bearingarms--2020-01-07--New Study Argues Local "Control" Is Under Attack In Florida

As an American , there are a few words I don ’ t want anyone trying to use to describe their actions toward me .
One of the biggest is “ control.
” As a free man , I don ’ t want anyone controlling me , at least not without my consent .
For example , if I exchange my efforts for money , then that money does come with some expectation of my employer having some control over what I do .
However , it ’ s not complete control because I can quit .
Yet when people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I get more than a little nervous .
Especially on topics like guns .
However , a Florida news report on a study uses that exact word when attacking the state on issues like preemption .
Local governments ability to control their own communities is under attack .
That ’ s the message from a new report published by a government watchdog group in the state capitol , suggesting state lawmakers have become increasingly aggressive when it comes to preempting local governments on issues from plastic straws to gun control .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have proposed 119 bills that would preempt local governments in various ways .
Sixteen have already been filed for the 2020 session .
“ It shows you the concerted effort on a yearly basis to limit the power of local governments , ” said Ben Wilcox with Integrity Florida .
Yet note that first sentence .
“ [ C ] ontrol their own communities.
” Now , I ’ ve outlined time and time again why preemption of gun control makes sense .
After all , the last thing we need are people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a gun charge when just a matter of a few feet away , what they ’ re doing is perfectly legal .
The courts have found that ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking it , so preemption makes it so people only need to learn one set of gun laws .
Local ordinances are necessary for a number of issues , but the gun debate sure as hell isn ’ t one of them .
The truth is , states are having to step up because local communities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depriving them of their rights to choose .
The organization in question , however , isn ’ t so much of a governmental watchdog as a leftist watchdog group .
After all , they ’ re taking issue with preemption by claiming it negates the ability for local governments to make decisions of themselves , but in 2018 this same organization attacked charter schools .
Charter schools are created by local school boards and parents–something far more local than the legislature–and opens up the opportunity for innovation .
Further , if they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re a lot easy to shut down .
Yet leftists hate them , and Integrity Florida attacked them .
Probably because charter schools also aren ’ t required to adhere to state-approved curriculums and can teach in ways that don ’ t necessarily indoctrinate students to left-leaning ideologies .
In other words , “ Integrity ” isn ’ t really part of Integrity Florida ’ s mission .
Instead , they ’ re a mouthpiece of anti-gun leftists who are using the term to hide their own involvement and pretend this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what side is most likely to decry the lack of “ diversity ” in President Trump ’ s judicial nominees ?
At the end of the day , though , Integrity Florida is really more interested in control than rights , and that ’ s a huge problem for millions of people in Florida , as it should be .

As an American, there are a few words I don’t want anyone trying to use to describe their actions toward me. One of the biggest is “control.” As a free man, I don’t want anyone controlling me, at least not without my consent. For example, if I exchange my efforts for money, then that money does come with some expectation of my employer having some control over what I do.
However, it’s not complete control because I can quit.
Yet when people talk about governments having “control,” I get more than a little nervous. Especially on topics like guns. However, a Florida news report on a study uses that exact word when attacking the state on issues like preemption.
Local governments ability to control their own communities is under attack. That’s the message from a new report published by a government watchdog group in the state capitol, suggesting state lawmakers have become increasingly aggressive when it comes to preempting local governments on issues from plastic straws to gun control. Over the past three years, state lawmakers have proposed 119 bills that would preempt local governments in various ways. Sixteen have already been filed for the 2020 session. “It shows you the concerted effort on a yearly basis to limit the power of local governments,” said Ben Wilcox with Integrity Florida.
Yet note that first sentence. “[C]ontrol their own communities.”
Wow.
Now, I’ve outlined time and time again why preemption of gun control makes sense. After all, the last thing we need are people who travel through the state being arrested on a gun charge when just a matter of a few feet away, what they’re doing is perfectly legal. The courts have found that ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking it, so preemption makes it so people only need to learn one set of gun laws.
That’s not overly difficult to understand.
Local ordinances are necessary for a number of issues, but the gun debate sure as hell isn’t one of them.
The truth is, states are having to step up because local communities are trying to control their residents, thus depriving them of their rights to choose.
The organization in question, however, isn’t so much of a governmental watchdog as a leftist watchdog group. After all, they’re taking issue with preemption by claiming it negates the ability for local governments to make decisions of themselves, but in 2018 this same organization attacked charter schools.
Charter schools are created by local school boards and parents–something far more local than the legislature–and opens up the opportunity for innovation. Further, if they don’t fulfill their mission, they’re a lot easy to shut down.
Yet leftists hate them, and Integrity Florida attacked them. Probably because charter schools also aren’t required to adhere to state-approved curriculums and can teach in ways that don’t necessarily indoctrinate students to left-leaning ideologies.
In other words, “Integrity” isn’t really part of Integrity Florida’s mission. Instead, they’re a mouthpiece of anti-gun leftists who are using the term to hide their own involvement and pretend this is a non-partisan effort. After all, what side is most likely to decry the lack of “diversity” in President Trump’s judicial nominees?
At the end of the day, though, Integrity Florida is really more interested in control than rights, and that’s a huge problem for millions of people in Florida, as it should be.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Wisconsin County Wants To Send A 2A Message To Lawmakers

Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in Brown County , Wisconsin have a simple message for legislators in the state : “ Don ’ t do what Virginia is doing.
” Several dozen supporters of a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution turned out to support the language at the Brown County board of supervisors meeting on Monday , where the Green Bay Press-Gazette reports the resolution received the unanimous backing of the board , but not before they made some changes .
The board ’ s Executive Committee voted 7-0 to recommend the county proclaim its intent to oppose future legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ right to keep and bear arms .
The committee also recommend the county declare itself a “ Second Amendment Sanctuary.
” But members removed controversial — and possibly illegal — language that said the sheriff could refuse to enforce future gun-control laws if he deemed them unconstitutional .
David Hemery , the county ’ s chief legal officer , said such a measure likely would have violated supervisors ’ oaths of office .
The language that was stripped from the resolution is a little different than what we ’ ve seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed in Virginia in recent months .
The vast majority of resolutions in Virginia have expressed the desire by county supervisors to not spend any public resources on enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws , but doesn ’ t actually direct the sheriff to not enforce any law .
The weaker resolution was proposed by Board Chairman Patrick Moynihan Jr.
It ’ s a compromise between the wishes of board members who wanted to protect residents against what they fear will be attempts by the state or federal government to improperly limit gun-ownership rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be improper to try to direct a sheriff , elected by the voters , to not enforce a law that might or might not be enacted in the future .
Supervisor Steve Deslauriers of Hollandtown proposed the sanctuary measure in December , saying that further tightening of gun laws threatens to take “ the most-effective weapon away ” from someone who might need a gun for self defense .
“ What this is is a strong message to legislators to not do what Virginia is doing , ” said Deslauriers , a gun-owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution … anyone who thinks the Second amendment is not under attack is naive.
” In Wisconsin , Governor Tony Evers has been pushing for lawmakers to pass several gun control bills , including a “ red flag ” proposal that would allow courts to strip gun owners of their right to keep and bear arms before they ever get their day in court .
Brown County ’ s resolution , which is expected to be approved when supervisors meet on January 15th , doesn ’ t specifically mention the red-flag proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way of pushing back on the governor ’ s idea .
If Brown County does approve the resolution , they ’ ll be the second 2A Sanctuary in the state .
Florence County was the first to adopt a similar resolution back in November , and there are rumblings that other counties could soon take up resolutions of their own .
Meanwhile , the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement continues to grow in Virginia , with the city of Virginia Beach approving a pro-2A resolution on Monday night as thousands of supporters packed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the building onto the front law .
On Virginia ’ s Eastern Shore , council members in Chincoteague also voted unanimously to declare the town a a Second Amendment Sanctuary at its meeting Monday night .
As Shore Daily News notes , the vote puts more political pressure on the local state Senator .
Ironically the local decisions may put Senator Lynwood Lewis in the center of negotiations to come up with legislation that will satisfy gun control Democrats but at the same time fall short of confiscating or outlawing certain types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Accomack and Northampton counties and urban areas of Norfolk .
Even though Democrats now control the legislature by a narrow margin , passage of Northam ’ s recommendations may hinge on delegates and senators whose districts include rural areas which oppose the strict proposals .
Virginia gun owners are going to keep up the pressure , as 2A supporters around the nation keep up the momentum for Second Amendment Sanctuaries .
While there are now hundreds of counties , cities , and towns that have joined the movement , I expect hundreds more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November .

Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in Brown County, Wisconsin have a simple message for legislators in the state: “Don’t do what Virginia is doing.”
Several dozen supporters of a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution turned out to support the language at the Brown County board of supervisors meeting on Monday, where the Green Bay Press-Gazette reports the resolution received the unanimous backing of the board, but not before they made some changes.
The board’s Executive Committee voted 7-0 to recommend the county proclaim its intent to oppose future legislation the county deems would infringe on residents’ right to keep and bear arms. The committee also recommend the county declare itself a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” But members removed controversial — and possibly illegal — language that said the sheriff could refuse to enforce future gun-control laws if he deemed them unconstitutional. David Hemery, the county’s chief legal officer, said such a measure likely would have violated supervisors’ oaths of office.
The language that was stripped from the resolution is a little different than what we’ve seen in most Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have passed in Virginia in recent months. The vast majority of resolutions in Virginia have expressed the desire by county supervisors to not spend any public resources on enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws, but doesn’t actually direct the sheriff to not enforce any law.
The weaker resolution was proposed by Board Chairman Patrick Moynihan Jr. It’s a compromise between the wishes of board members who wanted to protect residents against what they fear will be attempts by the state or federal government to improperly limit gun-ownership rights, and those concerned that it would be improper to try to direct a sheriff, elected by the voters, to not enforce a law that might or might not be enacted in the future. Supervisor Steve Deslauriers of Hollandtown proposed the sanctuary measure in December, saying that further tightening of gun laws threatens to take “the most-effective weapon away” from someone who might need a gun for self defense. “What this is is a strong message to legislators to not do what Virginia is doing,” said Deslauriers, a gun-owner. “It’s counter to the Constitution … anyone who thinks the Second amendment is not under attack is naive.”
In Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers has been pushing for lawmakers to pass several gun control bills, including a “red flag” proposal that would allow courts to strip gun owners of their right to keep and bear arms before they ever get their day in court. Brown County’s resolution, which is expected to be approved when supervisors meet on January 15th, doesn’t specifically mention the red-flag proposal, but is seen by supporters as a way of pushing back on the governor’s idea.
If Brown County does approve the resolution, they’ll be the second 2A Sanctuary in the state. Florence County was the first to adopt a similar resolution back in November, and there are rumblings that other counties could soon take up resolutions of their own.
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement continues to grow in Virginia, with the city of Virginia Beach approving a pro-2A resolution on Monday night as thousands of supporters packed the city council chambers and spilled out of the building onto the front law. On Virginia’s Eastern Shore, council members in Chincoteague also voted unanimously to declare the town a a Second Amendment Sanctuary at its meeting Monday night. As Shore Daily News notes, the vote puts more political pressure on the local state Senator.
Ironically the local decisions may put Senator Lynwood Lewis in the center of negotiations to come up with legislation that will satisfy gun control Democrats but at the same time fall short of confiscating or outlawing certain types of weapons. Lewis represents both rural Accomack and Northampton counties and urban areas of Norfolk. Even though Democrats now control the legislature by a narrow margin, passage of Northam’s recommendations may hinge on delegates and senators whose districts include rural areas which oppose the strict proposals.
Virginia gun owners are going to keep up the pressure, as 2A supporters around the nation keep up the momentum for Second Amendment Sanctuaries. While there are now hundreds of counties, cities, and towns that have joined the movement, I expect hundreds more will follow between now and Election Day in November.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--So Much For March For Our Lives Being Grassroots Effort

March For Our Lives is supposed to be something of a gamechanger in the gun debate .
After all , here ’ s a grassroots effort made up of kids who are demanding gun control as a way to combat school shootings .
These may not all be voters , but they ’ re future voters that lawmakers need to at least consider as they move forward with their legislative agendas .
At least , that was the theory .
The reality , though , seems to be that March For Our Lives is nothing but a big old pile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a 2018 march on Washington , D.C. , raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures , a recently released tax document shows .
The March For Our Lives Action Fund , a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) “ social welfare ” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida ’ s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School , is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $ 100,000 .
The group reported $ 17,879,150 in contributions and grants over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year of operations .
Ninety-five percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $ 100,000 and $ 3,504,717—a grand total of $ 16,922,331 .
The group ’ s reliance on a small number of large donations raises questions about its ability to turn rally-goers and supporters into donors .
It also provides ammunition to gun-rights activists who have long cast the gun-control movement as driven not by grassroots supporters , but by billionaire benefactors like Michael Bloomberg .
The group ’ s 990 tax form shows another 38 donations totaling between $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounted for an additional $ 876,114 of revenue .
The remainder , just 0.5 percent of total receipts , came from those giving less than $ 5,000 .
In fairness , school kids don ’ t usually have money to donate .
However , the fact is that this kind of fundraising is par for the course for the gun control crowd .
That ’ s because despite what anti-gunners like to proclaim , gun control just isn ’ t that much of a priority for most people .
They just don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
They might skip work or school to attend a rally , but they won ’ t put their money up for it because those who are interested in donating are typically looking at other causes first .
Gun control may be something many people support , but it ’ s not that high up on their personal hierarchies .
That means for gun control groups to function , they need big-money donors like old Mike Bloomberg and his ilk .
March For Our Lives , despite claims that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s nothing but another Bloomberg-funded group that seeks to infringe upon our rights .
Not that anyone is overly surprised to learn this , of course .
After all , Bloomberg tends to want to have his fingers in all the gun control pies and has enough money that people let him .
Yet the lack of ordinary donors–those who are donating less than $ 5,000–tells us just how little the ordinary Americans actually value their work and their message .
To be clear , I understand the polls suggest most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve disputed the validity of those polls for a while now , and this is another data point that suggests those polls are meaningless .
If people want gun control that badly , why aren ’ t they backing gun control groups with donations ?
After all , the much-vilified NRA gets a lot more in the way of donations in that particular monetary range .
Make of that what you will .

March For Our Lives is supposed to be something of a gamechanger in the gun debate. After all, here’s a grassroots effort made up of kids who are demanding gun control as a way to combat school shootings. These may not all be voters, but they’re future voters that lawmakers need to at least consider as they move forward with their legislative agendas.
At least, that was the theory.
The reality, though, seems to be that March For Our Lives is nothing but a big old pile of astroturf.
The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C., raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently released tax document shows. The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. Ninety-five percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331. The group’s reliance on a small number of large donations raises questions about its ability to turn rally-goers and supporters into donors. It also provides ammunition to gun-rights activists who have long cast the gun-control movement as driven not by grassroots supporters, but by billionaire benefactors like Michael Bloomberg. The group’s 990 tax form shows another 38 donations totaling between $5,000 and $100,000, which together accounted for an additional $876,114 of revenue. The remainder, just 0.5 percent of total receipts, came from those giving less than $5,000.
In fairness, school kids don’t usually have money to donate.
However, the fact is that this kind of fundraising is par for the course for the gun control crowd. That’s because despite what anti-gunners like to proclaim, gun control just isn’t that much of a priority for most people. They just don’t get that worked up about the issue. They might skip work or school to attend a rally, but they won’t put their money up for it because those who are interested in donating are typically looking at other causes first.
Gun control may be something many people support, but it’s not that high up on their personal hierarchies.
That means for gun control groups to function, they need big-money donors like old Mike Bloomberg and his ilk. March For Our Lives, despite claims that it’s different, really isn’t. It’s nothing but another Bloomberg-funded group that seeks to infringe upon our rights.
Not that anyone is overly surprised to learn this, of course. After all, Bloomberg tends to want to have his fingers in all the gun control pies and has enough money that people let him.
Yet the lack of ordinary donors–those who are donating less than $5,000–tells us just how little the ordinary Americans actually value their work and their message.
To be clear, I understand the polls suggest most people want more gun control. However, I’ve disputed the validity of those polls for a while now, and this is another data point that suggests those polls are meaningless.
If people want gun control that badly, why aren’t they backing gun control groups with donations?
After all, the much-vilified NRA gets a lot more in the way of donations in that particular monetary range. Make of that what you will.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Bloomberg Campaign Now Has 800 Staffers In 30 States

Former New York mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg continues to ramp up his campaign spending in his bid to become the Democrat nominee for president .
Not only has the anti-gun billionaire spent nearly $ 200-million on campaign advertising over the past six weeks , Reuters reports that Bloomberg has added hundreds of paid staffers to his campaign as well .
Bloomberg ’ s hires reflect an unorthodox , risky strategy of focusing on the Democratic nominating contests in March and skipping the important first matchup – the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3 – as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Carolina .
He has hired about 500 staff members in more than 30 states , in addition to about 300 at his New York campaign headquarters , a campaign spokeswoman said .
The campaign did not disclose state-by-state staffing tallies , but the organization ’ s states director , Dan Kanninen , said there were staff “ on the ground in every Super Tuesday ” contest .
“ We will compete everywhere , ” said Kanninen .
“ Our campaign is building the most robust national organization and infrastructure to beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a poll for the first time this week .
A Hill-HarrisX poll shows Bloomberg tied with Elizabeth Warren for third place with 11 % of Democrat primary voters , though Bloomberg is still far behind front runner Joe Biden , who has the support of 28 % of respondents .
Bloomberg is still having some trouble sealing the support of what should be his most enthusiastic voting bloc : gun control advocates .
The Times of San Diego reported on a recent campaign swing by Bloomberg , and noted the San Diego @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still can ’ t say she ’ s going to vote for him .
[ Wendy ] Wheatcroft , the former state Moms Demand Action leader who hosted the second gathering at her split-level home near San Carlos , said she wasn ’ t planning to make a formal endorsement .
She hadn ’ t spoken with Bloomberg before his appearance , she said , but was delighted to get a call from his local camp about helping her fellow gun-safety advocate .
( He founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money helped 21 of 24 like-minded first-time congressional candidates win slim victories in 2018 . )
“ Hosting a presidential candidate in my backyard today is just another example that we are living in crazy times , ” Wheatcroft said in introducing the 2002-2013 New York mayor .
“ And we all must do everything possible to take back this country.
” Also hesitant to join the Bloomberg bandwagon was Rep. Scott Peters , who attended the Fuse event .
He said he was there to hear from a fellow moderate .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff , MaryAnne Pintar , to the Bloomberg campaign . )
Happy to host Bloomberg , but not nearly as eager to announce her support for the billionaire .
That ’ s a problem for Bloomberg , though not an insurmountable challenge .
He remains focused on the Super Tuesday primaries in early March , and I suspect that as we get closer to those primaries on March 3rd , Bloomberg will spread enough cash around to get the vocal backing of many gun control advocates in delegate-rich states like California .
Cam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Former New York mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg continues to ramp up his campaign spending in his bid to become the Democrat nominee for president. Not only has the anti-gun billionaire spent nearly $200-million on campaign advertising over the past six weeks, Reuters reports that Bloomberg has added hundreds of paid staffers to his campaign as well.
Bloomberg’s hires reflect an unorthodox, risky strategy of focusing on the Democratic nominating contests in March and skipping the important first matchup – the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3 – as well as key primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. He has hired about 500 staff members in more than 30 states, in addition to about 300 at his New York campaign headquarters, a campaign spokeswoman said. The campaign did not disclose state-by-state staffing tallies, but the organization’s states director, Dan Kanninen, said there were staff “on the ground in every Super Tuesday” contest. “We will compete everywhere,” said Kanninen. “Our campaign is building the most robust national organization and infrastructure to beat Donald Trump.”
Bloomberg reached double digits in a poll for the first time this week. A Hill-HarrisX poll shows Bloomberg tied with Elizabeth Warren for third place with 11% of Democrat primary voters, though Bloomberg is still far behind front runner Joe Biden, who has the support of 28% of respondents.
Bloomberg is still having some trouble sealing the support of what should be his most enthusiastic voting bloc: gun control advocates. The Times of San Diego reported on a recent campaign swing by Bloomberg, and noted the San Diego resident who hosted a gathering for Bloomberg still can’t say she’s going to vote for him.
[Wendy] Wheatcroft, the former state Moms Demand Action leader who hosted the second gathering at her split-level home near San Carlos, said she wasn’t planning to make a formal endorsement. She hadn’t spoken with Bloomberg before his appearance, she said, but was delighted to get a call from his local camp about helping her fellow gun-safety advocate. (He founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety, and claimed that his money helped 21 of 24 like-minded first-time congressional candidates win slim victories in 2018.) “Hosting a presidential candidate in my backyard today is just another example that we are living in crazy times,” Wheatcroft said in introducing the 2002-2013 New York mayor. “And we all must do everything possible to take back this country.” Also hesitant to join the Bloomberg bandwagon was Rep. Scott Peters, who attended the Fuse event. He said he was there to hear from a fellow moderate. (He recently lost his district chief of staff, MaryAnne Pintar, to the Bloomberg campaign.)
Happy to host Bloomberg, but not nearly as eager to announce her support for the billionaire. That’s a problem for Bloomberg, though not an insurmountable challenge. He remains focused on the Super Tuesday primaries in early March, and I suspect that as we get closer to those primaries on March 3rd, Bloomberg will spread enough cash around to get the vocal backing of many gun control advocates in delegate-rich states like California.


bearingarms--2020-01-08--VA Dems Introduce New Gun And Ammo Bans As Session Begins

Virginia Democrats have introduced a revised ban on so-called “ assault weapons ” that requires existing gun owners to register their firearms with the state , and also bans outright the possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds as well as a ban on suppressors and “ trigger activators ” .
According to the legislative summary by Delegate Mark Levine , HB 961 : Under the terms of this bill , every ammunition magazine in the state of Virginia that can accept more than ten rounds would have to be permanently modified to only hold ten rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed from the state .
This language is very similar to the language of New Jersey ’ s magazine ban , which is currently being challenged by residents in court .
Suppressors would have to be turned in , destroyed , or removed from the state of Virginia as well .
No compensated confiscation here , just “ Mr.-and-Mrs.-Virginia turn them all in.
” Now let ’ s take a look at the “ revised ” ban on so-called assault weapons .
1 .
A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds ; 2 .
A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics : ( i ) a folding or telescoping stock ; ( ii ) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle ; ( iii ) a thumbhole stock ; ( iv ) a second handgrip or a protruding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-trigger hand ; ( v ) a bayonet mount ; ( vi ) a grenade launcher ; ( vii ) a flare launcher ; ( viii ) a silencer ; ( ix ) a flash suppressor ; ( x ) a muzzle brake ; ( xi ) a muzzle compensator ; ( xii ) a threaded barrel capable of accepting ( a ) a silencer , ( b ) a flash suppressor , ( c ) a muzzle brake , or ( d ) a muzzle compensator ; or ( xiii ) any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clauses ( i ) through ( xii ) ; 3 .
A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds ; 4 .
A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics : ( i ) a folding or telescoping stock ; ( ii ) a thumbhole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand ; ( iv ) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip ; ( v ) a shroud that is attached to , or partially or completely encircles , the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned ; ( vi ) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded ; ( vii ) a threaded barrel capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ( b ) a flash suppressor , ( c ) a barrel extender , or ( d ) a forward handgrip ; or ( viii ) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses ( i ) through ( vii ) ; 5 .
A shotgun with a revolving cylinder that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material ; or 6 .
A semi-automatic shotgun that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a folding or telescoping stock , ( ii ) a thumbhole stock , ( iii ) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun , ( iv ) the ability to accept a detachable magazine , ( v ) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds , or ( vi ) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses ( i ) through ( v ) .
“ Assault firearm ” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert , modify , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault firearm , or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm .
“ Assault firearm ” does not include ( i ) a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable , ( ii ) an antique firearm as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2 , or ( iii ) a curio or relic as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2 .
As you can see , not only does the bill broadly define an “ assault weapon , ” it also is apparently designed to encompass 80 % lowers and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ register your firearm ( more on that in a moment ) you may not be able to repair it if need be .
As Governor Ralph Northam promised , the revised gun ban contains a grandfather clause that “ allows ” Virginians to maintain possession of the firearms they legally own , but at a cost .
A .
Any person who legally owns an assault firearm on July 1 , 2020 , may apply for a permit to possess such assault firearm .
The application shall be on a form prescribed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a certification statement to be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury certifying that the applicant is the lawful owner of the assault firearm and that the information presented on the application is true and correct .
Upon receipt of a complete application for a permit , the Superintendent of State Police or his designee shall issue a permit to the applicant .
The Department of State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $ 50 to cover the cost of the issuance of the permit .
B .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , date of birth , gender , height , weight , and color of hair of the applicant and a description of the assault firearm , including the make , model , caliber , and serial number of the assault firearm and any other information as required by the Department of State Police .
Except as provided in subsection E , the permit shall not be transferable to another person .
The permit shall remain valid as long as the applicant issued the permit remains the owner of the assault firearm unless during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found not to be in compliance with the conditions set forth in subsection D or the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements for the issuance of a permit .
A person issued a permit shall notify the Department of State Police of any change in the person ’ s address on a form provided by the Department of State Police within 30 days from the date of the change in address .
Upon receipt of such notification , the Department of State Police shall issue a replacement permit to the person .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York ’ s SAFE Act .
You know , the one that required New York gun owners to register their so-called “ assault weapons ” with the state , but almost no one complied ?
Yeah , that one .
Remember , the original “ assault weapons ” ban introduced by Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw banned the possession of these firearms .
That ’ s what Democrats want .
Now they ’ re promising gun owners they can keep their rifles , as long as they provide the State with a list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a serious attempt at “ moderation ” by the governor and his legislative allies .
This is simply criminalizing possession of the most commonly produced rifle in the United States , and in flies in the face of the constitutional rights of Virginians .
Delegate Levine has also introduced HB 899 , which would ban the possession and use of “ restricted firearm ammunition ” in the state , and makes it a felony to own any ammunition that meets the following criteria : In other words , any non-lead ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ d be a felon for possessing a single round of lead-free ammo .
That is not only going to ban some of the most common ammunition , but it ’ s even ridiculous from a gun control perspective , given the push in places like California to ban lead ammunition for hunting .
Both of these bills violate the Constitutional rights of Virginia residents , and if they become law they most certainly will be challenged in court .
Unfortunately , with bills like this Democrats are making it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban their way to safety , and they ’ re prepared to turn a lot of Virginians into felons overnight in order to get their way .
Now that the session is underway , I ’ ll be doing my best to keep track of bills like these , but if you ’ re a Virginia gun owner make sure you ’ re checking in regularly with NRA-ILA , the Virginia Shooting Sports Association , and the Virginia Citizens Defense League as well .

Virginia Democrats have introduced a revised ban on so-called “assault weapons” that requires existing gun owners to register their firearms with the state, and also bans outright the possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds as well as a ban on suppressors and “trigger activators”.
According to the legislative summary by Delegate Mark Levine, HB 961:
The bill makes it a Class 6 felony to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport large-capacity firearm magazines, silencers, and trigger activators, all defined in the bill. Any person who legally owns an assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator on July 1, 2020, may retain possession until January 1, 2021. During that time, such person shall (i) render the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator inoperable; (ii) remove the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator from the Commonwealth; (iii) transfer the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator to a person outside the Commonwealth who is not prohibited from possessing it; or (iv) surrender the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator to a state or local law-enforcement agency.
Under the terms of this bill, every ammunition magazine in the state of Virginia that can accept more than ten rounds would have to be permanently modified to only hold ten rounds, destroyed, turned over, or removed from the state. This language is very similar to the language of New Jersey’s magazine ban, which is currently being challenged by residents in court.
Suppressors would have to be turned in, destroyed, or removed from the state of Virginia as well. No compensated confiscation here, just “Mr.-and-Mrs.-Virginia turn them all in.”
Now let’s take a look at the “revised” ban on so-called assault weapons.
First, here’s how HB 961 defines “assault weapon”:
1. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds; 2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii); 3. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds; 4. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a barrel extender, or (d) a forward handgrip; or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii); 5. A shotgun with a revolving cylinder that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material; or 6. A semi-automatic shotgun that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v). “Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm. “Assault firearm” does not include (i) a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable, (ii) an antique firearm as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2, or (iii) a curio or relic as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2.
As you can see, not only does the bill broadly define an “assault weapon,” it also is apparently designed to encompass 80% lowers and other gun parts, meaning even if you register your firearm (more on that in a moment) you may not be able to repair it if need be.
As Governor Ralph Northam promised, the revised gun ban contains a grandfather clause that “allows” Virginians to maintain possession of the firearms they legally own, but at a cost.
A. Any person who legally owns an assault firearm on July 1, 2020, may apply for a permit to possess such assault firearm. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the Department of State Police and shall include a certification statement to be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury certifying that the applicant is the lawful owner of the assault firearm and that the information presented on the application is true and correct. Upon receipt of a complete application for a permit, the Superintendent of State Police or his designee shall issue a permit to the applicant. The Department of State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $50 to cover the cost of the issuance of the permit. B. The permit shall contain the name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, and color of hair of the applicant and a description of the assault firearm, including the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the assault firearm and any other information as required by the Department of State Police. Except as provided in subsection E, the permit shall not be transferable to another person. The permit shall remain valid as long as the applicant issued the permit remains the owner of the assault firearm unless during the time of ownership the applicant is found not to be in compliance with the conditions set forth in subsection D or the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements for the issuance of a permit. A person issued a permit shall notify the Department of State Police of any change in the person’s address on a form provided by the Department of State Police within 30 days from the date of the change in address. Upon receipt of such notification, the Department of State Police shall issue a replacement permit to the person.
This language looks to be borrowed from New York’s SAFE Act. You know, the one that required New York gun owners to register their so-called “assault weapons” with the state, but almost no one complied? Yeah, that one.
Remember, the original “assault weapons” ban introduced by Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw banned the possession of these firearms. That’s what Democrats want. Now they’re promising gun owners they can keep their rifles, as long as they provide the State with a list of everyone who owns one. This is not a serious attempt at “moderation” by the governor and his legislative allies. This is simply criminalizing possession of the most commonly produced rifle in the United States, and in flies in the face of the constitutional rights of Virginians.
Delegate Levine has also introduced HB 899, which would ban the possession and use of “restricted firearm ammunition” in the state, and makes it a felony to own any ammunition that meets the following criteria:
(i) Teflon coated or coated with a similar product; (ii) commonly known as “KTW” bullets or “French Arcanes”; or (iii) cartridges containing bullets coated with a plastic substance with other than lead or lead alloy cores, jacketed bullets with other than lead or lead alloy cores, or cartridges of which the bullet itself is wholly composed of a metal or metal alloy other than lead, but the definition does not include shotgun shells or solid plastic bullets.
In other words, any non-lead ammunition would be banned in the state, and you’d be a felon for possessing a single round of lead-free ammo. That is not only going to ban some of the most common ammunition, but it’s even ridiculous from a gun control perspective, given the push in places like California to ban lead ammunition for hunting.
Both of these bills violate the Constitutional rights of Virginia residents, and if they become law they most certainly will be challenged in court. Unfortunately, with bills like this Democrats are making it clear that their goal is to try to ban their way to safety, and they’re prepared to turn a lot of Virginians into felons overnight in order to get their way.
Now that the session is underway, I’ll be doing my best to keep track of bills like these, but if you’re a Virginia gun owner make sure you’re checking in regularly with NRA-ILA, the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League as well.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Ft. Drum Soldier Admits To Receiving Stolen Guns

The idea behind gun control , at least in theory , is that those who support the measure want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys with minimal interference in arms for the good guys .
That ’ s what a gun-grabber will tell you , anyway .
The problem , of course , is that we ’ ve tried that for years and bad guys keep getting guns .
Recently , a soldier at Fort Drum was arrested over a gun issue that illustrates the problems with the gun control plan quite well .
A Fort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles and two pistols from fellow soldiers who were accused of burglarizing North Country gun shops .
Tyrease Kimmons , 20 , is facing up to 10 years in prison and $ 250,000 in fines for his role in possessing stolen guns .
Kimmons pleaded guilty to his role in December in federal court .
Kimmons was charged this fall along with fellow soldiers Rian Patterson , 22 , and Devin Diggs , 20 , after nine guns were stolen from two licensed gun shops in the North Country region over a three-week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firearms , five in total , were located in a duffle bag under Kimmons ’ bed , court records said .
The guns were loaded at the time they were recovered , according the court records .
Kimmons reportedly knew about the thefts but didn ’ t take part in the planning of the burglaries nor the burglaries themselves .
It doesn ’ t matter though , because he still ended up with the guns .
What do you want to bet that he didn ’ t fill out a Form 4473 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know nothing about Kimmons as a person .
What I do know , though , is that he stands accused of obtaining firearms that were stolen , all without undergoing and of the procedures you and I have to go through when we buy from a gun store and that some want us to undergo all the time .
However , criminals aren ’ t part of that world .
They get guns the same way Kimmons allegedly got them .
They get them from people who steal them or black market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At no point do they really get tripped up by any of the legal hoops you and I might have to jump through when we want to buy a gun .
You ’ d think that even the densest of gun grabbers would be able to understand this , but apparently not .
They keep pushing for things like universal background checks , but Kimmons didn ’ t go through that to get his paws on these guns ( allegedly ) .
New York , where Fort Drum is located , requires universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such check .
That ’ s because criminals , by definition , don ’ t obey the law .
They do what they want to do and don ’ t worry too much about the consequences .
Meanwhile , ordinary New Yorkers are subjected to background checks for each and every lawful gun purchase they want to make .
They ’ re treated like potential criminals while the actual criminals simply bypass the requirement .
Then again , this is the same state that elected Fredo Cuomo ’ s older brother as governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure how many people in the state are really impacted .
Regardless , the good guys are the ones paying for the bad guys ’ actions , and Kimmons ’ arrest proves that perfectly .

The idea behind gun control, at least in theory, is that those who support the measure want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys with minimal interference in arms for the good guys. That’s what a gun-grabber will tell you, anyway.
The problem, of course, is that we’ve tried that for years and bad guys keep getting guns.
Recently, a soldier at Fort Drum was arrested over a gun issue that illustrates the problems with the gun control plan quite well.
A Fort Drum soldier has admitted to getting three rifles and two pistols from fellow soldiers who were accused of burglarizing North Country gun shops. Tyrease Kimmons, 20, is facing up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for his role in possessing stolen guns. Kimmons pleaded guilty to his role in December in federal court. Kimmons was charged this fall along with fellow soldiers Rian Patterson, 22, and Devin Diggs, 20, after nine guns were stolen from two licensed gun shops in the North Country region over a three-week period, prosecutors said. Some of the firearms, five in total, were located in a duffle bag under Kimmons’ bed, court records said. The guns were loaded at the time they were recovered, according the court records.
Kimmons reportedly knew about the thefts but didn’t take part in the planning of the burglaries nor the burglaries themselves.
It doesn’t matter though, because he still ended up with the guns.
What do you want to bet that he didn’t fill out a Form 4473 first or undergo a background check?
I know nothing about Kimmons as a person. What I do know, though, is that he stands accused of obtaining firearms that were stolen, all without undergoing and of the procedures you and I have to go through when we buy from a gun store and that some want us to undergo all the time.
However, criminals aren’t part of that world. They get guns the same way Kimmons allegedly got them. They get them from people who steal them or black market dealers who got them that way. At no point do they really get tripped up by any of the legal hoops you and I might have to jump through when we want to buy a gun.
You’d think that even the densest of gun grabbers would be able to understand this, but apparently not. They keep pushing for things like universal background checks, but Kimmons didn’t go through that to get his paws on these guns (allegedly). New York, where Fort Drum is located, requires universal background checks, but Kimmons did no such check.
That’s because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. They do what they want to do and don’t worry too much about the consequences.
Meanwhile, ordinary New Yorkers are subjected to background checks for each and every lawful gun purchase they want to make. They’re treated like potential criminals while the actual criminals simply bypass the requirement.
Then again, this is the same state that elected Fredo Cuomo’s older brother as governor three times so I’m not sure how many people in the state are really impacted.
Regardless, the good guys are the ones paying for the bad guys’ actions, and Kimmons’ arrest proves that perfectly.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--An Open Letter To Virginia Republican Legislators

The legislative session kicking off on January 8th in Virginia is likely to be the most important session of your political careers , even though you hold little to no actual legislative power .
Some of you represent suburban districts and narrowly won re-election .
You ’ re missing some colleagues who were defeated in their districts , thanks in part to Michael Bloomberg ’ s millions of dollars in campaign spending across the state .
Some of you may be thinking it ’ s the safe move politically to support a few of the more popular ( at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like “ universal background checks ” or “ red flag ” laws .
Some of you may even honestly believe that they could be effective at reducing violent crime while protecting the rights of Virginians .
With all due respect , I think you ’ re wrong , and here ’ s why .
In short , universal background check laws don ’ t lead to more background checks , and violent crime has continued to increase in states like Colorado after the law was put in place .
Given the zeal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like SB 16 , I think the state ’ s gun owners have a reasonable concern about attempts to use a universal background check law as a back door registry .
It ’ s a legitimately bad bill that isn ’ t worth supporting .
If you really want to give people a way to check and ensure that the person they ’ re selling a firearm to is a legal buyer , I strongly recommend you read this piece by Kareem Shaya at Open Source Defense on how to set up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns of gun owners while providing a way to ensure the person buying your gun was legally allowed to own it .
I strongly suggest that instead of backing Northam ’ s universal background check law , you offer up something that works for both sides .
You can introduce bills up to January 17th , which doesn ’ t give you much time but is doable given the talent on your legislative teams .
As to the red flag law we ’ ve seen proposed , there is an absurdly low standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-week long period where someone can be denied their right to keep and bear arms before they ever get to present their side of the story to a judge , and there ’ s absolutely no mental health aspect to the bill , not even when a judge decides that someone poses a substantial risk to themselves or others .
Instead , that person ’ s guns are taken from them , while they are left with their pills , their knives , car keys and gasoline .
A much more honest approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis in mental health that have in Virginia .
It ’ s not just the relatively small number of people who would be “ red flagged ” that we should be thinking about .
It ’ s the more than 1,000 Virginians who take their lives every year .
It ’ s every life lost to suicide , not just those who die from a self-inflicted gunshot wound .
As the debate over red flag laws takes place in the legislature , you will likely hear that Indiana and Connecticut saw their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws were put in place .
What you are not likely to hear is that even though that was the case , non-gun related suicides spiked at such a high rate that in both states the overall suicide rate actually increased .
We shouldn ’ t be spending our time trying to make people kill themselves in a different way .
We need to be working to keep them alive .
While I truly believe this is a much more effective way of addressing background checks and mental health , I also believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve undoubtably seen the poll of Virginia that showed Donald Trump beating every Democrat running with the exception of Joe Biden .
You ’ ve undoubtably seen ( or at least heard of ) the hundreds if not thousands of people who ’ ve shown up for their county supervisors and city council meetings in support of their Second Amendment rights .
What we ’ re witnessing now is something unlike anything you or I have ever seen in our lifetimes .
This isn ’ t being directed by the NRA or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started and carried on by average Virginians , many of whom had very little interest in politics until they learned too late about the Democrats ’ gun control agenda .
Yes , it is a damn shame that we didn ’ t see this level of engagement in November .
With all due respect , if you ’ re still bitter , you need to get over it .
More importantly , use it .
You have this incredible grassroots movement that is springing to life in a presidential election year .
Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squelch the movement by trying to triangulate on this issue .
Remember your oath to the constitution of the United States and that of the state of Virginia .
Give them something to fight for .
Give them a reason to stay motivated .
Give them a reason to stay involved .
That ’ s where those of you who who are Second Amendment stalwarts of the legislature come in .
I ’ m asking you to help your colleagues steer the course , but I ’ m also asking you fight like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Point out the hypocrisy of Governor Northam touting himself as a criminal justice reformer while planning to put more Virginians in prison for exercising their civil rights .
Ask Democrats concerned about “ overpolicing ” what they think is going to happen when their gun control bills start getting enforced , primarily in deep blue cities against young men of color .
Please ask Dan Helmer why a “ gun safety ” advocate would want to shut down gun ranges and make it harder for people to train with their firearms .
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you that no Virginia gun owner is expecting a miracle , but we are expecting you to fight like hell .
Do that and you ’ ll see these engaged voters stay engaged , and not just this year .
Don ’ t and many of them will stay home , not only in 2020 but in 2021 as well .
I wish you all the very best in your efforts to defend freedom this session , and in the elections in November as well .

Dear Delegates and Senators,
The legislative session kicking off on January 8th in Virginia is likely to be the most important session of your political careers, even though you hold little to no actual legislative power. Some of you represent suburban districts and narrowly won re-election. You’re missing some colleagues who were defeated in their districts, thanks in part to Michael Bloomberg’s millions of dollars in campaign spending across the state.
Some of you may be thinking it’s the safe move politically to support a few of the more popular (at least according to polling) gun control measures like “universal background checks” or “red flag” laws. Some of you may even honestly believe that they could be effective at reducing violent crime while protecting the rights of Virginians.
With all due respect, I think you’re wrong, and here’s why. In short, universal background check laws don’t lead to more background checks, and violent crime has continued to increase in states like Colorado after the law was put in place. Given the zeal with which your Democrat colleagues introduced gun bans like SB 16, I think the state’s gun owners have a reasonable concern about attempts to use a universal background check law as a back door registry. It’s a legitimately bad bill that isn’t worth supporting.
If you really want to give people a way to check and ensure that the person they’re selling a firearm to is a legal buyer, I strongly recommend you read this piece by Kareem Shaya at Open Source Defense on how to set up a background check system that would alleviate the concerns of gun owners while providing a way to ensure the person buying your gun was legally allowed to own it. I strongly suggest that instead of backing Northam’s universal background check law, you offer up something that works for both sides. You can introduce bills up to January 17th, which doesn’t give you much time but is doable given the talent on your legislative teams.
As to the red flag law we’ve seen proposed, there is an absurdly low standard of review for the judge, a two-week long period where someone can be denied their right to keep and bear arms before they ever get to present their side of the story to a judge, and there’s absolutely no mental health aspect to the bill, not even when a judge decides that someone poses a substantial risk to themselves or others. Instead, that person’s guns are taken from them, while they are left with their pills, their knives, car keys and gasoline.
A much more honest approach is to try to actually take on the crisis in mental health that have in Virginia. It’s not just the relatively small number of people who would be “red flagged” that we should be thinking about. It’s the more than 1,000 Virginians who take their lives every year. It’s every life lost to suicide, not just those who die from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
As the debate over red flag laws takes place in the legislature, you will likely hear that Indiana and Connecticut saw their gun-related suicide rates drop after red flag laws were put in place. What you are not likely to hear is that even though that was the case, non-gun related suicides spiked at such a high rate that in both states the overall suicide rate actually increased. We shouldn’t be spending our time trying to make people kill themselves in a different way. We need to be working to keep them alive.
While I truly believe this is a much more effective way of addressing background checks and mental health, I also believe it makes good political sense. You’ve undoubtably seen the poll of Virginia that showed Donald Trump beating every Democrat running with the exception of Joe Biden. You’ve undoubtably seen (or at least heard of) the hundreds if not thousands of people who’ve shown up for their county supervisors and city council meetings in support of their Second Amendment rights. What we’re witnessing now is something unlike anything you or I have ever seen in our lifetimes. This isn’t being directed by the NRA or the VCDL. This is a movement started and carried on by average Virginians, many of whom had very little interest in politics until they learned too late about the Democrats’ gun control agenda. Yes, it is a damn shame that we didn’t see this level of engagement in November. With all due respect, if you’re still bitter, you need to get over it.
More importantly, use it. You have this incredible grassroots movement that is springing to life in a presidential election year. Don’t squander that or try to squelch the movement by trying to triangulate on this issue. Remember your oath to the constitution of the United States and that of the state of Virginia. Give them something to fight for. Give them a reason to stay motivated. Give them a reason to stay involved.
That’s where those of you who who are Second Amendment stalwarts of the legislature come in. I’m asking you to help your colleagues steer the course, but I’m also asking you fight like hell every step of the way. Point out the hypocrisy of Governor Northam touting himself as a criminal justice reformer while planning to put more Virginians in prison for exercising their civil rights. Ask Democrats concerned about “overpolicing” what they think is going to happen when their gun control bills start getting enforced, primarily in deep blue cities against young men of color. Please ask Dan Helmer why a “gun safety” advocate would want to shut down gun ranges and make it harder for people to train with their firearms.
Please keep up the pressure. I can tell you that no Virginia gun owner is expecting a miracle, but we are expecting you to fight like hell. Do that and you’ll see these engaged voters stay engaged, and not just this year. Don’t and many of them will stay home, not only in 2020 but in 2021 as well.
I wish you all the very best in your efforts to defend freedom this session, and in the elections in November as well.
Sincerely,
Cam


bearingarms--2020-01-08--NC County Joins Ranks Of Second Amendment Sanctuaries

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement generally follows the election of anti-gun lawmakers or the passage of anti-gun legislation .
However , there ’ s nothing that actually requires that .
In fact , a lot of sanctuary counties reside in states where there ’ s little threat to their Second Amendment rights from their legislatures .
At the moment , anyway .
Still , it ’ s important to see communities making these kinds of stands whether they ’ re threatened or not , which is why a North Carolina county joining their ranks is so important .
Surry County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During a packed meeting on Monday , the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the measure .
The symbolic resolution protects the right to carry guns , but supporters said the vote was a win for gun rights .
“ It makes me feel that America still understands the constitutional rights and cherish them here in Surry County , ” said Mark Jones , chairman of Surry County Republican Party .
“ I think in many other places in America .
I would expect many counties in North Carolina pass similar resolutions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is located on the Virginian border and is probably best known as the home for Mayberry from the Andy Griffith Show ( Mt .
Airy , the basis for Mayberry itself is in the county ) .
Their place on the border is actually an important point for the county making this stand .
You see , if nothing else , Surry County is telling their neighbors in Virginia that they stand with them against the oncoming tyranny Governor Ralph Northam seeks to impose on the people of the Old Dominion state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have little doubt that the gesture is appreciated .
Plus , let ’ s also be honest here , it ’ s their own mark of defiance .
It ’ s a warning to potential overlords in Raliegh that they ’ re not going to be able to just roll over the people of Surry County .
While the risk isn ’ t as great of that in North Carolina as it is in Virginia , there ’ s still a non-zero chance of someone in the legislature to try and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state .
To be honest , I want to see more and more counties passing these resolutions , even if there ’ s no threat .
If nothing else , all those counties serve as a warning to legislators not just at the state level , but also the federal .
It reminds them that the urban enclaves aren ’ t the United States in totality .
It reminds them that nope , they don ’ t get to just railroad the rest of us because they want to .
Frankly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( not that they particularly care ) and urge every other county out there to do the exact same thing , regardless of whether they are faced with imminent gun-grabbing by oathbreaking politicians or not .
Make the stand before it ’ s needed , maintain the stand after it ’ s needed , and send a warning that the rest of us won ’ t be so easily cowed just because those who think themselves better than us say we should be .
Instead , we look them in the eye and @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement generally follows the election of anti-gun lawmakers or the passage of anti-gun legislation. However, there’s nothing that actually requires that. In fact, a lot of sanctuary counties reside in states where there’s little threat to their Second Amendment rights from their legislatures.
At the moment, anyway.
Still, it’s important to see communities making these kinds of stands whether they’re threatened or not, which is why a North Carolina county joining their ranks is so important.
Surry County is now a Second Amendment sanctuary. During a packed meeting on Monday, the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the measure. The symbolic resolution protects the right to carry guns, but supporters said the vote was a win for gun rights. “It makes me feel that America still understands the constitutional rights and cherish them here in Surry County,” said Mark Jones, chairman of Surry County Republican Party. “I think in many other places in America. I would expect many counties in North Carolina pass similar resolutions in the coming weeks and months.”
Surry County is located on the Virginian border and is probably best known as the home for Mayberry from the Andy Griffith Show (Mt. Airy, the basis for Mayberry itself is in the county). Their place on the border is actually an important point for the county making this stand.
You see, if nothing else, Surry County is telling their neighbors in Virginia that they stand with them against the oncoming tyranny Governor Ralph Northam seeks to impose on the people of the Old Dominion state.
While I’m not a Virginian, I have little doubt that the gesture is appreciated.
Plus, let’s also be honest here, it’s their own mark of defiance. It’s a warning to potential overlords in Raliegh that they’re not going to be able to just roll over the people of Surry County. While the risk isn’t as great of that in North Carolina as it is in Virginia, there’s still a non-zero chance of someone in the legislature to try and restrict people’s gun rights in the state.
To be honest, I want to see more and more counties passing these resolutions, even if there’s no threat. If nothing else, all those counties serve as a warning to legislators not just at the state level, but also the federal. It reminds them that the urban enclaves aren’t the United States in totality. It reminds them that nope, they don’t get to just railroad the rest of us because they want to.
Frankly, I’m proud of Surry County (not that they particularly care) and urge every other county out there to do the exact same thing, regardless of whether they are faced with imminent gun-grabbing by oathbreaking politicians or not. Make the stand before it’s needed, maintain the stand after it’s needed, and send a warning that the rest of us won’t be so easily cowed just because those who think themselves better than us say we should be.
Instead, we look them in the eye and say, “Molon Labe.”


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Washington Post Launches Another Attack on 2A Sanctuaries

The editors of the Washington Post are so convinced that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is nothing to worry about that they ’ re now running stories and opinion pieces almost every day attacking the grassroots effort sweeping Virginia and other states .
The paper ’ s latest diatribe comes courtesy of Mary B. McCord , a former acting assistant attorney general for national security who is currently the legal director of Georgetown University Law Center ’ s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection .
Now , you might think the legal director of a think tank devoted to protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with counties and cities vowing not to enforce laws that violate the Constitution , but unfortunately that isn ’ t the case .
At all .
approved by the board of supervisors purports to prohibit any county employee from enforcing , and any county funds from being used for the enforcement of , new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional .
But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and , more directly , Sanctuary Resolution ” approved by the board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from enforcing , and any county funds from being used for the enforcement of , new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional .
But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and , more directly , specifically prohibits local governments from regulating firearms .
Overblown alarm over reasonable gun-control laws proposed in statehouses across the country has led to a movement by various local governments declaring themselves Second Amendment “ sanctuaries ” — vowing to establish local jurisdictions where state gun laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enforced .
These resolutions , to the extent they conflict with state law , lack legal effect : In Tazewell County , Va. , for example , the “ The resolution , and others like it , demonstrate how their proponents operate on a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights afforded Americans by the Second Amendment and , importantly , the limitations on those rights .
And how they ’ ve spurred extremists who want to stand up local militias to engage in armed rebellion against the state — action that isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter to the Constitution .
First , note how McCord has already determined that the gun control laws being pushed by Virginia Democrats are “ reasonable.
” Laws that prevent the average Virginian from owning the most commonly sold rifle in the country , or making them a felon for possessing commonly owned magazines are not “ reasonable.
” They are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms .
McCord also clings to the idea that these resolutions won ’ t stand up in court .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but then again , I don ’ t think these resolutions are challengeable in court either .
These are resolutions ; exercises of the First Amendment on the part of tens of thousands of Virginians in the vast majority of the state ’ s counties , along with many cities and towns as well .
It ’ s rich to see McCord claim that gun owners are ignoring Heller , given the fact that gun control advocates are so desperate to avoid the Supreme Court saying anything about the Second Amendment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law in an effort to avoid Supreme Court review , and have reluctantly accepted “ shall issue ” concealed carry rather than appeal defeats in Illinois and Washington , D.C. to the Supreme Court .
It ’ s not gun owners who ignore Heller , it ’ s gun control supporters like McCord who engage in a willful misreading of the Court ’ s decision in an attempt to justify their attempt to turn a right into a privilege .
Using this disingenuous logic , proponents have convinced cities and counties in Oregon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , Florida , Virginia and elsewhere that they should resist laws enacted by duly-elected legislators upon their own declarations — not those of the courts — that such laws violate the Second Amendment .
This not only misunderstands the Second Amendment , but it also misunderstands the limited powers of local jurisdictions , which exist solely based on authorities conferred by state law .
State constitutions , statutes and common law generally affirm the “ supremacy ” of federal and state law , meaning that local jurisdictions and state law , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicting ordinances and resolutions .
And in no state do local governments have the prerogative to declare a state or federal law unconstitutional without involving the courts .
If McCord was interested in being honest with her readers , she ’ d note that the vast majority of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions passed in Virginia contain specific language about challenging unconstitutional gun control laws in court .
Caroline County Sheriff “ Tony ” Lippa , for example , recently issued a proclamation declaring the county and the town of Bowling Green as Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his declaration .

The editors of the Washington Post are so convinced that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is nothing to worry about that they’re now running stories and opinion pieces almost every day attacking the grassroots effort sweeping Virginia and other states.
The paper’s latest diatribe comes courtesy of Mary B. McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security who is currently the legal director of Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Now, you might think the legal director of a think tank devoted to protecting the Constitution would be all on board with counties and cities vowing not to enforce laws that violate the Constitution, but unfortunately that isn’t the case. At all.
Sanctuary Resolution” approved by the board of supervisors purports to prohibit any county employee from enforcing, and any county funds from being used for the enforcement of, new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional. But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and, more directly, specifically prohibits local governments from regulating firearms. Overblown alarm over reasonable gun-control laws proposed in statehouses across the country has led to a movement by various local governments declaring themselves Second Amendment “sanctuaries” — vowing to establish local jurisdictions where state gun laws that they view as unconstitutional will not be enforced. These resolutions, to the extent they conflict with state law, lack legal effect: In Tazewell County, Va., for example, the “ The resolution, and others like it, demonstrate how their proponents operate on a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights afforded Americans by the Second Amendment and, importantly, the limitations on those rights. And how they’ve spurred extremists who want to stand up local militias to engage in armed rebellion against the state — action that isn’t just dangerous but that also runs counter to the Constitution.
First, note how McCord has already determined that the gun control laws being pushed by Virginia Democrats are “reasonable.” Laws that prevent the average Virginian from owning the most commonly sold rifle in the country, or making them a felon for possessing commonly owned magazines are not “reasonable.” They are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
McCord also clings to the idea that these resolutions won’t stand up in court. I don’t think anybody is arguing that they would, but then again, I don’t think these resolutions are challengeable in court either. These are resolutions; exercises of the First Amendment on the part of tens of thousands of Virginians in the vast majority of the state’s counties, along with many cities and towns as well.
Heller, instead pronouncing any gun-control legislation unconstitutional, whether it requires backgrounds checks or a waiting period, raises the legal age for gun ownership, bans bump-stock devices that allow for rapid firing, prohibits weapons in government buildings, or outlaws assault-style rifles. Rather than engaging in a bill-by-bill discussion of proposed legislation, these advocates whip up hysteria by painting with a broad brush, arguing that all gun-control legislation is part of a conspiracy of liberals who “ Proponents of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties largely ignore the teaching of, instead pronouncing any gun-control legislation unconstitutional, whether it requires backgrounds checks or a waiting period, raises the legal age for gun ownership, bans bump-stock devices that allow for rapid firing, prohibits weapons in government buildings, or outlaws assault-style rifles. Rather than engaging in a bill-by-bill discussion of proposed legislation, these advocates whip up hysteria by painting with a broad brush, arguing that all gun-control legislation is part of a conspiracy of liberals who “ want to take your guns .”
It’s rich to see McCord claim that gun owners are ignoring Heller, given the fact that gun control advocates are so desperate to avoid the Supreme Court saying anything about the Second Amendment that they’ve changed New York City law in an effort to avoid Supreme Court review, and have reluctantly accepted “shall issue” concealed carry rather than appeal defeats in Illinois and Washington, D.C. to the Supreme Court. It’s not gun owners who ignore Heller, it’s gun control supporters like McCord who engage in a willful misreading of the Court’s decision in an attempt to justify their attempt to turn a right into a privilege.
Using this disingenuous logic, proponents have convinced cities and counties in Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Illinois Colorado, Florida, Virginia and elsewhere that they should resist laws enacted by duly-elected legislators upon their own declarations — not those of the courts — that such laws violate the Second Amendment. This not only misunderstands the Second Amendment, but it also misunderstands the limited powers of local jurisdictions, which exist solely based on authorities conferred by state law. State constitutions, statutes and common law generally affirm the “ supremacy ” of federal and state law, meaning that local jurisdictions and state law, meaning that local jurisdictions are preempted from enacting conflicting ordinances and resolutions. And in no state do local governments have the prerogative to declare a state or federal law unconstitutional without involving the courts.
If McCord was interested in being honest with her readers, she’d note that the vast majority of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions passed in Virginia contain specific language about challenging unconstitutional gun control laws in court. Caroline County Sheriff “Tony” Lippa, for example, recently issued a proclamation declaring the county and the town of Bowling Green as Second Amendment sanctuaries , and mentioned the courts in his declaration.
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BE KNOWN that the Caroline County Sheriff hereby declares Caroline County and the Town of Bowling Green, Virginia, as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary”, and


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Joe Biden Embraces Gun Control In Iowa Caucus Fight

While former Vice President Joe Biden is leading national polls for the Democrat presidential nomination , his numbers don ’ t look nearly as good in Iowa , where on February 3rd Democrats will caucus in the first contest of the 2020 campaign .
According to the polling average at RealClearPolitics , Biden is currently running a close third behind Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg .
Now , according to The Hill , Biden thinks he ’ s found the answer to put him over the top in Iowa : gun control .
Former Vice President Joe Biden ( D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control and school shootings in a new series of digital ads with the Iowa caucuses less than a month away .
One of the ads , “ Classroom , ” features Denison , Iowa , teacher Jane Lyons , who talks about how she prepares her fourth-grade students for the possibility of a mass shooting .
“ This is not something an educator should have to be talking about , ” Lyons says in the long version of the ad .
“ I shouldn ’ t have to do this .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to run for president , I was excited , because I trust Joe Biden with gun issues.
” The other ad in the series , “ Troubled Soul , ” highlights a clip of speech Biden gave in which he criticizes the fact that children in America have to be taught how to “ duck and cover ” at school .
The ads are long on rhetoric and short on any actual policies , in part because there ’ s little difference between Biden , Buttigieg , Sanders , and Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virtually all of them support banning modern sporting rifles and “ high capacity magazines , ” expanding background checks , enacting red flag laws , and various and sundry other gun proposals .
Perhaps the biggest difference between the candidates is that some of them are calling for a national gun licensing system , while candidates like Biden want to empower states to enact restrictive licensing regimes instead .
Even Buzzfeed was forced to acknowledge Biden ’ s plans don ’ t really stand out from those offered by other candidates .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden called for , among other things , a new assault weapons ban — the one he pushed in the ‘ 90s expired in 2004 — and for enhanced background checks .
There are few substantive differences among the candidates when it comes to gun control , but with the departure of Beto O ’ Rourke , who centered the final months of his candidacy on aggressive gun control measures , Biden is one of few candidates positioned to make it a signature issue in Iowa .
A poll ordered by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of uncommitted Democratic primary voters considered guns a top priority .
“ I think we are facing a different landscape for gun safety today than we were in 2013 , ” Stef Feldman , the Biden campaign ’ s policy director , said in an interview with BuzzFeed News .
“ I think the sentiment around the country has grown with respect for more gun laws.
” So we ’ re told , though I don ’ t know how much time Stef Feldman has spent in any Second Amendment Sanctuary communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg ’ s campaign is up to in Iowa , given the fact that he ’ s the biggest gun control name in the race at the moment .
According to another report by The Hill , Bloomberg has only spent about $ 70,000 on advertising in the state .
Caucus attendees will have the option of voting for him , but his campaign isn ’ t putting a lot of resources in the state , and he won ’ t even be on the ballot in New Hampshire , South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s eyeing Super Tuesday on March 3rd , and is spending tens of millions of dollars in states like Texas , California , and Florida in hopes of winning the delegate rich states .

While former Vice President Joe Biden is leading national polls for the Democrat presidential nomination, his numbers don’t look nearly as good in Iowa, where on February 3rd Democrats will caucus in the first contest of the 2020 campaign. According to the polling average at RealClearPolitics, Biden is currently running a close third behind Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.
Now, according to The Hill, Biden thinks he’s found the answer to put him over the top in Iowa: gun control.
Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) is focusing on the issue of gun control and school shootings in a new series of digital ads with the Iowa caucuses less than a month away. One of the ads, “Classroom,” features Denison, Iowa, teacher Jane Lyons, who talks about how she prepares her fourth-grade students for the possibility of a mass shooting. “This is not something an educator should have to be talking about,” Lyons says in the long version of the ad. “I shouldn’t have to do this. When I found out that Joe Biden was going to run for president, I was excited, because I trust Joe Biden with gun issues.” The other ad in the series, “Troubled Soul,” highlights a clip of speech Biden gave in which he criticizes the fact that children in America have to be taught how to “duck and cover” at school.
The ads are long on rhetoric and short on any actual policies, in part because there’s little difference between Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren when it comes to gun control. Virtually all of them support banning modern sporting rifles and “high capacity magazines,” expanding background checks, enacting red flag laws, and various and sundry other gun proposals. Perhaps the biggest difference between the candidates is that some of them are calling for a national gun licensing system, while candidates like Biden want to empower states to enact restrictive licensing regimes instead. Even Buzzfeed was forced to acknowledge Biden’s plans don’t really stand out from those offered by other candidates.
In the gun plan he released last year, Biden called for, among other things, a new assault weapons ban — the one he pushed in the ‘90s expired in 2004 — and for enhanced background checks. There are few substantive differences among the candidates when it comes to gun control, but with the departure of Beto O’Rourke, who centered the final months of his candidacy on aggressive gun control measures, Biden is one of few candidates positioned to make it a signature issue in Iowa. A poll ordered by the Giffords group last fall found that 59% of uncommitted Democratic primary voters considered guns a top priority. “I think we are facing a different landscape for gun safety today than we were in 2013,” Stef Feldman, the Biden campaign’s policy director, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “I think the sentiment around the country has grown with respect for more gun laws.”
So we’re told, though I don’t know how much time Stef Feldman has spent in any Second Amendment Sanctuary communities lately.
You might be wondering what Michael Bloomberg’s campaign is up to in Iowa, given the fact that he’s the biggest gun control name in the race at the moment. According to another report by The Hill, Bloomberg has only spent about $70,000 on advertising in the state. Caucus attendees will have the option of voting for him, but his campaign isn’t putting a lot of resources in the state, and he won’t even be on the ballot in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Instead, he’s eyeing Super Tuesday on March 3rd, and is spending tens of millions of dollars in states like Texas, California, and Florida in hopes of winning the delegate rich states.


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Virginia Dems Go All In On Gun Control

Virginia Dems Go All In On Gun Control

So much for any hope of moderation or restraint on the part of Virginia Democrats when it comes to their push for gun control .
Now that we ’ ve seen the sweeping bans on semi-automatic firearms , magazines , and suppressors , along with bills to enact “ universal background checks , ” ban large private ranges , strip parents of their ability to decide when their children are old enough to responsibly handle firearms , and a host of other restrictions and infringements on the right to keep and bear arms , there ’ s no doubt that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gun laws to look much more like California ’ s ( despite California ’ s much higher violent crime rate ) .
I ’ m very pleased to have the Washington Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski joining me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the legislative session now underway in Richmond and what to expect over the next few days .
It looks like the gun bills are going to be moving very quickly , and the expectation is that many of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early as Monday , January 13th .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation in the interview above , and stick around for today ’ s Recidivist Report , an armed citizen story out of Florida , and a good deed of the day from Newburg , Oregon .
You can also subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and the Townhall.com podcast page , or by subscribing to Townhall Media at YouTube .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

So much for any hope of moderation or restraint on the part of Virginia Democrats when it comes to their push for gun control. Now that we’ve seen the sweeping bans on semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and suppressors, along with bills to enact “universal background checks,” ban large private ranges, strip parents of their ability to decide when their children are old enough to responsibly handle firearms, and a host of other restrictions and infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, there’s no doubt that anti-gun lawmakers intend on completely reshaping Virginia’s gun laws to look much more like California’s (despite California’s much higher violent crime rate).
I’m very pleased to have the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski joining me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the legislative session now underway in Richmond and what to expect over the next few days. It looks like the gun bills are going to be moving very quickly, and the expectation is that many of them will be voted out of committee as early as Monday, January 13th.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation in the interview above, and stick around for today’s Recidivist Report, an armed citizen story out of Florida, and a good deed of the day from Newburg, Oregon.
You can also subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and the Townhall.com podcast page, or by subscribing to Townhall Media at YouTube. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word.