bearingarms--2020-07-15--Man Released Due To COVID-19 Allegedly Responsible For Cookout Shooting

I ’ ve said before that I get why governors released people from prison over coronavirus concerns .
After all , if the virus turned out as deadly as it appeared to be , it wouldn ’ t take long before our prisons started churning out dead bodies at a prodigious rate and the governors would feel the heat .
Just because I get it , though , doesn ’ t mean I ’ m convinced it was the right call to make .
After all , we ’ ve seen several cases where people released due to COVID-19 concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That suggests that maybe , just maybe , they should have still been in prison .
However , none of those cases are as heartbreaking as this one .
July 4 weekend was a horrible bloodbath for black children across many of our nation ’ s prominent cities .
As I chronicled each of the cases last week , I predicted that most of the suspects would be repeat violent offenders , gun felons , parole violators , or all of the above .
Well , that appears to be the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that left 11-year-old Davon McNeal dead .
McNeal was helping his mother at a neighborhood barbecue when a group of drive-by shooters fatally shot him .
D.C. police have now arrested two suspects , have issued warrants for two more , and are waiting on a fifth .
During a press conference on Thursday , Police Chief Peter Newsham announced the arrest of 18-year-old Daryle Bond of Southeast D.C. and noted that he has a violent criminal history .
Later that day , Christian Wingfield , 22 , was arrested .
Warrants have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Carlo General , 19 , and they are still at large .
Just this past spring , General was arrested on felony possession of a handgun , but rather than being jailed , he was placed into Maryland ’ s growing supervised probation program .
Christian Wingfield was also arrested on felony gun charges in the spring but was placed under “ active intensive supervision ” with a curfew and GPS monitor .
But like all supervised parole programs , there is no deterrent .
He allegedly cut off the ankle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting .
Gordon also had two gun-related arrests as well as other charges .
Here ’ s the kicker .
Wingfield was released from D.C. jail on May 22 because of coronavirus .
Mind you , the fatality rate in prisons has been lower than among the non-incarcerated population , but that has not stopped these liberal cities from releasing 94,000 criminals from prisons and jails , according to UCLA ’ s database .
California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced the release of another 8,000 criminals .
California has already released over 13,400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison .
None of these cases we ’ ve talked about are acceptable , but the murder of an 11-year-old boy is particularly awful .
The fact that this is someone who is supposed to still be in prison , but was released over a virus that poses minimal risk to healthy 22-year-old people , is something that is extremely difficult for anyone to try and wrap their minds around and not get infuriated .
Of course , the actual kicker here is that the murder of Davon McNeal will be used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than criminal control .

I’ve said before that I get why governors released people from prison over coronavirus concerns. After all, if the virus turned out as deadly as it appeared to be, it wouldn’t take long before our prisons started churning out dead bodies at a prodigious rate and the governors would feel the heat.
Just because I get it, though, doesn’t mean I’m convinced it was the right call to make.
After all, we’ve seen several cases where people released due to COVID-19 concerns have injured or killed innocent people. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, they should have still been in prison.
However, none of those cases are as heartbreaking as this one.
July 4 weekend was a horrible bloodbath for black children across many of our nation’s prominent cities. As I chronicled each of the cases last week, I predicted that most of the suspects would be repeat violent offenders, gun felons, parole violators, or all of the above. Well, that appears to be the case in the horrific D.C. shooting on Independence Day that left 11-year-old Davon McNeal dead. McNeal was helping his mother at a neighborhood barbecue when a group of drive-by shooters fatally shot him. D.C. police have now arrested two suspects, have issued warrants for two more, and are waiting on a fifth. During a press conference on Thursday, Police Chief Peter Newsham announced the arrest of 18-year-old Daryle Bond of Southeast D.C. and noted that he has a violent criminal history. Later that day, Christian Wingfield, 22, was arrested. Warrants have been issued for Marcel Gordon, 25, and Carlo General, 19, and they are still at large. Just this past spring, General was arrested on felony possession of a handgun, but rather than being jailed, he was placed into Maryland’s growing supervised probation program. … Christian Wingfield was also arrested on felony gun charges in the spring but was placed under “active intensive supervision” with a curfew and GPS monitor. But like all supervised parole programs, there is no deterrent. He allegedly cut off the ankle monitor when he participated in the drive-by shooting. Gordon also had two gun-related arrests as well as other charges. Here’s the kicker. Wingfield was released from D.C. jail on May 22 because of coronavirus. Mind you, the fatality rate in prisons has been lower than among the non-incarcerated population, but that has not stopped these liberal cities from releasing 94,000 criminals from prisons and jails, according to UCLA’s database. California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced the release of another 8,000 criminals. California has already released over 13,400 from county jails and over 3,400 from prison.
None of these cases we’ve talked about are acceptable, but the murder of an 11-year-old boy is particularly awful. The fact that this is someone who is supposed to still be in prison, but was released over a virus that poses minimal risk to healthy 22-year-old people, is something that is extremely difficult for anyone to try and wrap their minds around and not get infuriated.
Of course, the actual kicker here is that the murder of Davon McNeal will be used to try and justify gun control, rather than criminal control.


bearingarms--2020-07-16--Trump Picks Up NRA Endorsement, Gets Nod From Police Org

President Donald Trump received two big endorsements on Thursday , one of which may be a little more of a surprise than the other .
First , the National Rifle Association announced it ’ s backing the president in his bid for a second term , with NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA executive director Jason Ouimet writing in a letter to Trump that he has “ fundamentally transformed the federal judiciary and helped ensure the freedom of generations of Americans ” and “ has done more than any president to protect the Second Amendment right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praises the president for the administration ’ s declaration that the firearms industry is considered an “ essential ” component of the nation ’ s workforce , saying that the move “ prompted states to re-open gun stores that had been forcibly closed – affirming our shared belief that Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.
” While the endorsement by the NRA may not be surprising ( did anyone really think that Joe Biden was in the running ? )
, the president picked up an endorsement from another organization that previously endorsed Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2012 .
The National Association of Police Organizations didn ’ t endorse either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016 , but this year they ’ re backing Trump for a second term .
“ Our endorsement recognizes your steadfast and very public support for our men and women on the front lines , especially during this time of unfair and inaccurate opprobrium being directed at our members by so many , ” wrote the group ’ s president , Michael McHale .
The group also praised Trump for directing Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who attack our officers , ” a reference to ongoing nationwide protests against racial injustice in the aftermath of George Floyd ’ s police-custody death , some of which have included violence against police officers .
Speaking on Fox News on Thursday , McHale said that the president had received the support of more than 2/3rds of its voting members , and the New York Post reported that the Trump campaign was quick to tout the endorsement of one of the largest police organizations in the country .
“ Joe Biden has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ defund the police ’ movement and remains silent as police officers across the country are being attacked by violent rioters and protesters , ” Bob Paduchik , the campaign ’ s senior advisor for law enforcement and labor unions , said in a statement .
“ This endorsement for President Trump highlights that as the Law and Order President , he is defending the hardworking people who risk their own lives every day to keep our communities safe.
” The president could use some good election news at the moment , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden by double-digits at the moment .
I don ’ t think that will hold until Election Day , but with the president himself shaking up his campaign team , there ’ s no doubt that Donald Trump would be considered the underdog if the election were held today .
However , things could look quite a bit different by the time we reach November , and there are some valid reasons to suspect that polls may be undercounting support for the president right now .
Back in 2016 , the “ shy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and as a reporter friend asked me in a conversation just a few days ago , do you think there are fewer or more Americans in 2020 who are unwilling to publicly talk about their support for the president ?
Cancel culture was around in 2016 , but things like boycotting a company because its CEO praised the president weren ’ t commonplace four years ago .
I think it ’ s fair to assume that there are likely more shy Trump voters than there were four years ago , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the president have in his corner right now ; both shy and outspoken alike ?
The endorsements by the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Police Organizations are both important signals to gun owners and law enforcement that the president has their back , as well as a reminder that Joe Biden , if elected , would pursue a disastrous policy of implementing sweeping gun control laws like a ban on AR-15s , gun licensing , and red flag firearm seizure orders all aimed at legal , law-abiding gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go after actual violent offenders .
The question now is whether or not a majority of voters actually want liberty , law , and order or if they ’ d prefer the promise of revolutionary chaos that a Biden presidency would deliver .

President Donald Trump received two big endorsements on Thursday, one of which may be a little more of a surprise than the other. First, the National Rifle Association announced it’s backing the president in his bid for a second term, with NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA executive director Jason Ouimet writing in a letter to Trump that he has “fundamentally transformed the federal judiciary and helped ensure the freedom of generations of Americans” and “has done more than any president to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
The letter also praises the president for the administration’s declaration that the firearms industry is considered an “essential” component of the nation’s workforce, saying that the move “prompted states to re-open gun stores that had been forcibly closed – affirming our shared belief that Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.”
While the endorsement by the NRA may not be surprising (did anyone really think that Joe Biden was in the running?), the president picked up an endorsement from another organization that previously endorsed Joe Biden and Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. The National Association of Police Organizations didn’t endorse either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016, but this year they’re backing Trump for a second term.
“Our endorsement recognizes your steadfast and very public support for our men and women on the front lines, especially during this time of unfair and inaccurate opprobrium being directed at our members by so many,” wrote the group’s president, Michael McHale. The group also praised Trump for directing Attorney General Bill Barr to “aggressively prosecute those who attack our officers,” a reference to ongoing nationwide protests against racial injustice in the aftermath of George Floyd’s police-custody death, some of which have included violence against police officers.
Speaking on Fox News on Thursday, McHale said that the president had received the support of more than 2/3rds of its voting members, and the New York Post reported that the Trump campaign was quick to tout the endorsement of one of the largest police organizations in the country.
“Joe Biden has done nothing to stop his party’s ‘defund the police’ movement and remains silent as police officers across the country are being attacked by violent rioters and protesters,” Bob Paduchik, the campaign’s senior advisor for law enforcement and labor unions, said in a statement. “This endorsement for President Trump highlights that as the Law and Order President, he is defending the hardworking people who risk their own lives every day to keep our communities safe.”
The president could use some good election news at the moment, with some polls showing him down to Joe Biden by double-digits at the moment. I don’t think that will hold until Election Day, but with the president himself shaking up his campaign team, there’s no doubt that Donald Trump would be considered the underdog if the election were held today.
However, things could look quite a bit different by the time we reach November, and there are some valid reasons to suspect that polls may be undercounting support for the president right now. Back in 2016, the “shy Trump supporter” phenomenon was definitely real, and as a reporter friend asked me in a conversation just a few days ago, do you think there are fewer or more Americans in 2020 who are unwilling to publicly talk about their support for the president?
Cancel culture was around in 2016, but things like boycotting a company because its CEO praised the president weren’t commonplace four years ago. I think it’s fair to assume that there are likely more shy Trump voters than there were four years ago, but the real question is how many voters overall does the president have in his corner right now; both shy and outspoken alike?
The endorsements by the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Police Organizations are both important signals to gun owners and law enforcement that the president has their back, as well as a reminder that Joe Biden, if elected, would pursue a disastrous policy of implementing sweeping gun control laws like a ban on AR-15s, gun licensing, and red flag firearm seizure orders all aimed at legal, law-abiding gun owners while also cutting funding for law enforcement to go after actual violent offenders. The question now is whether or not a majority of voters actually want liberty, law, and order or if they’d prefer the promise of revolutionary chaos that a Biden presidency would deliver.


bearingarms--2020-07-16--Former Officer Says NYC Crime Spike Could Be The New Normal

Shootings in New York City are up nearly 300 % from where they were this time last year , and according to former NYPD officer Rob O ’ Donnell , the increased violence could be the new normal thanks to the ineptitude and ideology of the city ’ s politicians who seem unwilling to do anything to address the surge in violent crime .
On Wednesday , at least four NYPD officers were assaulted as they sought to protect an anti-violence march on the Brooklyn Bridge , including Terence Monahan , the department ’ s top uniformed official .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt “ that the unity march was too supportive of the police , ” which , last time I checked , wasn ’ t cause to assault anyone .
At least two people have been taken into custody in the attack , which happened just hours after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed six measures aimed at ending certain police tactics , including the use of any chokeholds on individuals who are resisting arrest .
O ’ Donnell tells me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co that the police reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops and resisting suspects even more violent , as officers may have to resort to using batons and other non-lethal weapons to subdue suspects thanks to the new legal restraints on the use of lesser force options .
O ’ Donnell ’ s concerns were echoed by the union for New York State Troopers , which released a statement on Wednesday demanding that troopers be pulled from duty in NYC over concerns about officer safety and liability .
“ We have arrived at this unfortunate decision due to the hastily written so-called police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City Council , ” said PBA President Thomas H. Mungeer .
“ This poorly conceived bill , which will be signed into law by Mayor de Blasio today , puts an undue burden upon our troopers ; it opens them up to criminal and civil liability for restraining a person during a lawful arrest in a manner that is consistent with their training and is legal throughout the rest of the state .
Furthermore , this legislation will prevent troopers from safely and effectively arresting resistant subjects.
” According to Mungeer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of restraint , including putting any pressure on a person ’ s chest or back.
” He said those techniques are used by law enforcement agencies across the nation “ when officers are faced with violently combative subjects.
” “ I find it extremely troubling that these acts are now defined as criminal in nature , even if they were unintentional and no injury was sustained by the subject , ” Mungeer said .
O ’ Donnell tells me that the “ cure ” offered by the mayor and city council is worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding police accountable for criminal acts or civil rights violations can be done without hindering their ability to take criminal suspects into custody .
Instead of offering up any true reforms , O ’ Donnell says the city is simply handcuffing officers at the expense of those suspected of committing violent crimes , and he fears that gang members , drug dealers , and violent offenders will now operate in the belief that city leaders are more concerned about protecting them than the general public .
I asked O ’ Donnell about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country , including New York City , is the result of increased gun sales , and laughed , saying that the argument is “ typical of the liberal media ” and that the claim is just not backed up by facts on the ground .
“ They ’ re illegal guns , ” he added , “ that are coming from the judicial revolving door releasing gun offenders back out onto the street that realize ‘ Hey , if I can use a gun in a shooting and maybe just wound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months or maybe be released because of my COVID fears.
” O ’ Donnell says even though he ’ s allowed to legally carry a firearm in New York City thanks to federal law , he won ’ t be returning to the city he served anytime soon .
In fact , given the increase in crime , the former officer says he ’ s told family and friends not to visit either , calling the spike in crime both preventable and “ disgraceful.
” Check out the entire interview with Rob O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my question about what he thinks would happen if New York City decided to reverse decades of anti-gun legislation and recognize the right of New Yorkers to both keep and bear arms .
Also , be sure to stick around after the interview for an incredible armed citizen story that will almost certainly be ignored by the national media as well as the story of a pair of police officers in Sheffield , Alabama who were in the right place at the right time to save a city councilwoman from being burned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught fire .

Shootings in New York City are up nearly 300% from where they were this time last year, and according to former NYPD officer Rob O’Donnell, the increased violence could be the new normal thanks to the ineptitude and ideology of the city’s politicians who seem unwilling to do anything to address the surge in violent crime.
On Wednesday, at least four NYPD officers were assaulted as they sought to protect an anti-violence march on the Brooklyn Bridge, including Terence Monahan, the department’s top uniformed official. According to CBS2 in New York, counter-protesters felt “that the unity march was too supportive of the police,” which, last time I checked, wasn’t cause to assault anyone. At least two people have been taken into custody in the attack, which happened just hours after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed six measures aimed at ending certain police tactics, including the use of any chokeholds on individuals who are resisting arrest.
O’Donnell tells me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co that the police reform measures are likely to make confrontations between cops and resisting suspects even more violent, as officers may have to resort to using batons and other non-lethal weapons to subdue suspects thanks to the new legal restraints on the use of lesser force options. O’Donnell’s concerns were echoed by the union for New York State Troopers, which released a statement on Wednesday demanding that troopers be pulled from duty in NYC over concerns about officer safety and liability.
“We have arrived at this unfortunate decision due to the hastily written so-called police reform legislation recently passed by the New York City Council,” said PBA President Thomas H. Mungeer. “This poorly conceived bill, which will be signed into law by Mayor de Blasio today, puts an undue burden upon our troopers; it opens them up to criminal and civil liability for restraining a person during a lawful arrest in a manner that is consistent with their training and is legal throughout the rest of the state. Furthermore, this legislation will prevent troopers from safely and effectively arresting resistant subjects.” According to Mungeer, the new regulations would “criminalize methods of restraint, including putting any pressure on a person’s chest or back.” He said those techniques are used by law enforcement agencies across the nation “when officers are faced with violently combative subjects.” “I find it extremely troubling that these acts are now defined as criminal in nature, even if they were unintentional and no injury was sustained by the subject,” Mungeer said.
O’Donnell tells me that the “cure” offered by the mayor and city council is worse than the disease, and argues that holding police accountable for criminal acts or civil rights violations can be done without hindering their ability to take criminal suspects into custody. Instead of offering up any true reforms, O’Donnell says the city is simply handcuffing officers at the expense of those suspected of committing violent crimes, and he fears that gang members, drug dealers, and violent offenders will now operate in the belief that city leaders are more concerned about protecting them than the general public.
I asked O’Donnell about a pair of studies that claim increased violence around the country, including New York City, is the result of increased gun sales, and laughed, saying that the argument is “typical of the liberal media” and that the claim is just not backed up by facts on the ground.
“They’re illegal guns,” he added, “that are coming from the judicial revolving door releasing gun offenders back out onto the street that realize ‘Hey, if I can use a gun in a shooting and maybe just wound someone I’ll only get six months or maybe be released because of my COVID fears.”
O’Donnell says even though he’s allowed to legally carry a firearm in New York City thanks to federal law, he won’t be returning to the city he served anytime soon. In fact, given the increase in crime, the former officer says he’s told family and friends not to visit either, calling the spike in crime both preventable and “disgraceful.”
Check out the entire interview with Rob O’Donnell above, including his response to my question about what he thinks would happen if New York City decided to reverse decades of anti-gun legislation and recognize the right of New Yorkers to both keep and bear arms. Also, be sure to stick around after the interview for an incredible armed citizen story that will almost certainly be ignored by the national media as well as the story of a pair of police officers in Sheffield, Alabama who were in the right place at the right time to save a city councilwoman from being burned alive when the forklift she was driving caught fire.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--It's On: Northam Announces August Special Session

We ’ ve been expecting Gov .
Ralph Northam to call lawmakers back into session in Virginia for a few weeks now , and on Friday the governor made it official : a special session of the legislature will kick off in Richmond a month from now on August 18th .
The governor ’ s proclamation calling for the special session makes it clear that in addition to revising the state ’ s budget due to tax shortfalls , he wants Democrats in control of the General Assembly to bring plenty of “ criminal and social justice reforms ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few months .
Will that include a revival of HB961 , the Northam-backed gun , magazine , and suppressor ban that was defeated earlier this year after four Democrat state senators voted against the measure during the regular session ?
The governor didn ’ t specifically call for a renewed effort to push gun control legislation , but it wouldn ’ t be a stretch for Democrats to revive the bill and call it a “ social justice ” reform .
A press release from the governor ’ s office lays out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda next month , but also doesn ’ t specifically mention HB961 .
The General Assembly will meet to adopt a final budget , a process that was postponed earlier in the year due to COVID-19 .
In April , Governor Northam worked with legislators to “ unallot , ” or freeze , over $ 2.2 billion in new spending in Virginia ’ s new biennial budget .
This strategy allowed time for the Commonwealth ’ s fiscal outlook to stabilize and avoided major cuts to important new programs and state services .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ items previously “ unalloted ” —including the Governor ’ s historic investments in early childhood education , tuition-free community college , affordable housing , and broadband .
Policing initiatives are expected to include measures aimed at police accountability and oversight , use of force , increased training and education , and officer recruitment , hiring , and decertification .
Governor Northam has directed the Department of Criminal Justice Services , the Office of Diversity , Equity , and Inclusion , the Virginia African American Advisory Board , and the Commission to Examine Racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration in developing policy initiatives .
The Governor will continue to work closely with legislators and community advocates on specific legislative proposals .
Even though Northam didn ’ t specifically reference gun control in his statements on Friday , gun owners should still expect that there ’ ll at least be an attempt to revive the centerpiece of his gun control agenda when lawmakers gavel in the special session next month .
Tactically speaking , there ’ s no reason for Northam to tip his hand by calling for gun control today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners at a time when he ’ d prefer them to be blissfully unaware of his plans .
Far better , at least as far as Northam ’ s concerned , to not mention gun control for as long as possible while Democrats work on their reluctant colleagues in private over the next few weeks .
Well , gun owners need to be working on their legislators as well .
In particular , those Virginians represented by senators Scott Surovell , Creigh Deeds , Chap Petersen , and John Edwards need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to stand by their rejection of HB961 .
Those Democrats joined with Republicans in voting “ no ” when HB961 came up in the Senate Judiciary Committee back in February , and they need to be receiving some positive reinforcement from constituents before they head back to the state capitol next month .
Exit question : will their be another massive rally in support of the Second Amendment outside the state capitol like we saw back in January , even with Ralph Northam banning all gatherings of more than 100 people ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of people regularly taking place in Richmond over the past few months , and neither the governor nor Richmond ’ s mayor have done much to break up any peaceful protests .
Something tells me that if Virginians do rally in defense of their Second Amendment rights , Northam and Mayor Levar Stoney may treat that large gathering a little differently .

We’ve been expecting Gov. Ralph Northam to call lawmakers back into session in Virginia for a few weeks now, and on Friday the governor made it official: a special session of the legislature will kick off in Richmond a month from now on August 18th. The governor’s proclamation calling for the special session makes it clear that in addition to revising the state’s budget due to tax shortfalls, he wants Democrats in control of the General Assembly to bring plenty of “criminal and social justice reforms” to the table when lawmakers convene in a few months.
Will that include a revival of HB961, the Northam-backed gun, magazine, and suppressor ban that was defeated earlier this year after four Democrat state senators voted against the measure during the regular session? The governor didn’t specifically call for a renewed effort to push gun control legislation, but it wouldn’t be a stretch for Democrats to revive the bill and call it a “social justice” reform.
I’m calling legislators back to Richmond on August 18––this is our chance to address the impacts of #COVID19 on our budget, invest strategically in our economic recovery, and make real progress on policing and criminal justice reform. Let’s get to work.https://t.co/2wb432BZIT — Ralph Northam (@GovernorVA) July 17, 2020
A press release from the governor’s office lays out a few more specifics about the Democrats’ agenda next month, but also doesn’t specifically mention HB961.
The General Assembly will meet to adopt a final budget, a process that was postponed earlier in the year due to COVID-19. In April, Governor Northam worked with legislators to “unallot,” or freeze, over $2.2 billion in new spending in Virginia’s new biennial budget. This strategy allowed time for the Commonwealth’s fiscal outlook to stabilize and avoided major cuts to important new programs and state services. Legislators will now consider a number of items previously “unalloted”—including the Governor’s historic investments in early childhood education, tuition-free community college, affordable housing, and broadband. Policing initiatives are expected to include measures aimed at police accountability and oversight, use of force, increased training and education, and officer recruitment, hiring, and decertification. Governor Northam has directed the Department of Criminal Justice Services, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the Virginia African American Advisory Board, and the Commission to Examine Racial Inequity in Virginia Law to assist the administration in developing policy initiatives. The Governor will continue to work closely with legislators and community advocates on specific legislative proposals.
Even though Northam didn’t specifically reference gun control in his statements on Friday, gun owners should still expect that there’ll at least be an attempt to revive the centerpiece of his gun control agenda when lawmakers gavel in the special session next month. Tactically speaking, there’s no reason for Northam to tip his hand by calling for gun control today, which would only serve to energize gun owners at a time when he’d prefer them to be blissfully unaware of his plans. Far better, at least as far as Northam’s concerned, to not mention gun control for as long as possible while Democrats work on their reluctant colleagues in private over the next few weeks.
Well, gun owners need to be working on their legislators as well. In particular, those Virginians represented by senators Scott Surovell, Creigh Deeds, Chap Petersen, and John Edwards need to be in contact with their lawmakers to encourage them to stand by their rejection of HB961. Those Democrats joined with Republicans in voting “no” when HB961 came up in the Senate Judiciary Committee back in February, and they need to be receiving some positive reinforcement from constituents before they head back to the state capitol next month.
Exit question: will their be another massive rally in support of the Second Amendment outside the state capitol like we saw back in January, even with Ralph Northam banning all gatherings of more than 100 people? We’ve seen anti-police protests with hundreds of people regularly taking place in Richmond over the past few months, and neither the governor nor Richmond’s mayor have done much to break up any peaceful protests. Something tells me that if Virginians do rally in defense of their Second Amendment rights, Northam and Mayor Levar Stoney may treat that large gathering a little differently.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--A Gun Owner's Passionate Takedown Of The Cult Of Conformity

I do a lot of interviews for Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , but every now than then I get to have an actual , honest-to-goodness conversation , and that ’ s the case with today ’ s show and my guest John Rochford , a graduate student at Iowa State University and the author of a fantastic piece that recently appeared in the student newspaper entitled “ I am a minority , I am an individual , and I am free.
” Rochford was writing in response to another column at the Iowa State Daily that tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago to systemic racism throughout the American experience .
As the columnist wrote : Our American anthem is not the “ Star-Spangled Banner.
” The American anthem reeks of killing Black and Brown Americans .
The American anthem reeks of oppression .
The American anthem has nothing to do with freedom .
Otherwise , people would be free .
Black and Brown Americans would be free .
What does freedom look like to you ?
I hope it isn ’ t the white picket fence with a family of four in a white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the right to bear arms when Black people can ’ t bear an arm without getting shot .
I hope it isn ’ t taking a jog in beautiful weather without having to worry about that same right taking your life .
Rochford says that after reading that column , he couldn ’ t help but respond by talking about his own experience as a minority gun owner , as well as reminding the column ’ s author about the recent examples of black and brown gun owners proudly exercising their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rudimentary Google search would show the author that minorities have exercised their First and Second Amendment rights at demonstrations across the country .
At Stone Mountain , Georgia , without an arrest or death , a Black militia of approximately 200 protested the Confederate monument in the state park , and indeed , they were heavily armed .
The same organization appeared in Texas , and though I may not fully agree with the entire ideological agenda of these groups like the NFAC ( go look up the name , it can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do agree with their right to bear arms .
Heck , armed Black Lives Matter protesters and right-wing groups banded together in Richmond , Virginia , to support the Second Amendment .
I can tell you personally , here in Story County , Iowa , my race did not make it difficult to obtain a carry permit from the sheriff ’ s office .
My race has not played any role in purchasing firearms , nor in carrying firearms , and I am not the only minority with that story .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our unique American freedoms includes bearing arms .
While Rochford and I spend quite a bit of time talking about the Second Amendment , our conversation also turned to the broader issue of cancel culture , which is really nothing more than a culture of conformity .
Don ’ t agree with the position held by the far-Left ?
You have a choice ; shut up and be silent or speak your mind and face the consequences of non-conformity .
We ’ ve been told recently that cancel culture doesn ’ t exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place is a changing of the guard ; “ a cohort of established influencers grappling with the fact they are losing control over how their work is received , ” in the words of Nesrine Malik at The Guardian .
What ’ s actually happening is the loss of freedom of expression .
Without the freedom to disagree , do you really have any freedom at all ?
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with John Rochford above , and stick around after our talk for more news , including an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just hours after a court hearing where a judge extended the teen ’ s probation for illegally possessing a gun ; a Pennsylvania man who acted in defense of others when he shot a double murder suspect moments after the killings had taken place , and an officer in St. Louis County , Missouri in the right place at the right time to revive a one-week old baby who had stopped breathing .

I do a lot of interviews for Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, but every now than then I get to have an actual, honest-to-goodness conversation, and that’s the case with today’s show and my guest John Rochford, a graduate student at Iowa State University and the author of a fantastic piece that recently appeared in the student newspaper entitled “I am a minority, I am an individual, and I am free.”
Rochford was writing in response to another column at the Iowa State Daily that tried to tie in the rise in violence in Chicago to systemic racism throughout the American experience. As the columnist wrote:
Our American anthem is not the “Star-Spangled Banner.” The American anthem reeks of killing Black and Brown Americans. The American anthem reeks of oppression. The American anthem has nothing to do with freedom. Otherwise, people would be free. Black and Brown Americans would be free. What does freedom look like to you? I hope it isn’t the white picket fence with a family of four in a white suburban neighborhood. I hope it isn’t the right to bear arms when Black people can’t bear an arm without getting shot. I hope it isn’t taking a jog in beautiful weather without having to worry about that same right taking your life.
Rochford says that after reading that column, he couldn’t help but respond by talking about his own experience as a minority gun owner, as well as reminding the column’s author about the recent examples of black and brown gun owners proudly exercising their Second Amendment rights without incident.
A rudimentary Google search would show the author that minorities have exercised their First and Second Amendment rights at demonstrations across the country. At Stone Mountain, Georgia, without an arrest or death, a Black militia of approximately 200 protested the Confederate monument in the state park, and indeed, they were heavily armed. The same organization appeared in Texas, and though I may not fully agree with the entire ideological agenda of these groups like the NFAC (go look up the name, it cannot be published, I am sure) I do agree with their right to bear arms. Heck, armed Black Lives Matter protesters and right-wing groups banded together in Richmond, Virginia, to support the Second Amendment. I can tell you personally, here in Story County, Iowa, my race did not make it difficult to obtain a carry permit from the sheriff’s office. My race has not played any role in purchasing firearms, nor in carrying firearms, and I am not the only minority with that story. So yes, I will say one of our unique American freedoms includes bearing arms.
While Rochford and I spend quite a bit of time talking about the Second Amendment, our conversation also turned to the broader issue of cancel culture, which is really nothing more than a culture of conformity. Don’t agree with the position held by the far-Left? You have a choice; shut up and be silent or speak your mind and face the consequences of non-conformity.
We’ve been told recently that cancel culture doesn’t exist and that what’s really taking place is a changing of the guard; “a cohort of established influencers grappling with the fact they are losing control over how their work is received,” in the words of Nesrine Malik at The Guardian. What’s actually happening is the loss of freedom of expression. Without the freedom to disagree, do you really have any freedom at all?
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with John Rochford above, and stick around after our talk for more news, including an Illinois teen who allegedly shot a woman just hours after a court hearing where a judge extended the teen’s probation for illegally possessing a gun; a Pennsylvania man who acted in defense of others when he shot a double murder suspect moments after the killings had taken place, and an officer in St. Louis County, Missouri in the right place at the right time to revive a one-week old baby who had stopped breathing.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--Portland Mayor Lashes Out At Feds Over Violent Protests

For the most part , the media isn ’ t doing much reporting over violent protests .
The ADHD of the media has apparently made them shift their focus to other things and the public often doesn ’ t have a clue much of anything is still going on .
To them , the violent protests are a thing of the past .
Well , they ’ re not .
Not really .
In Portland , for example , protest after protest erupts .
It ’ s gotten bad enough that the federal government has a number of federal officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That , according to Portland ’ s mayor , is apparently a problem .
Portland , Ore. , Mayor Ted Wheeler lashed out at the Department of Homeland Security on Twitter Tuesday , urging federal agents to “ stay inside ” or “ leave ” as the city faces its sixth straight week of protests and unrest .
“ I told the Acting Secretary that my biggest immediate concern is the violence federal officers brought to our streets in recent days , and the life-threatening tactics his agents use , ” Wheeler wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need or want their help.
” Today the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security asked to speak with me about demonstration activity in Portland .
He expressed his concern about ongoing violence and asked how his agency can help .
DHS deployed officers from multiple federal law enforcement agencies this month to protect government installations , including a courthouse .
Demonstrations have taken place around the country after the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody .
Four officers were fired and charged , including Derek Chauvin , who appeared in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neck for nearly nine minutes .
In other words , six weeks of violent protests aren ’ t the issue , it ’ s DHS officers who are the issue .
I mean , just what did they do ?
Did the take to the streets to try and quell protests regardless of what Wheeler and his police department wanted ?
Or , was it something else ?
It was something else .
Over the weekend , a 23-year-old demonstrator allegedly struck a federal officer in the head with a hammer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of beating a hole into the building ’ s door with the hammer before officers came outside .
Then he struck the officer in the head and shoulder with the hammer before being taken into custody , according to the Portland Police Bureau .
This is the same Wheeler who is demanding the federal government deal with graffiti that ’ s been painted on their buildings .
So , that kind of vandalism is a problem , but the actual destruction of federal property is something that should keep DHS officers inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think so .
The truth of the matter is that DHS wouldn ’ t even be there if he could deal with the violence in his city .
However , since Portland is a known Antifa stronghold , Wheeler has no interest in doing any such thing .
Instead , he wants to make it easier for Antifa and their comrades to pillage and burn their way through his community .
Then he has the cajones to pretend that the feds are the problem ?
Wheeler needs to be removed from office because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mayor .
If the people of Portland elect him to a second term , it ’ s officially time to write off Portland as an American city .
There ’ s literally no hope for the community if they do that .
After all , how bad can a guy fail to do his job and still be considered the best man for the job ?

For the most part, the media isn’t doing much reporting over violent protests. The ADHD of the media has apparently made them shift their focus to other things and the public often doesn’t have a clue much of anything is still going on. To them, the violent protests are a thing of the past.
Well, they’re not. Not really.
In Portland, for example, protest after protest erupts. It’s gotten bad enough that the federal government has a number of federal officers on hand to protect their buildings.
That, according to Portland’s mayor, is apparently a problem.
Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler lashed out at the Department of Homeland Security on Twitter Tuesday, urging federal agents to “stay inside” or “leave” as the city faces its sixth straight week of protests and unrest. “I told the Acting Secretary that my biggest immediate concern is the violence federal officers brought to our streets in recent days, and the life-threatening tactics his agents use,” Wheeler wrote Tuesday evening. “We do not need or want their help.” Today the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security asked to speak with me about demonstration activity in Portland. He expressed his concern about ongoing violence and asked how his agency can help. — Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) July 14, 2020 DHS deployed officers from multiple federal law enforcement agencies this month to protect government installations, including a courthouse. Demonstrations have taken place around the country after the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. Four officers were fired and charged, including Derek Chauvin, who appeared in a video holding his knee on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes. https://twitter.com/tedwheeler/status/1283177059074752512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1283177059074752512%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fportland-mayor-ted-wheeler-feds-stay-inside-or-leave
Well, that’s something.
In other words, six weeks of violent protests aren’t the issue, it’s DHS officers who are the issue.
I mean, just what did they do? Did the take to the streets to try and quell protests regardless of what Wheeler and his police department wanted? Or, was it something else?
It was something else.
Over the weekend, a 23-year-old demonstrator allegedly struck a federal officer in the head with a hammer outside a courthouse. The demonstrator is accused of beating a hole into the building’s door with the hammer before officers came outside. Then he struck the officer in the head and shoulder with the hammer before being taken into custody, according to the Portland Police Bureau.
This is the same Wheeler who is demanding the federal government deal with graffiti that’s been painted on their buildings. So, that kind of vandalism is a problem, but the actual destruction of federal property is something that should keep DHS officers inside?
No, I don’t think so.
The truth of the matter is that DHS wouldn’t even be there if he could deal with the violence in his city. However, since Portland is a known Antifa stronghold, Wheeler has no interest in doing any such thing. Instead, he wants to make it easier for Antifa and their comrades to pillage and burn their way through his community. Then he has the cajones to pretend that the feds are the problem?
Wheeler needs to be removed from office because it’s an abject failure as a mayor. If the people of Portland elect him to a second term, it’s officially time to write off Portland as an American city. There’s literally no hope for the community if they do that. After all, how bad can a guy fail to do his job and still be considered the best man for the job?


bearingarms--2020-07-17--Bloomberg Pledges $1 Million To Flip Pennsylvania

The state of Pennsylvania has shaped up to be quite the battleground state when it comes to gun rights .
While it boasts two massive urban areas–Pittsburg and Philadelphia–it also tends to have a fairly pro-gun lean to the legislature .
Or , at least , it has up until now .
While pro-gun lawmakers have been able to hold their ground despite Democratic Governor Tom Wolf ’ s preferences , it seems that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun organization has decided to get into the mix .
In particular , he ’ s planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and swing the state .
Of course , that ’ s only part of it .
While the national election looms large , the hope is also to unseat some pro-gun lawmakers at the state level and turn Pennsylvania into an anti-gun state , much like what happened in Virginia .
Now , can Bloomberg and company do it ?
I ’ d love to tell you no , but Virginia illustrates that one shouldn ’ t be too sure of it .
As noted earlier , Pennsylvania has two large urban centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can have a huge impact on a state ’ s politics .
The fact that Pennsylvania isn ’ t rabidly anti-gun already is kind of a miracle as it is .
That means Bloomberg and company have a real shot here .
However , urban doesn ’ t automatically mean leftist .
A number of people in these cities harbor pro-gun sympathies .
While they may not be enough to sway local politics , they join with their partners in the rural parts of the state to make a real difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be enough to carry the day despite Bloomberg ’ s efforts .
What we can ’ t do , however , it take a “ wait and see ” approach .
Instead , pro-gunners should prepare themselves for battle .
They ’ d best take this seriously before anti-gun activists make Pennsylvania into Virginia Part 2 .
Take it seriously and fight it like you ’ re the only trying to take control .
Only then can you be confident of victory .
Even then , it ’ s best to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what the polls tell you .

The state of Pennsylvania has shaped up to be quite the battleground state when it comes to gun rights. While it boasts two massive urban areas–Pittsburg and Philadelphia–it also tends to have a fairly pro-gun lean to the legislature. Or, at least, it has up until now.
While pro-gun lawmakers have been able to hold their ground despite Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s preferences, it seems that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun organization has decided to get into the mix.
In particular, he’s planning on dropping a cool million to try and swing the state.
The political arm of an anti-gun-violence group cofounded by the billionaire former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg says it will spend at least $1 million to help Democrats try to gain control of the Pennsylvania legislature in the November elections. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund said Wednesday it would aim to oust Republican lawmakers in Harrisburg who “have refused to take action on common-sense gun safety legislation” like strengthening background checks. “We see Pennsylvania as one of the most important battleground states for gun safety in 2020,” Charlie Kelly, senior political adviser for Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, said in an interview Wednesday. “After yet another year without action on gun safety, I think that the Pennsylvania state House and state Senate are absolutely in play.” Pennsylvania is already considered a crucial swing state in the presidential election, but the fight over gun laws underscores how some Democrats and progressive groups see an opportunity to expand their ambitions beyond merely defeating President Donald Trump.
Of course, that’s only part of it. While the national election looms large, the hope is also to unseat some pro-gun lawmakers at the state level and turn Pennsylvania into an anti-gun state, much like what happened in Virginia.
Now, can Bloomberg and company do it?
I’d love to tell you no, but Virginia illustrates that one shouldn’t be too sure of it. As noted earlier, Pennsylvania has two large urban centers. These are strongholds for anti-gun sentiment and can have a huge impact on a state’s politics. The fact that Pennsylvania isn’t rabidly anti-gun already is kind of a miracle as it is.
That means Bloomberg and company have a real shot here.
However, urban doesn’t automatically mean leftist. A number of people in these cities harbor pro-gun sympathies. While they may not be enough to sway local politics, they join with their partners in the rural parts of the state to make a real difference. It’s entirely possible that they’ll be enough to carry the day despite Bloomberg’s efforts.
What we can’t do, however, it take a “wait and see” approach. Instead, pro-gunners should prepare themselves for battle. They’d best take this seriously before anti-gun activists make Pennsylvania into Virginia Part 2. Take it seriously and fight it like you’re the only trying to take control. Only then can you be confident of victory.
Even then, it’s best to play like you’re behind regardless of what the polls tell you.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--College Student Disciplined Over Photo With Rifle

A Fordham University student says he ’ s being forced to undergo “ political re-education ” after running afoul of campus administrators after posting a picture of himself holding a rifle and referencing the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre .
Andrew Tong tells the Epoch Times that officials at Fordham declared that he had violated the university ’ s regulations “ relating to bias/and or hate crimes ” as well as the school ’ s policy against “ threats/intimidation ” with two social media posts .
The first post was simply a picture of retired St. Louis police captain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riots in St. Louis a few weeks ago .
Beneath Dorn ’ s picture , Tong simply wrote “ Y ’ all a bunch of hypocrites.
” In the second post , Tong posed with a rifle , captioning the picture “ Don ’ t tread on me # 198964 ” with emojis of the U.S. and Chinese flags .
Tong says that was a reference to the Tiananmen Square Massacre , which took place June 4th , 1989 .
As the son of Chinese immigrants , you can imagine that Tong might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of students and pro-democracy demonstrators at the hands of the Communist government , but I don ’ t see anything threatening at all in his Instagram post .
According to the college student , however , the complaints about his picture began almost immediately after it was posted to the social media site .
On the night of June 4 , hours after Tong ’ s posts gained the university ’ s attention , a group of public safety officers paid Tong an unexpected visit , questioning him about his possession of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A university investigation into Tong ’ s alleged violation of its code of conduct ensued over the following month , with it concluding that Tong ’ s action should be punished .
As part of his disciplinary probation , which will remain in effect until he graduates , Tong is banned from representing the university in any extracurricular activities or running for or holding leadership roles in student organizations .
Tong can no longer enter the university campus without the dean ’ s permission , and he has to finish the remainder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In what Tong described as a “ Soviet nightmare , ” the university is also demanding him to complete “ implicit bias ” training with the Office of Multicultural Affairs and write an apology letter .
Tong acknowledges that Fordham University is a private institution , so the First Amendment argument that would apply to a public university don ’ t come into play here .
Still , he says that the university claims to protect and cherish “ freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas.
” Clearly that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction to Tong ’ s innocuous social media posts .
The student says that unless the university rescinds its punishment and apologizes for the crackdown on his speech , he ’ ll take legal action .
In a letter to Fordham officials , Tong wrote that he ’ s willing to take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary , adding , “ This is not the time to retreat in the dread of fear , this is the time to fight in the name of democracy.
” I wish him the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fighting an uphill battle , at least in terms of getting his apology .
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has named repeatedly Fordham as one of the worst universities in the country in terms of protecting the freedom of speech of students .
FIRE ranks both public and private universities with a color-coded system : green means the school does protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty , yellow means there are some issues , and red means that the school has at least one policy in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the freedom of speech .
Fordham University has received a “ Red Light ” ranking because of the very policies used to target Tong .
If Tong hasn ’ t already reached out to FIRE , I would encourage him to do so .
The organization not only ranks colleges and universities on their speech codes , it challenges some of those codes in court as well .
If Tong is looking to take the fight to Fordham , the FIRE would be a good ally to have in his corner .

A Fordham University student says he’s being forced to undergo “political re-education” after running afoul of campus administrators after posting a picture of himself holding a rifle and referencing the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Andrew Tong tells the Epoch Times that officials at Fordham declared that he had violated the university’s regulations “relating to bias/and or hate crimes” as well as the school’s policy against “threats/intimidation” with two social media posts.
The first post was simply a picture of retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, who was murdered during riots in St. Louis a few weeks ago. Beneath Dorn’s picture, Tong simply wrote “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites.” In the second post, Tong posed with a rifle, captioning the picture “Don’t tread on me #198964” with emojis of the U.S. and Chinese flags.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBB08GDlFNX/?utm_source=ig_embed
Tong says that was a reference to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which took place June 4th, 1989. As the son of Chinese immigrants, you can imagine that Tong might have some strong opinions about the massacre of students and pro-democracy demonstrators at the hands of the Communist government, but I don’t see anything threatening at all in his Instagram post.
According to the college student, however, the complaints about his picture began almost immediately after it was posted to the social media site.
On the night of June 4, hours after Tong’s posts gained the university’s attention, a group of public safety officers paid Tong an unexpected visit, questioning him about his possession of a firearm and his intention behind those posts. A university investigation into Tong’s alleged violation of its code of conduct ensued over the following month, with it concluding that Tong’s action should be punished. As part of his disciplinary probation, which will remain in effect until he graduates, Tong is banned from representing the university in any extracurricular activities or running for or holding leadership roles in student organizations. Tong can no longer enter the university campus without the dean’s permission, and he has to finish the remainder of the school year through remote learning. In what Tong described as a “Soviet nightmare,” the university is also demanding him to complete “implicit bias” training with the Office of Multicultural Affairs and write an apology letter.
Tong acknowledges that Fordham University is a private institution, so the First Amendment argument that would apply to a public university don’t come into play here. Still, he says that the university claims to protect and cherish “freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas.” Clearly that’s not the case based on the reaction to Tong’s innocuous social media posts.
The student says that unless the university rescinds its punishment and apologizes for the crackdown on his speech, he’ll take legal action. In a letter to Fordham officials, Tong wrote that he’s willing to take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary, adding, “This is not the time to retreat in the dread of fear, this is the time to fight in the name of democracy.”
I wish him the best of luck, but he may be fighting an uphill battle, at least in terms of getting his apology. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has named repeatedly Fordham as one of the worst universities in the country in terms of protecting the freedom of speech of students. FIRE ranks both public and private universities with a color-coded system: green means the school does protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty, yellow means there are some issues, and red means that the school has at least one policy in place that “clearly and substantially” restricts the freedom of speech. Fordham University has received a “Red Light” ranking because of the very policies used to target Tong.
Fordham’s Internet Usage Policy, which prohibits “using any IT resource or communication services…to intimidate, insult, embarrass and harass others,” and its Harassment Policy, which is defines sexual harassment “as ‘unwelcome conduct’ of a sexual nature, including but not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,” fall under this classification.
If Tong hasn’t already reached out to FIRE, I would encourage him to do so. The organization not only ranks colleges and universities on their speech codes, it challenges some of those codes in court as well. If Tong is looking to take the fight to Fordham, the FIRE would be a good ally to have in his corner.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--Anti-Gun Groups Bailed Out With Taxpayer Money

Someone once talked about the evils of taxes , arguing that one of the worst evils is to take money from someone to fund something he vehemently opposes .
I don ’ t remember the quote and I ’ m not having a lot of luck finding it , but the sentiment is sound .
To be sure , we face this all the time .
Some oppose the military , and their tax dollars still fund it .
Others oppose Planned Parenthood , yet tax dollars flow there just the same .
However , COVID-19 and the ensuing shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to figure out how to lessen the impact .
They use tax dollars to help all kinds of businesses pay their expenses and employees during the shutdown .
Many people aren ’ t crazy about tax dollars funding private enterprises , which is fair .
Perhaps worst , though , is that it funded political action as well .
Gun control activists are lining their pockets with taxpayer-funded coronavirus economic relief while at the same time paying millions to antigun candidates who would crush the Second Amendment rights of American citizens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ infuriating , the wanton abuse of taxpayer-funded support for small businesses or the audacity of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords : Courage to Fight Gun Violence co-founders former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Arizona , Mark Kelly .
Brady netted between $ 350,000 and $ 1 million , while Giffords grabbed between $ 150,000- $ 350,000 .
At the same time , Brady pledged $ 4 million for gun control in the 2020 election , and Giffords just announced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado alone to support former Democratic Gov .
John Hickenlooper in his race against Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner .
To help bridge the troubled waters for businesses , Congress passed the CARES Act , which provided Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) loans for employers to keep workers on their payroll .
Watchdogs have zeroed in on companies that received loans but could ’ ve gone without them .
Brady and Giffords are using taxpayer dollars to keep their operations afloat , while spending millions to buy the gun control candidates they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money is fungible , American taxpayers are underwriting gun control organizations and their efforts to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those taxpayers .
When asked about receiving PPP loans , Brady ’ s spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon , “ We just applied and were approved , obviously , under the same sort of criteria as others with concerns for payroll.
” Except for two important factors .
One , as a non-profit funded by donations , they really weren ’ t as likely to be impacted as a private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
Second , they ’ re political action groups , meaning taxpayer dollars went to help fund groups trying to advance a political agenda .
Can you imagine the outcry if the NRA received PPP money ?
Oh , it ’ s all we ’ d hear about for months .
The truth is , no political group should get taxpayer money , especially not funds intended for small businesses .
After all , PPP money ran out rather quickly at one point , leaving hundreds of small business owners wondering what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been dealt with , but I don ’ t think anyone intended for Brady and Giffords to use that money .
Especially since financial contributions were likely still flowing in .
So thanks to taxpayer dollars , our opponents have gotten a financial leg up as we head into the coming election season .
Whether or not you wanted to back either group , you did .
We all did .
And that ’ s a problem that should never have happened .

Someone once talked about the evils of taxes, arguing that one of the worst evils is to take money from someone to fund something he vehemently opposes. I don’t remember the quote and I’m not having a lot of luck finding it, but the sentiment is sound.
To be sure, we face this all the time. Some oppose the military, and their tax dollars still fund it. Others oppose Planned Parenthood, yet tax dollars flow there just the same.
However, COVID-19 and the ensuing shutdown of our entire economy had the government trying to figure out how to lessen the impact. They use tax dollars to help all kinds of businesses pay their expenses and employees during the shutdown.
Many people aren’t crazy about tax dollars funding private enterprises, which is fair. Perhaps worst, though, is that it funded political action as well.
Gun control activists are lining their pockets with taxpayer-funded coronavirus economic relief while at the same time paying millions to antigun candidates who would crush the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. The difficulty is deciding which is more infuriating, the wanton abuse of taxpayer-funded support for small businesses or the audacity of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence co-founders former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Arizona, Mark Kelly. Brady netted between $350,000 and $1 million, while Giffords grabbed between $150,000-$350,000. At the same time, Brady pledged $4 million for gun control in the 2020 election, and Giffords just announced a plan to spend $1.25 million in Colorado alone to support former Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper in his race against Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner. … To help bridge the troubled waters for businesses, Congress passed the CARES Act, which provided Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans for employers to keep workers on their payroll. Watchdogs have zeroed in on companies that received loans but could’ve gone without them. Brady and Giffords are using taxpayer dollars to keep their operations afloat, while spending millions to buy the gun control candidates they want, including Mark Kelly. Because money is fungible, American taxpayers are underwriting gun control organizations and their efforts to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those taxpayers. When asked about receiving PPP loans, Brady’s spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon, “We just applied and were approved, obviously, under the same sort of criteria as others with concerns for payroll.”
Except for two important factors.
One, as a non-profit funded by donations, they really weren’t as likely to be impacted as a private business that couldn’t make any money.
Second, they’re political action groups, meaning taxpayer dollars went to help fund groups trying to advance a political agenda. Can you imagine the outcry if the NRA received PPP money? Oh, it’s all we’d hear about for months.
The truth is, no political group should get taxpayer money, especially not funds intended for small businesses. After all, PPP money ran out rather quickly at one point, leaving hundreds of small business owners wondering what they would do. That, fortunately, has been dealt with, but I don’t think anyone intended for Brady and Giffords to use that money.
Especially since financial contributions were likely still flowing in.
So thanks to taxpayer dollars, our opponents have gotten a financial leg up as we head into the coming election season. Whether or not you wanted to back either group, you did. We all did.
And that’s a problem that should never have happened.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--FL Gun Ban Group Switching Focus After Repeated Failures

Ban Assault Weapons Now was formed in the wake of the shootings in Parkland , Florida in 2018 with the intent of getting a ban on semi-automatic rifles on the 2020 ballot in Florida , but after the group failed to collect enough signatures , they set their sights on the 2022 elections .
Then , earlier this year the state Supreme Court rejected the language of the group ’ s ballot initiative , saying that it was misleading to voters and forcing the group to start all over again .
Now it appears BAWN has thrown in the towel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns via a voter referendum goes .
Instead , on Thursday the group announced that it ’ s switching its focus and will try to elect anti-gun candidates to the Florida legislature instead .
The political committee had spent more than $ 2 million trying to get a proposed assault weapons ban amendment on the statewide ballot .
But in June n a 4-1 decision , the Supreme Court ruled BAWN ’ s proposed ballot summary did not pass muster because it “ affirmatively misleads voters ” and so the proposal could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BAWN political committee had raised more than $ 2.4 million for the effort and still has about $ 430,000 left , according to its most recent filings with the Florida Division of Elections .
With that , the group announced it will transition from an organization focused on banning assault weapons through a citizen petition initiative into an advocacy group supporting state legislative candidates committed to sponsoring an assault weapons ban in the Florida House and the Florida Senate .
FloridaPolitics reports that the group plans on donating to candidates as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications in an attempt to flip the state legislature in November .
The group ’ s executive director Brendan Olsen stated “ BAWN will work with anyone , regardless of political party , who is willing to help us take on gun violence by banning assault weapons .
In memory of the countless lives we have lost to these killing machines and in gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed our petition and donated to our cause , we vow to keep fighting every single day to protect our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone.
” Floridians simply haven ’ t shown much interest in banning the most commonly sold rifle in the United States , and I don ’ t think Olsen is going to find too many members of the GOP who are willing to sign on to a bill to AR-15s .
Back in February , when the group had to turn in 766,200 valid signatures to get the proposed ban on this year ’ s ballot , the group was only able to submit 147,304 signatures from voters , despite months of work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signature gathering process .
Marion Hammer , executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida , pointed out in an alert to members that Gail Schwartz , one of the founders of the anti-gun group , told the Miami Herald that the group is hoping to replace “ cowardly politicians ” with “ brave House and Senate candidates ” who would back a gun ban .
I hate to break it to Schwartz , but this issue has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice .
It has everything to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t ban our way to safety , and addressing the real issues that lead to violent crime , whether it ’ s committed with a fist , a knife , a handgun , or ( rarely ) a rifle .
Given the strong gun sales and new gun owners in the state , my guess is that BAWN is going to be just as successful in replacing pro-2A politicians with anti-gun candidates as they were at getting a gun ban on the ballot this year , but the group will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their efforts .
Hopefully gun owners in the Sunshine State will be motivated and energized to turn out on Election Day to ensure that gun banners don ’ t make any gains this November .

Ban Assault Weapons Now was formed in the wake of the shootings in Parkland, Florida in 2018 with the intent of getting a ban on semi-automatic rifles on the 2020 ballot in Florida, but after the group failed to collect enough signatures, they set their sights on the 2022 elections. Then, earlier this year the state Supreme Court rejected the language of the group’s ballot initiative, saying that it was misleading to voters and forcing the group to start all over again.
Now it appears BAWN has thrown in the towel, at least as far as banning guns via a voter referendum goes. Instead, on Thursday the group announced that it’s switching its focus and will try to elect anti-gun candidates to the Florida legislature instead.
The political committee had spent more than $2 million trying to get a proposed assault weapons ban amendment on the statewide ballot. But in June n a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled BAWN’s proposed ballot summary did not pass muster because it “affirmatively misleads voters” and so the proposal could not be put on the ballot. The BAWN political committee had raised more than $2.4 million for the effort and still has about $430,000 left, according to its most recent filings with the Florida Division of Elections. With that, the group announced it will transition from an organization focused on banning assault weapons through a citizen petition initiative into an advocacy group supporting state legislative candidates committed to sponsoring an assault weapons ban in the Florida House and the Florida Senate.
FloridaPolitics reports that the group plans on donating to candidates as well as sending out its own independent mailers and communications in an attempt to flip the state legislature in November.
The group’s executive director Brendan Olsen stated “BAWN will work with anyone, regardless of political party, who is willing to help us take on gun violence by banning assault weapons. In memory of the countless lives we have lost to these killing machines and in gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed our petition and donated to our cause, we vow to keep fighting every single day to protect our communities and make our state safer for everyone.”
Floridians simply haven’t shown much interest in banning the most commonly sold rifle in the United States, and I don’t think Olsen is going to find too many members of the GOP who are willing to sign on to a bill to AR-15s. Back in February, when the group had to turn in 766,200 valid signatures to get the proposed ban on this year’s ballot, the group was only able to submit 147,304 signatures from voters, despite months of work and over a million dollars spent on the signature gathering process.
Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, pointed out in an alert to members that Gail Schwartz, one of the founders of the anti-gun group, told the Miami Herald that the group is hoping to replace “cowardly politicians” with “brave House and Senate candidates” who would back a gun ban. I hate to break it to Schwartz, but this issue has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. It has everything to do with respecting the Second Amendment, understanding that we can’t ban our way to safety, and addressing the real issues that lead to violent crime, whether it’s committed with a fist, a knife, a handgun, or (rarely) a rifle.
Given the strong gun sales and new gun owners in the state, my guess is that BAWN is going to be just as successful in replacing pro-2A politicians with anti-gun candidates as they were at getting a gun ban on the ballot this year, but the group will be throwing several hundred thousand dollars into their efforts. Hopefully gun owners in the Sunshine State will be motivated and energized to turn out on Election Day to ensure that gun banners don’t make any gains this November.


bearingarms--2020-07-17--Alzheimer Study Really Anti-Gun Propaganda

Alzheimer ’ s is a terrible disease .
I , like many of you , have seen it with my own eyes .
It ’ s not just the patient who suffers , either .
The entire family has to suffer through it with them .
All around the world , researchers are trying to find a way to cure this disease .
I think we can all agree that it ’ s a worthy cause , though we may disagree on any number of other factors surrounding the effort .
However , there are also those who are looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse to push an anti-gun narrative .
Many people with dementia may have access to a gun in their home , yet few families have gotten advice from a doctor on how to handle the situation , a small new study finds .
In the United States , somewhere between 39 % and 49 % of older adults live in a home with firearms , the researchers said .
Meanwhile , more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer ’ s disease , the most common form of dementia , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Exactly how often those two realities intersect is not clear .
It ’ s difficult to get good data on how many people with dementia have access to a firearm , said study author Dr. Emmy Betz .
And yet , Betz published a study on this anyway .
The problem , as presented , is that doctors aren ’ t giving patients advice about how to deal with guns .
This somehow represents a huge problem , of course , because people are too stupid to figure out that if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has something like this , you should probably secure your firearms .
More importantly , though , the study is kind of a joke .
See , in studies , there ’ s a concept called “ sample size ” that matters a great deal .
You want as large a sample size as possible because then you ’ re less likely to find aberrations pop up as findings .
For example , in a study of 124 people , just 20 folks can have an outsized impact on what gets found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really representative of society as a whole .
What ’ s more , though , is that people like Betz know this .
They learn about this kind of thing , about how statistical noise can skew results .
They learn that 124 people isn ’ t a sample size to give meaningful data about a nation of over 300 million people .
Yet , what ’ s anti-gun about this ?
After all , it ’ s a bad study that takes more of an aim at doctors , not gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , get rid of your guns if you have anyone living with you who has Alzheimer ’ s .
Sorry , but Kallmyer doesn ’ t get to make that call , nor does she get to use Betz ’ s tiny sample size as a soapbox to pontificate from .
Frankly , many of us gun owners are good and fed up with these groups which have nothing to do with firearms trying to tell us what we should do with our guns .
Sure , it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an Alzheimer patient ’ s guns , but many people have their loved one living with them so they can provide care .
Recommending they be disarmed and vulnerable because they want to be compassionate family members is beyond ridiculous .
Frankly , all of this is yet another example of the medical industry pushing an anti-gun narrative .
They know that sample size is too small to be indicative of anything , they just don ’ t care because it ’ ll advance the narrative and they know most people don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place .
Well , too bad for them that we do .

Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease. I, like many of you, have seen it with my own eyes. It’s not just the patient who suffers, either. The entire family has to suffer through it with them.
All around the world, researchers are trying to find a way to cure this disease. I think we can all agree that it’s a worthy cause, though we may disagree on any number of other factors surrounding the effort.
However, there are also those who are looking to use Alzheimer’s as an excuse to push an anti-gun narrative.
Many people with dementia may have access to a gun in their home, yet few families have gotten advice from a doctor on how to handle the situation, a small new study finds. In the United States, somewhere between 39% and 49% of older adults live in a home with firearms, the researchers said. Meanwhile, more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. Exactly how often those two realities intersect is not clear. It’s difficult to get good data on how many people with dementia have access to a firearm, said study author Dr. Emmy Betz.
And yet, Betz published a study on this anyway.
The problem, as presented, is that doctors aren’t giving patients advice about how to deal with guns. This somehow represents a huge problem, of course, because people are too stupid to figure out that if you have a family member in your home that has something like this, you should probably secure your firearms.
More importantly, though, the study is kind of a joke.
The study, published July 16 in JAMA Network Open, included 124 people who were caregivers to someone with dementia. All were participants in a larger, national study of Americans living in homes with a firearm. In cases where caregivers lived with a dementia patient, one-third said there was access to firearms in the home. Of all caregivers, most thought doctors should talk about firearm safety — but only 5% said that had ever happened.
One-third is 40 people.
Total.
See, in studies, there’s a concept called “sample size” that matters a great deal. You want as large a sample size as possible because then you’re less likely to find aberrations pop up as findings. For example, in a study of 124 people, just 20 folks can have an outsized impact on what gets found, even if they’re not really representative of society as a whole.
What’s more, though, is that people like Betz know this. They learn about this kind of thing, about how statistical noise can skew results. They learn that 124 people isn’t a sample size to give meaningful data about a nation of over 300 million people.
Yet, what’s anti-gun about this? After all, it’s a bad study that takes more of an aim at doctors, not gun owners, right?
Well, not really.
“We generally recommend firearms be removed from the home,” [Alzheimer’s Association’s Beth] Kallmyer said. Locking the firearm and ammunition away in hidden locations, or having the gun disabled, are other options. But, Kallmyer noted, that does not guarantee the firearm won’t be found. And even if the gun cannot be fired, she added, simply the appearance of the person with dementia holding a gun can be trouble — especially if it’s directed at someone from outside the household, or if law enforcement is involved, for example.
In other words, get rid of your guns if you have anyone living with you who has Alzheimer’s.
Sorry, but Kallmyer doesn’t get to make that call, nor does she get to use Betz’s tiny sample size as a soapbox to pontificate from. Frankly, many of us gun owners are good and fed up with these groups which have nothing to do with firearms trying to tell us what we should do with our guns. Sure, it may be different if we’re talking about an Alzheimer patient’s guns, but many people have their loved one living with them so they can provide care. Recommending they be disarmed and vulnerable because they want to be compassionate family members is beyond ridiculous.
Frankly, all of this is yet another example of the medical industry pushing an anti-gun narrative. They know that sample size is too small to be indicative of anything, they just don’t care because it’ll advance the narrative and they know most people don’t know anything about sample size in the first place.
Well, too bad for them that we do.


bearingarms--2020-07-18--NJ Police Shooting Reveals Media Bias

NJ Police Shooting Reveals Media Bias

The Morristown Patch recently reported on a police involved shooting in New Jersey , but with an incredibly misleading headline that screams “ Police Shot , Killed Morris Twp .
Man With BB Gun : Attorney General.
” In the article it is explained a person called 911 , describing a man , 24-year-old Timothy O ’ Shea bleeding from a self inflicted cut who was brandishing a pistol .
The police came on the scene and as reported by The Patch : “ …at approximately 4:19 p.m. , officers encountered O ’ Shea , who was holding a pistol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the encounter , one officer fired his weapon , striking O ’ Shea , authorities said .
Officers rendered medical aid until EMS arrived and transported O ’ Shea to Morristown Medical Center , where he was pronounced dead at 5:41 p.m. , authorities said .
The pistol that was in his hand was recovered at the scene and determined to be a replica Beretta 9mm Airsoft pistol.
” Any police involved shooting is a tragic event and troubling , especially when the loss of life is involved .
The full details of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however based on the article it can be speculated there was some sort of domestic and or psychiatric event unfolding with Mr. O ’ Shea .
Those details are still pending .
What is also troubling is the headline touting the weapon used was a BB gun .
An airsoft gun is not a BB gun .
Granted , they are both toys which potentially can be dangerous , but toys none the less .
What makes this particularly bothersome , is that in the state of New Jersey , BB and pellet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
In fact , they ’ re regulated as actual firearms , while airsoft guns are not .
This is not splitting hairs in a state like New Jersey .
In order to purchase a BB gun in the state of New Jersey , if it ’ s a rifle , one must first obtain a Firearms ID Card ( FID ) .
To get an FID , applicants need to submit to a criminal background check , get finger printed , obtain two character references , and then there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an individual can go to a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer , submit to another background check , in the form of a NICS , and then go home with their Red Ryder .
Buying a BB pistol ?
They are regulated as a handgun in the state of New Jersey , requiring a Pistol Purchasers Permit , background checks , the same process as an FID , but for EVERY pistol .
Being treated as a gun by law , a BB pistol would need the bearer in the state of NJ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bear this “ arm ” in public on their person , or even in their car outside of exemption .
Want to buy two BB pistols in NJ ?
You need two permits and two months , NJ only allowing residents to purchase one handgun a month .
These may seem like silly semantics , but they are not .
The article implies an airsoft gun is a firearm , which they are not .
Forget that in the entire rest of the US , both BB guns and airsoft guns are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflict harm , but they ’ re not seen as firearms .

The Morristown Patch recently reported on a police involved shooting in New Jersey, but with an incredibly misleading headline that screams “Police Shot, Killed Morris Twp. Man With BB Gun: Attorney General.”
In the article it is explained a person called 911, describing a man, 24-year-old Timothy O’Shea bleeding from a self inflicted cut who was brandishing a pistol. The police came on the scene and as reported by The Patch:
“…at approximately 4:19 p.m., officers encountered O’Shea, who was holding a pistol and bleeding, authorities said. During the encounter, one officer fired his weapon, striking O’Shea, authorities said. Officers rendered medical aid until EMS arrived and transported O’Shea to Morristown Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 5:41 p.m., authorities said. The pistol that was in his hand was recovered at the scene and determined to be a replica Beretta 9mm Airsoft pistol.”
Any police involved shooting is a tragic event and troubling, especially when the loss of life is involved. The full details of this incident are still under investigation, however based on the article it can be speculated there was some sort of domestic and or psychiatric event unfolding with Mr. O’Shea. Those details are still pending.
What is also troubling is the headline touting the weapon used was a BB gun. An airsoft gun is not a BB gun. Granted, they are both toys which potentially can be dangerous, but toys none the less. What makes this particularly bothersome, is that in the state of New Jersey, BB and pellet guns aren’t viewed as toys at all. In fact, they’re regulated as actual firearms, while airsoft guns are not. This is not splitting hairs in a state like New Jersey.
In order to purchase a BB gun in the state of New Jersey, if it’s a rifle, one must first obtain a Firearms ID Card (FID). To get an FID, applicants need to submit to a criminal background check, get finger printed, obtain two character references, and then there may be issuance. With that FID, an individual can go to a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer, submit to another background check, in the form of a NICS, and then go home with their Red Ryder.
Buying a BB pistol? They are regulated as a handgun in the state of New Jersey, requiring a Pistol Purchasers Permit, background checks, the same process as an FID, but for EVERY pistol. Being treated as a gun by law, a BB pistol would need the bearer in the state of NJ to have a permit to carry in order to bear this “arm” in public on their person, or even in their car outside of exemption. Want to buy two BB pistols in NJ? You need two permits and two months, NJ only allowing residents to purchase one handgun a month.
These may seem like silly semantics, but they are not. The article implies an airsoft gun is a firearm, which they are not. Forget that in the entire rest of the US, both BB guns and airsoft guns are toys. Yes, toys that can inflict harm, but they’re not seen as firearms.