the pair live, President Donald Trump is offering to lend a hand to Mark and Patricia McCloskey. That’s according to Missouri Gov. Brad Parson, who spoke to the president earlier this week.
At a Tuesday press conference, Parsons blasted the attempt to prosecute the McCloskeys for protecting their property.
“The couple had every right to protect their property,” Governor Parson said in a Tuesday press briefing. “They have the ability to do that as private citizens like everyone else.” Parson argues that the couple should not have to face legal ramifications for their second amendment right. “But what they should not go through is a prosecutor attempting to take their constitutional rights away by plotting charges against them for protecting their property,” Parson said.
As for his conversation with the president, the governor said that, “He understands the situation in Missouri, he understands the situation in St. Louis and how out of control it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off and to not do their job and try to attack law-abiding citizens,” adding that Trump told Parson that he would do “everything he could” to help the couple.
So what can the president actually do for the McCloskeys? He doesn’t have the authority to order Gardner to drop her case, and if the couple were convicted on state-level charges, the president doesn’t have the power to pardon them or commute their sentences.
One possibility is that Trump or folks within his administration are reaching out to law enforcement to ensure that there’s some sort of police presence on the ground when protesters target the McCloskeys again. In fact, while talking with Sean Hannity on Fox News earlier this week, Mark McCloskey was asked about rumors that the president “sent in people” to protect the neighborhood. His response?
“That’s the information we have,” McCloskey responded. “I think we got help from the very top. That night, we had cooperation, I think, from the federal government, from the state government, the local police department. That night everybody stood up like champs but it came from the top down. “I can’t express my appreciation enough for everybody involved,” he added.
St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner, meanwhile, accused Gov. Parson and President Trump of inserting politics into the case, according to the Washington Post.
Gardner said the facts of the case and the applicable laws are still under review and she would “apply them equally, regardless of the people involved.” “It is unbelievable the Governor of the state of Missouri would seek advice from one of the most divisive leaders in our generation to overpower the discretion of a locally elected prosecutor,” Gardner said in a statement.
Gardner has no real room to talk, considering she accused the McCloskeys of trampling on the First Amendment rights of protesters within hours of the incident outside of their home. All indications are that the prosecutor had already decided that the McCloskeys needed to be punished before she ever determined if a crime had been committed.