bearingarms--2020-03-03--So What If Bloomberg Is "Wasting" Money On Presidential Bid?

The Washington Post is wondering if today ’ s the day we ’ ll learn if Michael Bloomberg wasted $ 500 million dollars in his bid to become president .
It ’ s the wrong question to ask , frankly .
Bloomberg could have spent twice that amount of money in his presidential campaign without feeling a financial pinch , and even if his campaign craters on Super Tuesday , he ’ s already said he ’ s planning on staying in the race as a spoiler and bringing his campaign to a contested convention .
The real question isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and think , “ Gee , I should have spent that $ 500-million on something else , ” it ’ s whether or not Bloomberg has squandered his political capital in his campaign for president .
Before Bloomberg entered the race , Democrats were happy to take his money in exchange for supporting his agenda .
Bloomberg operated largely behind the scenes , using groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action to serve as the face of his anti-gun agenda .
When his massive spending resulted in more Americans backing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to face real scrutiny for the first time .
His comments on stop-and-frisk became public fodder , as did his “ troubling record ” ( in the words of The Guardian ) on women in the workplace .
Bernie Sanders fans bashed Bloomberg for his attacks on socialism , while the establishment wing of the Democrat Party went after Bloomberg for his years as a Republican .
What happens if and when Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign ends ?
Will the same politicians who eagerly accepted their allowance from Bloomberg still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaire ?
Will the gun control groups he started be able to keep the volunteers who feel betrayed or used by Bloomberg , who didn ’ t even acknowledge them when referring to the gun groups during the last Democratic debate ?
It ’ s highly unlikely that Bloomberg ’ s entire empire of influence will collapse along with his presidential campaign , but I suspect that his support and financial backing , particularly of politicians , could become a liability for the billionaire and the causes he funds .
If the Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then he really will have wasted his money on his presidential campaign .
More importantly for those of us who don ’ t share access to Bloomberg ’ s bank account , though , is the fact that he will have squandered at least some of the good will he ’ d been able to purchase within the party before he decided to run for President last November .
I ’ m not saying that Everytown for Gun Safety will close up shop , or that they ’ ll even see a drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if some politicians shy away from the Bought By Bloomberg label , he won ’ t give up his anti-gun crusade .
However , by becoming the face of his movement while arguing that he deserves to be protected by armed guards while average Americans shouldn ’ t be able to carry a firearm to protect themselves , I do believe he ’ s weakened his own cause .
Michael Bloomberg has spent a lot of time and money crafting a narrative that “ common sense gun laws ” will alleviate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in the past few days he ’ s made it clear that he just believes he and his pals will all be safer if the rest of us are disarmed .
His remarks won ’ t fade away , even if his presidential campaign does .

The Washington Post is wondering if today’s the day we’ll learn if Michael Bloomberg wasted $500 million dollars in his bid to become president. It’s the wrong question to ask, frankly. Bloomberg could have spent twice that amount of money in his presidential campaign without feeling a financial pinch, and even if his campaign craters on Super Tuesday, he’s already said he’s planning on staying in the race as a spoiler and bringing his campaign to a contested convention.
It’s Super Tuesday – with 14 states voting today – and @MikeBloomberg says he doesn’t know “if you have to win any” states, that he’s focused on delegates. Does he want a contested convention? “Well I don’t think I can win any other ways” pic.twitter.com/p8Fvo1VOqb — Maura Barrett (@MauraBarrettNBC) March 3, 2020
The real question isn’t whether Bloomberg will look back and think, “Gee, I should have spent that $500-million on something else,” it’s whether or not Bloomberg has squandered his political capital in his campaign for president.
Before Bloomberg entered the race, Democrats were happy to take his money in exchange for supporting his agenda. Bloomberg operated largely behind the scenes, using groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action to serve as the face of his anti-gun agenda.
When his massive spending resulted in more Americans backing the billionaire, however, he started to face real scrutiny for the first time. His comments on stop-and-frisk became public fodder, as did his “troubling record” (in the words of The Guardian) on women in the workplace. Bernie Sanders fans bashed Bloomberg for his attacks on socialism, while the establishment wing of the Democrat Party went after Bloomberg for his years as a Republican.
What happens if and when Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign ends? Will the same politicians who eagerly accepted their allowance from Bloomberg still be as amendable to being bought by the billionaire? Will the gun control groups he started be able to keep the volunteers who feel betrayed or used by Bloomberg, who didn’t even acknowledge them when referring to the gun groups during the last Democratic debate?
It’s highly unlikely that Bloomberg’s entire empire of influence will collapse along with his presidential campaign, but I suspect that his support and financial backing, particularly of politicians, could become a liability for the billionaire and the causes he funds.
If the Bloomberg brand becomes damaged goods among Democrats, then he really will have wasted his money on his presidential campaign. More importantly for those of us who don’t share access to Bloomberg’s bank account, though, is the fact that he will have squandered at least some of the good will he’d been able to purchase within the party before he decided to run for President last November.
I’m not saying that Everytown for Gun Safety will close up shop, or that they’ll even see a drop in funding from their billionaire backer. Even if some politicians shy away from the Bought By Bloomberg label, he won’t give up his anti-gun crusade. However, by becoming the face of his movement while arguing that he deserves to be protected by armed guards while average Americans shouldn’t be able to carry a firearm to protect themselves, I do believe he’s weakened his own cause. Michael Bloomberg has spent a lot of time and money crafting a narrative that “common sense gun laws” will alleviate the fears and concerns of suburban moms, but in the past few days he’s made it clear that he just believes he and his pals will all be safer if the rest of us are disarmed. His remarks won’t fade away, even if his presidential campaign does.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Bill To Allow Church Carry In FL Still Alive

On Monday , we covered the number of anti-gun bills in Florida that are likely to die .
For Floridians , that ’ s ultimately a very good thing .
However , despite some referring to it as the Gunshine State , they haven ’ t passed a lot of pro-gun bills , even right before Parkland happened .
That ’ s troubling for a supposedly pro-gun state that still has a number of gun restrictions in place .
Of course , Miguel over at Gun Free Zone clued me into a bill that still has a chance of passage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows churches to decide for themselves whether or not to allow firearms on the premises .
The bill recently passed a committee and is now likely going to the state senate .
Now , that doesn ’ t mean the Senate is going to act on it , but they can ’ t act on it if the bill never makes it to them .
Further , it ’ s unlikely that the GOP-controlled legislature will outright vote against this bill .
The worst-case scenario is inaction , which is a possibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For one thing , the bill doesn ’ t require anything of churches .
It basically allows them to decide for themselves .
Completely pacifistic churches won ’ t be required to allow armed people in their services .
It ’ s up to them .
Now , I know some readers will find it objectionable that anyone would be barred from carrying a firearm for any reason , but our rights can ’ t infringe on the rights of others .
Just like you can ask someone to leave your home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be free to not have guns on their premises .
And I ’ d rather know who is anti-gun anyway .
It makes it easier to determine who and what I want to spend my money and time on .
Plus , since this is Florida , the vast majority of churches are likely to welcome guns with open arms .
Especially following what happened in White Settlement , TX not that long ago .
In fact , White Settlement may also spur the legislature to actually act on this bill .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just what happens when an armed citizen is in the right place at the right time .
While it would have been better if no one but the bad guy had been shot , that ’ s just not always possible .
That is possible is minimizing the loss of life .
Yet only if an armed individual can be there .
Many states still legally bar carrying a firearm in a church , even after Sutherland Springs .
White Settlement should have changed all of that , but legislation takes time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to make that correction and they should .
They should do it now .
Otherwise , the next church shooting might take place there .
No one wants that .
Well , maybe some anti-gunners want it since they love it when they have dead bodies to use as soapboxes , but the rest of us would rather it not happen at all .
If you ’ re in Florida , it ’ s time to hit the phones .
Call your state legislatures and push for the passage of HB 1437 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You and your neighbors need this .

On Monday, we covered the number of anti-gun bills in Florida that are likely to die. For Floridians, that’s ultimately a very good thing. However, despite some referring to it as the Gunshine State, they haven’t passed a lot of pro-gun bills, even right before Parkland happened.
That’s troubling for a supposedly pro-gun state that still has a number of gun restrictions in place.
Of course, Miguel over at Gun Free Zone clued me into a bill that still has a chance of passage.
HB 1437 is a bill that allows churches to decide for themselves whether or not to allow firearms on the premises.
The bill recently passed a committee and is now likely going to the state senate. Now, that doesn’t mean the Senate is going to act on it, but they can’t act on it if the bill never makes it to them. Further, it’s unlikely that the GOP-controlled legislature will outright vote against this bill. The worst-case scenario is inaction, which is a possibility, but hopefully not.
Nor should they.
For one thing, the bill doesn’t require anything of churches. It basically allows them to decide for themselves. Completely pacifistic churches won’t be required to allow armed people in their services. It’s up to them.
Now, I know some readers will find it objectionable that anyone would be barred from carrying a firearm for any reason, but our rights can’t infringe on the rights of others. Just like you can ask someone to leave your home for how they speak, someone should be free to not have guns on their premises.
And I’d rather know who is anti-gun anyway. It makes it easier to determine who and what I want to spend my money and time on.
That’s what HB 1437 does.
Plus, since this is Florida, the vast majority of churches are likely to welcome guns with open arms. Especially following what happened in White Settlement, TX not that long ago.
In fact, White Settlement may also spur the legislature to actually act on this bill. We all had a very powerful reminder of just what happens when an armed citizen is in the right place at the right time. While it would have been better if no one but the bad guy had been shot, that’s just not always possible. That is possible is minimizing the loss of life.
Yet only if an armed individual can be there.
Many states still legally bar carrying a firearm in a church, even after Sutherland Springs. White Settlement should have changed all of that, but legislation takes time. Now, though, Florida has a chance to make that correction and they should. They should do it now. Otherwise, the next church shooting might take place there.
No one wants that. Well, maybe some anti-gunners want it since they love it when they have dead bodies to use as soapboxes, but the rest of us would rather it not happen at all.
If you’re in Florida, it’s time to hit the phones. Call your state legislatures and push for the passage of HB 1437. Make it happen, folks. You and your neighbors need this.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Convenience Store Customer Shoots, Kills Armed Robber

An armed robbery at a North Carolina convenience store turned deadly for the teenager who held up the family-owned business when a customer and concealed carry holder drew their own gun and fired several shots .
18-year old Malik Harris entered the store on Saturday morning armed with a gun , and began threatening workers and customers .
“ There were three or four customers in the store .
And the guy came in and put the gun on all the customers , made everyone come [ behind the counter ] at gunpoint , ” said Adil Khawaja .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the register , another unsuspecting person walked into the store .
“ He grabbed her by the neck , brought her back [ behind the counter ] at gunpoint , ” Khawaja said .
As the robber was distracted , one of the customers pulled out his own gun and fired at Harris four to five times , striking the would-be robber and ending the threat .
Harris was taken to a local hospital , where he was pronounced dead .
I ’ m guessing every person in that store , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended differently .
Actually , the story should have started differently , with Malik Harris buying a candy bar or a soda instead of sticking a gun in people ’ s faces .
Once Malik Harris made the decision to threaten the lives of innocent people , the armed citizen had a responsibility to protect himself and others if given the opportunity .
When it came , he took it .
As Khawaja says , it was a very , very poor decision for Malik Harris to rob this store at gunpoint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been there , however , the story could also have ended up very differently .
One or more of the customers and employees inside the store could have lost their own lives at the hands of the young armed robber .
I ’ m not glad that Malik Harris lost his life in the commission of a crime .
I am thankful , however , that he wasn ’ t able to take any lives of his own , and that there was an armed citizen inside that store who was able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We know that no gun control law would have prevented Harris from walking inside that store illegally armed with a gun , but if anti-gun politicians and activists had their way , none of the other folks inside that business would have been legally armed for self-defense .
During Monday night ’ s town hall on Fox News , Michael Bloomberg said that he needed to be protected by armed security because he gets threats all the time .
In truth , we never know when threats will materialize , and every law-abiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a firearm of their own if the need ever arises .
Most of us can ’ t afford to outsource our personal protection to a squad of armed guards .
We have to do it ourselves , and that means being able to legally carry a firearm .
As Malik Harris demonstrated , it ’ s not just billionaires who have their lives threatened .
It can happen to any of us , even in line at a convenience store .

An armed robbery at a North Carolina convenience store turned deadly for the teenager who held up the family-owned business when a customer and concealed carry holder drew their own gun and fired several shots.
18-year old Malik Harris entered the store on Saturday morning armed with a gun, and began threatening workers and customers.
“There were three or four customers in the store. And the guy came in and put the gun on all the customers, made everyone come [behind the counter] at gunpoint,” said Adil Khawaja. While the store employees and customers were huddled behind the register, another unsuspecting person walked into the store. “He grabbed her by the neck, brought her back [behind the counter] at gunpoint,” Khawaja said.
As the robber was distracted, one of the customers pulled out his own gun and fired at Harris four to five times, striking the would-be robber and ending the threat. Harris was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
“I wish it could have ended up differently,” said Khawaja. “Personally, I don’t want to see an 18 year old kid die. He didn’t even start his life yet. That was just a very, very poor decision in a state like North Carolina, where everyone has guns.”
I’m guessing every person in that store, including the armed citizen, wishes this story ended differently. Actually, the story should have started differently, with Malik Harris buying a candy bar or a soda instead of sticking a gun in people’s faces. Once Malik Harris made the decision to threaten the lives of innocent people, the armed citizen had a responsibility to protect himself and others if given the opportunity. When it came, he took it.
As Khawaja says, it was a very, very poor decision for Malik Harris to rob this store at gunpoint. If that armed citizen hadn’t been there, however, the story could also have ended up very differently. One or more of the customers and employees inside the store could have lost their own lives at the hands of the young armed robber.
I’m not glad that Malik Harris lost his life in the commission of a crime. I am thankful, however, that he wasn’t able to take any lives of his own, and that there was an armed citizen inside that store who was able to protect the innocent people around him. We know that no gun control law would have prevented Harris from walking inside that store illegally armed with a gun, but if anti-gun politicians and activists had their way, none of the other folks inside that business would have been legally armed for self-defense.
During Monday night’s town hall on Fox News, Michael Bloomberg said that he needed to be protected by armed security because he gets threats all the time. In truth, we never know when threats will materialize, and every law-abiding American should be able to defend themselves with a firearm of their own if the need ever arises. Most of us can’t afford to outsource our personal protection to a squad of armed guards. We have to do it ourselves, and that means being able to legally carry a firearm. As Malik Harris demonstrated, it’s not just billionaires who have their lives threatened. It can happen to any of us, even in line at a convenience store.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Bloomberg's Anti-Gun Elitism On Display At Town Hall

After several months on the campaign trail , Michael Bloomberg was finally asked a tough question about his support for gun control on Monday night , and the anti-gun billionaire ’ s response was a perfect encapsulation of his arrogance and elitism when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of Americans .
The question came during a Fox News town hall event in Manassas , Virginia , where orange “ Guns Save Lives ” stickers from the Virginia Citizens Defense League could be seen on the shirts of many of those in attendance .
Clarke Chitty , a Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg how he could justify his attempts to prevent average Americans from protecting themselves with a firearm when he has an army of private security guards equipped with the same guns and magazines Bloomberg wants to ban for everyone else .
“ Does your life matter more than mine , or my family ’ s , or these people ?
” Chitty concluded to applause from the audience .
“ Look , ” said Bloomberg as the cheers died down , “ I probably get 40 to 50 threats every week , okay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That just happens when you ’ re the mayor of New York City or if you ’ re very wealthy and you ’ re campaigning for president of the United States .
You get a lot of threats .
So , I have a security detail , I pay for it all myself , and you know , they ’ re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.
” In other words , I ’ m more important than you , so I need my armed security .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , don ’ t need a firearm to protect yourself .
That arrogance was bad enough , but Bloomberg wasn ’ t finished .
“ The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms .
Nobody suggests that we ’ re going to change the Constitution .
Even if we wanted to I don ’ t think we could get it done so nobody ’ s going to take away your right to bear arms.
” Bloomberg then talked about how the only thing he wants to do is to pass universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
First off , the Constitution doesn ’ t give us the right to bear arms .
The Second Amendment protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms .
Secondly , Michael Bloomberg has already taken away people ’ s right to bear arms by supporting the restrictive permitting system in New York City that prevents the average New Yorker from exercising that right .
In New York City , the right to bear arms is only exercised by the powerful and the politically connected , and those who can afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s licensing bureau .
As Bloomberg rambled about trying to get universal background checks passed , neither of the moderators from Fox interrupted Bloomberg to correct or challenge him on his statements .
I don ’ t expect Bret Baier and Martha McCallum to know the intricacies of New York gun laws , but Bloomberg ’ s support for things like a national gun licensing system and a ban on so-called assault weapons is prominently displayed on his campaign website .
It was incredibly disappointing that the moderators allowed Bloomberg to lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
The truth is that despite what Bloomberg said during his town hall Monday evening , he doesn ’ t believe that you have a right to keep and bear arms , and he ’ s done everything in his power to prevent as many Americans as possible from fully exercising their rights .
If elected , he would continue to treat the Second Amendment as if it didn ’ t exist at all , continuing to ensure that his wealthy and powerful buddies could protect themselves with armed guards while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to protect themselves and their loved ones .
Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential ambitions may end on Super Tuesday ( though he told the town hall audience that he believes he can win the nomination at a brokered convention ) , but his gun control efforts will continue on long after his presidential campaign fades away .
It ’ s vitally important that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters do all they can this year to defeat Blooomberg the candidate , as well as the candidates that Bloomberg the anti-gun billionaire will @ @ @ @ @

After several months on the campaign trail, Michael Bloomberg was finally asked a tough question about his support for gun control on Monday night, and the anti-gun billionaire’s response was a perfect encapsulation of his arrogance and elitism when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
The question came during a Fox News town hall event in Manassas, Virginia, where orange “Guns Save Lives” stickers from the Virginia Citizens Defense League could be seen on the shirts of many of those in attendance. Clarke Chitty, a Virginia resident and Tulsi Gabbard supporter, asked Bloomberg how he could justify his attempts to prevent average Americans from protecting themselves with a firearm when he has an army of private security guards equipped with the same guns and magazines Bloomberg wants to ban for everyone else.
“Does your life matter more than mine, or my family’s, or these people?” Chitty concluded to applause from the audience.
“Look,” said Bloomberg as the cheers died down, “I probably get 40 to 50 threats every week, okay? And some of them are real. That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City or if you’re very wealthy and you’re campaigning for president of the United States. You get a lot of threats. So, I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and you know, they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”
In other words, I’m more important than you, so I need my armed security. You peasants, on the other hand, don’t need a firearm to protect yourself.
That arrogance was bad enough, but Bloomberg wasn’t finished.
“The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re going to change the Constitution. Even if we wanted to I don’t think we could get it done so nobody’s going to take away your right to bear arms.”
Bloomberg then talked about how the only thing he wants to do is to pass universal background checks, which is another outright lie.
First off, the Constitution doesn’t give us the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Secondly, Michael Bloomberg has already taken away people’s right to bear arms by supporting the restrictive permitting system in New York City that prevents the average New Yorker from exercising that right. In New York City, the right to bear arms is only exercised by the powerful and the politically connected, and those who can afford to bribe corrupt members of the city’s licensing bureau.
As Bloomberg rambled about trying to get universal background checks passed, neither of the moderators from Fox interrupted Bloomberg to correct or challenge him on his statements. I don’t expect Bret Baier and Martha McCallum to know the intricacies of New York gun laws, but Bloomberg’s support for things like a national gun licensing system and a ban on so-called assault weapons is prominently displayed on his campaign website. It was incredibly disappointing that the moderators allowed Bloomberg to lie about his anti-gun agenda without any pushback at all.
The truth is that despite what Bloomberg said during his town hall Monday evening, he doesn’t believe that you have a right to keep and bear arms, and he’s done everything in his power to prevent as many Americans as possible from fully exercising their rights. If elected, he would continue to treat the Second Amendment as if it didn’t exist at all, continuing to ensure that his wealthy and powerful buddies could protect themselves with armed guards while the average American would be denied their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Michael Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions may end on Super Tuesday (though he told the town hall audience that he believes he can win the nomination at a brokered convention), but his gun control efforts will continue on long after his presidential campaign fades away. It’s vitally important that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters do all they can this year to defeat Blooomberg the candidate, as well as the candidates that Bloomberg the anti-gun billionaire will be backing this November.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Biden Vows Beto Will Lead His Gun Control Effort

Beto O ’ Rourke was the anointed one for the Democratic Party at one time .
Of course , that ’ s when he was challenging Ted Cruz .
At that point , they loved him .
When he lost that race , they told him he needed to run for president .
So he did .
How did that go again ?
Following the shooting in El Paso , O ’ Rourke rolled even further left on the issue of guns and famously announced during a debate that he was coming after people ’ s AR-15s and AK-47s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would spearhead his gun control efforts should he win the presidency .
As we have finally reached Super Tuesday , the Democratic Party is trying to close ranks .
Bernie has been damn near unstoppable in the primaries so far .
While Pete Buttigieg won in Iowa and Joe Biden won South Carolina , those didn ’ t really stop the Bernie Juggernaut .
For Democrats , that ’ s a problem .
You see , while the right loathes Bernie ’ s policies , many on the left isn ’ t too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write volumes on just why that is , but suffice it to say that many in the Democratic Party aren ’ t crazy about putting an avowed socialist up as the party ’ s nomination .
Especially when much of middle America isn ’ t remotely interested in those policies .
As a result , we saw three Democrats drop out of the race on Monday .
While Tom Steyer was one of those many forgot was even running , Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were .
They actually had delegates , unlike an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are closing behind Biden .
Beto is basically throwing his support behind the former vice president as well .
However , Biden and his campaign staff might want to reconsider .
O ’ Rourkes gun control stance–a stance made in the wake of a mass shooting that shook the nation–didn ’ t win him many converts .
It wasn ’ t long before he was out of the race entirely , despite once being the party ’ s golden boy .
Still , Democrats are far more likely to support gun control than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shift to focus almost exclusively on gun control undoubtedly played a factor in his eventual fall .
After all , while Democrats want gun control , they want a lot of other things more and Beto wasn ’ t giving them that .
With Biden , O ’ Rourke can focus on that one issue .
However , it also means that we can assume that Biden ’ s gun control policies will somewhat mirror O ’ Rourkes .
That ’ s not really a stretch from his campaign site ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manufacture and sale of so-called assault rifles , either .
In fact , the two are pretty much in lockstep on the issue .
Then again , Biden also thinks it ’ s legal to kill children .
Of course , it ’ s actually legal to hunt ducks but illegal to shoot humans , which means humans get much , much more protecting than ducks , but this is Biden we ’ re talking about here .
Yet this is who Democrats are rallying behind .
We have yet to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
We don ’ t know that pushing Beto as his gun control honcho or the withdrawal of his rivals will have any kind of impact on today ’ s votes or not .
It ’ ll be interesting to watch , though .

Beto O’Rourke was the anointed one for the Democratic Party at one time. Of course, that’s when he was challenging Ted Cruz. At that point, they loved him. When he lost that race, they told him he needed to run for president.
So he did.
How did that go again?
Following the shooting in El Paso, O’Rourke rolled even further left on the issue of guns and famously announced during a debate that he was coming after people’s AR-15s and AK-47s.
Now, Biden has announced just who would spearhead his gun control efforts should he win the presidency.
Joe Biden says Beto O’Rourke will lead his gun control effort if elected president. O’Rourke has famously said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15 & your AK-47” pic.twitter.com/x1v0DzR49t — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 3, 2020
As we have finally reached Super Tuesday, the Democratic Party is trying to close ranks. Bernie has been damn near unstoppable in the primaries so far. While Pete Buttigieg won in Iowa and Joe Biden won South Carolina, those didn’t really stop the Bernie Juggernaut.
For Democrats, that’s a problem. You see, while the right loathes Bernie’s policies, many on the left isn’t too fond of him either. I could write volumes on just why that is, but suffice it to say that many in the Democratic Party aren’t crazy about putting an avowed socialist up as the party’s nomination. Especially when much of middle America isn’t remotely interested in those policies.
As a result, we saw three Democrats drop out of the race on Monday. While Tom Steyer was one of those many forgot was even running, Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were. They actually had delegates, unlike an Elizabeth Warren.
In short, ranks are closing behind Biden. Beto is basically throwing his support behind the former vice president as well.
However, Biden and his campaign staff might want to reconsider.
O’Rourkes gun control stance–a stance made in the wake of a mass shooting that shook the nation–didn’t win him many converts. It wasn’t long before he was out of the race entirely, despite once being the party’s golden boy.
Still, Democrats are far more likely to support gun control than non-Democrats. Plus, O’Rourke’s shift to focus almost exclusively on gun control undoubtedly played a factor in his eventual fall. After all, while Democrats want gun control, they want a lot of other things more and Beto wasn’t giving them that.
With Biden, O’Rourke can focus on that one issue.
However, it also means that we can assume that Biden’s gun control policies will somewhat mirror O’Rourkes. That’s not really a stretch from his campaign site’s claim that they want to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called assault rifles, either. In fact, the two are pretty much in lockstep on the issue.
Then again, Biden also thinks it’s legal to kill children.
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.
Of course, it’s actually legal to hunt ducks but illegal to shoot humans, which means humans get much, much more protecting than ducks, but this is Biden we’re talking about here.
Yet this is who Democrats are rallying behind.
We have yet to see just how that will work out for them. We don’t know that pushing Beto as his gun control honcho or the withdrawal of his rivals will have any kind of impact on today’s votes or not.
It’ll be interesting to watch, though.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--School Walkout Organizer Testifies In Favor Of CT Ammo Tax

The ammo tax proposed in Connecticut is , perhaps , the dumbest thing I ’ ve ever heard of .
It ’ s a massive tax that would have a significant impact on any number of aspects of shooting sports and a clear infringement on the Second Amendment .
Frankly , it ’ s an idea that ’ s so dumb , it could only come from New England .
But it ’ s an important issue because it ’ s a bill that ’ s been proposed .
At least we can rest easy knowing that experts will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and negatives of this bill , right ?
Eh , not so much .
The Ridgefield teenager who two years ago organized a national school walkout over gun control threw her support last week behind a bill that would tax ammunition purchases in the state of Connecticut .
“ An excise tax on ammunition would send a message that should be clear — you have the right to own a weapon , but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause , ” said Lane Murdock , during testimony Feb. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Bill 5040 , would create a 35 percent excise tax on ammunition sold in Connecticut .
The proposed legislation drew protest from gun-rights advocates at the public hearing last Thursday , who claimed it would unnecessarily punish responsible gun owners if adopted into law .
In 2018 , when Murdock was a sophomore at Ridgefield High School , she organized a national movement in which students around the country walked out of class in the wake of the high school shooting in Parkland .
The April 20 protest was purposely chosen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbine massacre , widely seen as the first modern mass school shooting .
In the two years since the walkout , Murdock , now 17 , said her generation has “ seen some change but not enough , ” and has watched gun control debates from the sidelines , unable to vote .
So , we have someone who isn ’ t even old enough to vote being brought in to testify about a bill .
What relevant expertise does she possess ?
Is she a prodigy in data analysis or something of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has studied the issue and can make salient points about the potential effects of a proposed law ?
No .
She ’ s someone who does nothing but parrot the anti-gun talking points about this bill .
Further , her testimony is yet another example of how anti-gunners want to blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals .
Her saying , “ but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause ” is nothing more than an attempt to blame us for the actions of people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the ammo tax won ’ t make anyone safer .
Quite the opposite , actually .
By increasing the cost of ammunition , you increase the cost of building and maintaining skills .
That means fewer will bother , meaning that should they need to use a gun to defend themselves , they ’ re less likely to be effective with it .
After all , it was too expensive to practice .
Further , it will continue to push shooting into the category of a rich man ’ s game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but making ammo so costly will make it nearly impossible for the poor to have the means to protect themselves .
That ’ s not surprising .
She ’ s an activist , not an expert , and as such shouldn ’ t have been called on to testify in the first place .

The ammo tax proposed in Connecticut is, perhaps, the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s a massive tax that would have a significant impact on any number of aspects of shooting sports and a clear infringement on the Second Amendment. Frankly, it’s an idea that’s so dumb, it could only come from New England.
But it’s an important issue because it’s a bill that’s been proposed. At least we can rest easy knowing that experts will be called on to testify about any positives and negatives of this bill, right?
Eh, not so much.
The Ridgefield teenager who two years ago organized a national school walkout over gun control threw her support last week behind a bill that would tax ammunition purchases in the state of Connecticut. “An excise tax on ammunition would send a message that should be clear — you have the right to own a weapon, but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause,” said Lane Murdock, during testimony Feb. 27. The bill in question, House Bill 5040, would create a 35 percent excise tax on ammunition sold in Connecticut. The proposed legislation drew protest from gun-rights advocates at the public hearing last Thursday, who claimed it would unnecessarily punish responsible gun owners if adopted into law. In 2018, when Murdock was a sophomore at Ridgefield High School, she organized a national movement in which students around the country walked out of class in the wake of the high school shooting in Parkland. The April 20 protest was purposely chosen to coincide with the 19th anniversary of the Columbine massacre, widely seen as the first modern mass school shooting. In the two years since the walkout, Murdock, now 17, said her generation has “seen some change but not enough,” and has watched gun control debates from the sidelines, unable to vote.
So, we have someone who isn’t even old enough to vote being brought in to testify about a bill. What relevant expertise does she possess? Is she a prodigy in data analysis or something of that sort? Is she someone who has studied the issue and can make salient points about the potential effects of a proposed law?
No. She’s someone who does nothing but parrot the anti-gun talking points about this bill.
Further, her testimony is yet another example of how anti-gunners want to blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals. Her saying, “but you do have to pay for the damages it can cause” is nothing more than an attempt to blame us for the actions of people who are breaking numerous laws already.
The truth is that the ammo tax won’t make anyone safer. Quite the opposite, actually. By increasing the cost of ammunition, you increase the cost of building and maintaining skills. That means fewer will bother, meaning that should they need to use a gun to defend themselves, they’re less likely to be effective with it. After all, it was too expensive to practice.
Further, it will continue to push shooting into the category of a rich man’s game. Guns are already expensive enough, but making ammo so costly will make it nearly impossible for the poor to have the means to protect themselves.
But that’s missing from Murdock’s testimony.
That’s not surprising. She’s an activist, not an expert, and as such shouldn’t have been called on to testify in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--The Washington Post's Hypocrisy On Sanctuary Cities

Once upon a time , the term “ sanctuary city ” only had one meaning .
It meant a community wasn ’ t going to enforce immigration laws within their borders .
They weren ’ t going to comply with federal law regarding illegal immigrants , thus protecting them from the ramifications of their illegal actions .
Then pro-gun communities got in on the act .
Second Amendment sanctuaries have sprung up all over the nation , even in pro-gun states that have little to worry about regarding gun control except at the federal level .
Now , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , that ’ s the case at the Washington Post .
Over at the Washington Free Beacon , the paper gets slapped around a bit for their utter hypocrisy .
The Washington Post editorial board slammed the use of “ sanctuary ” laws designed to safeguard Second Amendment rights , despite supporting the same policies when they are used to protect illegal immigrants .
In a February 28 editorial , the paper argued local officials should not undermine new gun laws in Virginia .
“ Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal challenges to their constitutionality , ” the board wrote .
“ But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court , no one is free to violate them.
” Nearly 150 localities in Virginia have passed Second Amendment “ sanctuary ” resolutions , pledging to not enforce new gun laws that they consider unconstitutional and taking particular aim at a proposed Red Flag law backed by state Democrats .
The newspaper ’ s editorial board called the idea of following through on such measures “ alarming ” and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But when Washington , D.C. , unveiled a “ sanctuary ” plan that would direct taxpayer dollars to legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation , the board said the city was pursuing an “ admirable goal.
” The discrepancy between the two Washington Post “ sanctuary ” editorials has fueled distrust among gun owners and advocates .
Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which helped organize the Second Amendment “ sanctuary ” movement in the state , called the board ’ s position “ a complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , absolutely correct .
It is a double standard .
Of course , that ’ s also why some conservatives actually oppose Second Amendment sanctuaries .
While I don ’ t necessarily agree with them , I can respect the position .
For me , though , this is preserving a constitutional right , a right that should supersede all state and local regulations .
If states and to infringe upon it , they ’ re violating the United States Constitution to do so .
That ’ s not the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have simply decided to work against the federal government on an issue .
Nothing they ’ re doing is in keeping with the Constitution .
Yet people like the folks at the Washington Post routinely ignore their own arguments whenever it ’ s inconvenient for them .
They ’ ll push the idea that Second Amendment sanctuaries are somehow wrong without ever realizing that every point they try to make also applies–if not applies more so–to immigration sanctuaries .
The truth is , the left opened this door .
They started the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them and which don ’ t .
Don ’ t blame us for playing by the same rulebook .

Once upon a time, the term “sanctuary city” only had one meaning. It meant a community wasn’t going to enforce immigration laws within their borders. They weren’t going to comply with federal law regarding illegal immigrants, thus protecting them from the ramifications of their illegal actions.
Then pro-gun communities got in on the act. Second Amendment sanctuaries have sprung up all over the nation, even in pro-gun states that have little to worry about regarding gun control except at the federal level.
Now, though, suddenly sanctuaries are an issue. At least, that’s the case at the Washington Post.
Over at the Washington Free Beacon, the paper gets slapped around a bit for their utter hypocrisy.
The Washington Post editorial board slammed the use of “sanctuary” laws designed to safeguard Second Amendment rights, despite supporting the same policies when they are used to protect illegal immigrants. In a February 28 editorial, the paper argued local officials should not undermine new gun laws in Virginia. “Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such laws; they are free to mount legal challenges to their constitutionality,” the board wrote. “But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court, no one is free to violate them.” Nearly 150 localities in Virginia have passed Second Amendment “sanctuary” resolutions, pledging to not enforce new gun laws that they consider unconstitutional and taking particular aim at a proposed Red Flag law backed by state Democrats. The newspaper’s editorial board called the idea of following through on such measures “alarming” and a threat to the rule of law. But when Washington, D.C., unveiled a “sanctuary” plan that would direct taxpayer dollars to legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation, the board said the city was pursuing an “admirable goal.” The discrepancy between the two Washington Post “sanctuary” editorials has fueled distrust among gun owners and advocates. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which helped organize the Second Amendment “sanctuary” movement in the state, called the board’s position “a complete double standard.”
Van Cleave is, of course, absolutely correct. It is a double standard.
Of course, that’s also why some conservatives actually oppose Second Amendment sanctuaries. While I don’t necessarily agree with them, I can respect the position.
For me, though, this is preserving a constitutional right, a right that should supersede all state and local regulations. If states and to infringe upon it, they’re violating the United States Constitution to do so.
That’s not the case with immigration. Those are communities that have simply decided to work against the federal government on an issue. Nothing they’re doing is in keeping with the Constitution.
Yet people like the folks at the Washington Post routinely ignore their own arguments whenever it’s inconvenient for them. They’ll push the idea that Second Amendment sanctuaries are somehow wrong without ever realizing that every point they try to make also applies–if not applies more so–to immigration sanctuaries.
The truth is, the left opened this door. They started the idea that communities can decide which laws apply to them and which don’t. Don’t blame us for playing by the same rulebook.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--Super Tuesday Shakeup: Bloomberg Out After Biden Rout

There ’ s a lot to unpack and examine beyond the delegate math when it comes to the Super Tuesday election results , and Salena Zito of the Washington Examiner joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. for Second Amendent-centric to talk about where things stand now , and where we ’ re likely headed .
Michael Bloomberg ’ s now out , but his campaign operation is still in place and will be used to push Joe Biden and other Democrats in the general election .
Biden himself is riding high , but as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bearing Arms Cam & Co , Democrats could have a serious case of buyers remorse by the time the party ’ s convention takes place in June .
I think gun owners should absolutely take some pleasure in the spectacular flameout of Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign , but that ’ s not enough .
Bloomberg is still planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars this year backing candidates who will work to advance his anti-gun agenda , and we need to make sure that being bought by Bloomberg is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bloomberg ’ s campaign wasn ’ t in his strategy , but in its candidate .
Bloomberg is simply an unlikeable guy , and his campaign relied on surrogates , carefully crafted advertising , and a wacky social media presence to try to humanize him and hide his many flaws for as long as possible .
The strategy actually worked well , right up until he appeared on a debate stage in Las Vegas .
In retrospect , Bloomberg may have simply peaked too early .
His highest polling happened just before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time South Carolina ’ s primary rolled around he was already dipping in the polls .
Biden ’ s success in South Carolina solidified him as the establishment candidate of choice , and after Tuesday , Bloomberg was forced to recognize that even if the primary went to a contested convention , he was going to face an uphill fight in convincing delegates to back him as the standard bearer of the party in November .
One more note on Bloomberg ’ s plans .
Over at Hot Air , Allahpundit predicts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t immediately launch an ad blitz in support of Biden .
I think that ’ s true , but that doesn ’ t mean that Bloomberg won ’ t start funding anti-Trump ads .
It was difficult to get away from ads promoting Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign .
It may soon be almost as hard to get away from Bloomberg ’ s ads attacking Trump .
Now Biden is clearly the front runner , and has declared that Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke will be his go-to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t specifically come out and said he ’ s now endorsing O ’ Rourke ’ s ban and “ buyback ” of so-called assault weapons , but you have to assume there ’ s a reason Biden went with O ’ Rourke over someone like Pete Buttigieg , who wants to ban all new sales of semi-automatic long guns but has , at least to now , been critical of the idea of confiscation .
The “ moderate ” in the race is anything but moderate when it comes to the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words .
Gun owners should be taking Biden ’ s campaign seriously , because gun control advocates are rightly viewing this year ’ s election as the biggest opportunity they ’ ve ever had to attack our Second Amendment rights .

There’s a lot to unpack and examine beyond the delegate math when it comes to the Super Tuesday election results, and Salena Zito of the Washington Examiner joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. for Second Amendent-centric to talk about where things stand now, and where we’re likely headed.
Michael Bloomberg’s now out, but his campaign operation is still in place and will be used to push Joe Biden and other Democrats in the general election. Biden himself is riding high, but as Zito tells me on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, Democrats could have a serious case of buyers remorse by the time the party’s convention takes place in June.
I think gun owners should absolutely take some pleasure in the spectacular flameout of Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign, but that’s not enough. Bloomberg is still planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars this year backing candidates who will work to advance his anti-gun agenda, and we need to make sure that being bought by Bloomberg is an issue in their campaigns.
The problem with Bloomberg’s campaign wasn’t in his strategy, but in its candidate. Bloomberg is simply an unlikeable guy, and his campaign relied on surrogates, carefully crafted advertising, and a wacky social media presence to try to humanize him and hide his many flaws for as long as possible. The strategy actually worked well, right up until he appeared on a debate stage in Las Vegas. In retrospect, Bloomberg may have simply peaked too early. His highest polling happened just before the Nevada caucus, and by the time South Carolina’s primary rolled around he was already dipping in the polls. Biden’s success in South Carolina solidified him as the establishment candidate of choice, and after Tuesday, Bloomberg was forced to recognize that even if the primary went to a contested convention, he was going to face an uphill fight in convincing delegates to back him as the standard bearer of the party in November.
One more note on Bloomberg’s plans. Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit predicts that Bloomberg will keep his powder dry and won’t immediately launch an ad blitz in support of Biden. I think that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that Bloomberg won’t start funding anti-Trump ads. It was difficult to get away from ads promoting Bloomberg’s presidential campaign. It may soon be almost as hard to get away from Bloomberg’s ads attacking Trump.
Now Biden is clearly the front runner, and has declared that Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke will be his go-to guy for gun control. Biden hasn’t specifically come out and said he’s now endorsing O’Rourke’s ban and “buyback” of so-called assault weapons, but you have to assume there’s a reason Biden went with O’Rourke over someone like Pete Buttigieg, who wants to ban all new sales of semi-automatic long guns but has, at least to now, been critical of the idea of confiscation.
The “moderate” in the race is anything but moderate when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, in other words. Gun owners should be taking Biden’s campaign seriously, because gun control advocates are rightly viewing this year’s election as the biggest opportunity they’ve ever had to attack our Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--Did Pelosi's Security Point Gun At Trump Supporters?

On Tuesday , some folks began talking about an incident .
It seems that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was at a campaign stop , stumping for a Democrat .
Unsurprisingly , not everyone in the state is a fan of Pelosi ’ s .
In fact , a lot of those people decided to show up and let their voices be heard by protesting .
That ’ s their right as protected by the United States Constitution .
So long as they were peaceful , that is , and all indications so far are that they were .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating them like a threat , though .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stumped in South Jersey Saturday on behalf of U.S. House Rep. Donald Norcross in his campaign for re-election .
Pelosi was joined by New Jersey Governor , Phil Murphy ( D ) and Senator Corey Booker ( D ) , all of whom are staunchly against Second Amendment rights , and are known to push for gun control .
The Democrats were met by hundreds of peaceful protestors who filled the sidewalk at Camden County College , demonstrating and holding pro-Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the sidewalk snapped this photo , showing a member of the Democrats ’ security force , dangerously pointing a firearm at the crowd of civilians .
By any standard , this unequivocally violates basic safety rules and calls into question training , and protocol .
William J. Hayden who attended the protest said : “ You can clearly see he is pointing the weapon at us .
This is why they want complete and total disarmament of the civilian population .
And in New Jersey , where the right is diminished , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even those that think only the government should have firearms…… ” I ’ ve looked at the photograph in question–you can too , it ’ s at the above-linked post .
I ’ m not posting it because it ’ s not our picture–and yeah , it really does look like someone pointing a rifle at the cameraman .
However , the picture isn ’ t particularly clear .
It ’ s fuzzy enough that I ’ m not about to rule out it being something far more mundane , like someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like Pelosi and would love to say unequivocally that her detail was threatening peaceful citizens , I just can ’ t .
It sure looks like it , though .
If that ’ s the case , then this represents a real problem .
After all , you never point a gun at something you don ’ t intend on destroying .
Pointing a rifle at peaceful protestors is a clear violation of the basic rules of gun safety .
It ’ s an unnecessary provocation at a time when people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming civil war isn ’ t just something they do for their own personal amusement , it ’ s because things are tense enough in this country that such a thing could happen at any time .
Pointing guns at political opponents isn ’ t exactly an act designed to make people feel better .
Then again , rules against that are for the little people like you or me .
Important people are more valuable than we are .
They get to play by a different set of rules .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we see is what ’ s actually there .
The last thing we need to do , though , is blindly decide it was a threat and make a stink over it , only to turn out to be wrong about what we saw .
Yet if we ’ re right , then heads need to roll .
Metaphorically speaking , at least .

On Tuesday, some folks began talking about an incident. It seems that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was at a campaign stop, stumping for a Democrat.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone in the state is a fan of Pelosi’s. In fact, a lot of those people decided to show up and let their voices be heard by protesting.
That’s their right as protected by the United States Constitution. So long as they were peaceful, that is, and all indications so far are that they were.
That may not have stopped someone from treating them like a threat, though.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stumped in South Jersey Saturday on behalf of U.S. House Rep. Donald Norcross in his campaign for re-election. Pelosi was joined by New Jersey Governor, Phil Murphy (D) and Senator Corey Booker (D), all of whom are staunchly against Second Amendment rights, and are known to push for gun control. The Democrats were met by hundreds of peaceful protestors who filled the sidewalk at Camden County College, demonstrating and holding pro-Second Amendment and pro-Trump signs. A civilian on the sidewalk snapped this photo, showing a member of the Democrats’ security force, dangerously pointing a firearm at the crowd of civilians. By any standard, this unequivocally violates basic safety rules and calls into question training, and protocol. William J. Hayden who attended the protest said: “You can clearly see he is pointing the weapon at us. This is why they want complete and total disarmament of the civilian population. And in New Jersey, where the right is diminished, this should be a wake up call to even those that think only the government should have firearms……”
I’ve looked at the photograph in question–you can too, it’s at the above-linked post. I’m not posting it because it’s not our picture–and yeah, it really does look like someone pointing a rifle at the cameraman.
However, the picture isn’t particularly clear. It’s fuzzy enough that I’m not about to rule out it being something far more mundane, like someone with a camera. I don’t like Pelosi and would love to say unequivocally that her detail was threatening peaceful citizens, I just can’t.
It sure looks like it, though.
If that’s the case, then this represents a real problem. After all, you never point a gun at something you don’t intend on destroying. Pointing a rifle at peaceful protestors is a clear violation of the basic rules of gun safety.
It’s an unnecessary provocation at a time when people are already tense. People talking about a coming civil war isn’t just something they do for their own personal amusement, it’s because things are tense enough in this country that such a thing could happen at any time. Pointing guns at political opponents isn’t exactly an act designed to make people feel better.
Then again, rules against that are for the little people like you or me. Important people are more valuable than we are. They get to play by a different set of rules.
Of course, that’s assuming what we think we see is what’s actually there. The last thing we need to do, though, is blindly decide it was a threat and make a stink over it, only to turn out to be wrong about what we saw.
Yet if we’re right, then heads need to roll. Metaphorically speaking, at least.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--Washington D.C. Bans "Ghost Guns" With Emergency Ordinance

City council members in Washington , D.C. approved two gun control bills on Tuesday , including a ban on the possession and manufacture of so-called “ ghost guns , ” or firearms that do not have a serial number .
The Ghost Guns Prohibition Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 was approved as an emergency bill , meaning it will remain in effect for the next 90 days while city council members work on a permanent ordinance .
In a press release , D.C. council member Charles Allen claimed the measure will help prevent violent crime in the District .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fought and carefully considered gun safety laws of the District of Columbia , ” said Councilmember Allen .
“ We know they are used in violent crimes .
They ’ re not for hobbyists or collectors .
They ’ re being used for one purpose : to inflict harm in our communities.
” In just one year , between 2018 and 2019 , the District saw a 364 percent increase in the recovery of ghost guns .
In 2017 , the Metropolitan Police Department recovered only three ghost guns in the District ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovered ; and in 2019 , 116 ghost guns were recovered .
In just the first six weeks of this year , 28 ghost guns have already been recovered .
The types of ghost guns recovered in the District include handguns and rifles , including assault weapons such as AR-15s .
I ’ d expect this law to be challenged in court , and one of the arguments I ’ d make is that , because the District has no actual gun stores where residents can legally purchase firearms , their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they can not build a firearm , including using 80 % lower receivers that gun owners finish themselves .
Beyond any potential litigation , however , the emergency ordinance is absolutely useless as far as preventing crime .
How will law enforcement know that someone is building a “ ghost gun , ” for example ?
They won ’ t .
Besides , the District already makes it a crime to possess an unregistered firearm , so making possession of unserialized firearms a crime is somewhat redundant .
No “ ghost gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbia .
If they were , they wouldn ’ t be a “ ghost gun ” in the first place .
The second bill approved as an emergency ordinance establishes a working group to figure out how the District can start using it ’ s “ red flag ” gun seizure law more frequently .
Councilman Allen noted that in Maryland , the law is being used far more often than it is in D.C. “ Red flag laws – if implemented well – prevent self-harm and harm to others , including in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly – community violence situations , ” said Councilmember Allen .
“ They ’ re not only for legally possessed guns ; we have a relatively small number of legally possessed guns in the District – most are illegally possessed .
Our law also has a very important provision : if your unregistered gun is surrendered or taken through an extreme risk protection order , you can ’ t be arrested or prosecuted for having possessed or carried that gun or ammunition .
You don ’ t get immunity , however , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime.
” Between October 1 , 2018 and August 7 , 2019 , Maryland ’ s courts received approximately 788 requests for extreme risk protection orders .
Between March and July 2019 , Florida ’ s red flag law was used nearly 2,400 times .
Many jurisdictions have successfully coordinated government agencies , non-governmental organizations , and community advocates to drive effective implementation and save lives , but the District lags significantly behind .
Since the District ’ s red flag law took effect , only two petitions have been granted .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice because there hasn ’ t been a need for it .
It looks like council members are less concerned about potential abuses with the law and simply want to see more people have their firearms taken away , regardless of whether or not they actually pose a threat to themselves or others .
Neither of these bills will do anything to make the District of Columbia safer , but they ’ ve already served their purpose : allowing city council members like Charles Allen to issue press releases promoting the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @

City council members in Washington, D.C. approved two gun control bills on Tuesday, including a ban on the possession and manufacture of so-called “ghost guns,” or firearms that do not have a serial number.
The Ghost Guns Prohibition Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 was approved as an emergency bill, meaning it will remain in effect for the next 90 days while city council members work on a permanent ordinance. In a press release, D.C. council member Charles Allen claimed the measure will help prevent violent crime in the District.
“These guns attempt to circumvent the hard fought and carefully considered gun safety laws of the District of Columbia,” said Councilmember Allen. “We know they are used in violent crimes. They’re not for hobbyists or collectors. They’re being used for one purpose: to inflict harm in our communities.” In just one year, between 2018 and 2019, the District saw a 364 percent increase in the recovery of ghost guns. In 2017, the Metropolitan Police Department recovered only three ghost guns in the District; in 2018, 25 ghost guns were recovered; and in 2019, 116 ghost guns were recovered. In just the first six weeks of this year, 28 ghost guns have already been recovered. The types of ghost guns recovered in the District include handguns and rifles, including assault weapons such as AR-15s.
I’d expect this law to be challenged in court, and one of the arguments I’d make is that, because the District has no actual gun stores where residents can legally purchase firearms, their right to keep and bear arms is being curtailed if they cannot build a firearm, including using 80% lower receivers that gun owners finish themselves.
Beyond any potential litigation, however, the emergency ordinance is absolutely useless as far as preventing crime. How will law enforcement know that someone is building a “ghost gun,” for example? They won’t. Besides, the District already makes it a crime to possess an unregistered firearm, so making possession of unserialized firearms a crime is somewhat redundant. No “ghost gun” is registered in the District of Columbia. If they were, they wouldn’t be a “ghost gun” in the first place.
The second bill approved as an emergency ordinance establishes a working group to figure out how the District can start using it’s “red flag” gun seizure law more frequently. Councilman Allen noted that in Maryland, the law is being used far more often than it is in D.C.
“Red flag laws – if implemented well – prevent self-harm and harm to others, including in suicide, domestic violence, and – importantly – community violence situations,” said Councilmember Allen. “They’re not only for legally possessed guns; we have a relatively small number of legally possessed guns in the District – most are illegally possessed. Our law also has a very important provision: if your unregistered gun is surrendered or taken through an extreme risk protection order, you can’t be arrested or prosecuted for having possessed or carried that gun or ammunition. You don’t get immunity, however, if the gun was used in a prior crime.” Between October 1, 2018 and August 7, 2019, Maryland’s courts received approximately 788 requests for extreme risk protection orders. Between March and July 2019, Florida’s red flag law was used nearly 2,400 times. Many jurisdictions have successfully coordinated government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and community advocates to drive effective implementation and save lives, but the District lags significantly behind. Since the District’s red flag law took effect, only two petitions have been granted.
Perhaps the District has only used the law twice because there hasn’t been a need for it. It looks like council members are less concerned about potential abuses with the law and simply want to see more people have their firearms taken away, regardless of whether or not they actually pose a threat to themselves or others.
Neither of these bills will do anything to make the District of Columbia safer, but they’ve already served their purpose: allowing city council members like Charles Allen to issue press releases promoting the fact that they did “something.”


bearingarms--2020-03-04--NSSF: NICS Checks For Gun Sales Jump Nearly 17 Percent

As the Democratic primary rages on , there ’ s not a single candidate that doesn ’ t have some form of gun control as part of their platform .
That ’ s especially true of frontrunner Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg .
The two known gun grabbers are directing a significant portion of their campaign efforts toward gun control It ’ s enough to worry a few folks .
After all , the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has already passed a slew of anti-gun initiatives .
If the White House turns blue , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes ?
Well , it seems a number of people have decided not to screw around and are buying their guns now .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation took a look at the raw NICS numbers from the FBI and made the required adjustments .
After all , the NICS checks also include people getting permits and a number of other situations that have little to do with buying a gun .
What did they find ?
Anyone who has ever run a business can tell you that a nearly 17 percent increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , the NSSF is also quick to point out that this doesn ’ t necessarily mean that .
The adjusted NICS data were derived by subtracting out NICS purpose code permit checks and permit rechecks used by states for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases .
NSSF started subtracting permit rechecks in February 2016 .
Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales , the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions .
In addition to other purposes , NICS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or transfers of new or used firearms .
It should be noted that these statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS .
They do not represent the number of firearms sold or sales dollars .
Based on varying state laws , local market conditions and purchase scenarios , a one-to-one correlation can not be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale .
In other words , it records gun sales , but not new gun sales and not all through traditional gun stores .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a number of states where a concealed carry permit can be presented and skip the background checks .
In fact , half the states have such a permit .
That means even more firearms may have been sold than these numbers suggest but were sold to people who didn ’ t need to undergo the checks .
So , in a way , it does seem that Biden and Bloomberg are great for gun sales .
Even if a large percentage are transfers between private parties , a number of those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by licensed dealers .
For eight years , President Barack Obama was “ praised ” as the gun salesman of the year .
It seems Mini-Mike and Sleepy Joe are competing for the chance to claim the title for at least this year .

As the Democratic primary rages on, there’s not a single candidate that doesn’t have some form of gun control as part of their platform. That’s especially true of frontrunner Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The two known gun grabbers are directing a significant portion of their campaign efforts toward gun control
It’s enough to worry a few folks. After all, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has already passed a slew of anti-gun initiatives. If the White House turns blue, what does that mean for our future gun-buying hopes?
Well, it seems a number of people have decided not to screw around and are buying their guns now.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation took a look at the raw NICS numbers from the FBI and made the required adjustments. After all, the NICS checks also include people getting permits and a number of other situations that have little to do with buying a gun.
What did they find?
The February 2020 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,294,123 is an increase of 16.7 percent compared to the February 2019 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,109,087. For comparison, the unadjusted February 2020 FBI NICS figure 2,776,380 reflects a 36.9 percent increase from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,028,667 in February 2019.
Anyone who has ever run a business can tell you that a nearly 17 percent increase in sales is a good month.
Of course, the NSSF is also quick to point out that this doesn’t necessarily mean that.
The adjusted NICS data were derived by subtracting out NICS purpose code permit checks and permit rechecks used by states for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases. NSSF started subtracting permit rechecks in February 2016. Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions. In addition to other purposes, NICS is used to check transactions for sales or transfers of new or used firearms.
It should be noted that these statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold or sales dollars. Based on varying state laws, local market conditions and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.
In other words, it records gun sales, but not new gun sales and not all through traditional gun stores.
Further, the NSSF also notes that there are a number of states where a concealed carry permit can be presented and skip the background checks. In fact, half the states have such a permit. That means even more firearms may have been sold than these numbers suggest but were sold to people who didn’t need to undergo the checks.
So, in a way, it does seem that Biden and Bloomberg are great for gun sales. Even if a large percentage are transfers between private parties, a number of those are still likely to be new firearms sold by licensed dealers.
For eight years, President Barack Obama was “praised” as the gun salesman of the year. It seems Mini-Mike and Sleepy Joe are competing for the chance to claim the title for at least this year.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--Atlantic County Latest In NJ To Adopt Pro-2A Resolution

Atlantic County , New Jersey isn ’ t a Second Amendment Sanctuary , but local lawmakers designated the community a “ Second Amendment/Lawful Gun Owner County ” at a freeholders meeting on Tuesday night .
The 6-2 vote was greeted with cheers from supporters , but as the Press of Atlantic City reports , opponents of the measure were on hand as well .
The language endorsed by the freeholder board is largely symbolic , but I ’ m a little curious as to who will deem any restrictions as unconstitutional .
Will the freeholders endorse gun control measures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , or will they take a stand in opposition to proposed measures like Gov .
Phil Murphy ’ s plan to jack up the fees New Jersey residents must pay in order to get permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights ?
Murphy is asking lawmakers to raise the cost of a $ 2 gun application to $ 50 , and a firearm ID card from $ 5 to $ 100 , according to the state ’ s treasury department .
The Democratic governor also proposed a 2.5 % tax on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammunition .
Murphy said Tuesday that raising the cost of handgun permits especially would improve public safety .
“ These fees are meant to cover the costs of State Police background checks on prospective gun buyers — and , right now , they don ’ t come close to doing so , ” he said during his annual budget address .
I think the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has been a good thing , and it ’ s been great to see the movement take hold in anti-gun states like New Jersey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment supporters responsible for getting places like Atlantic County to adopt pro-2A resolutions can ’ t rest once that vote has been taken .
They need to continue to press their local lawmakers as well as their state representatives and senators to take bold stands in defense of their right to keep and bear arms .
Democrats in the state house are divided over Murphy ’ s call to make it a financial burden to exercise a constitutional right , with State Senate President Steve Sweeney ( who helped block a similar fee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t believe the state needs any new taxes beyond a tax increase on millionaires .
If New Jersey ’ s gun owners stay engaged and involved , both in Trenton and in their towns and counties , I think they have a real shot at defeating Murphy ’ s proposal .
If the local movements fade away after their 2A resolutions pass , on the other hand , gun owners in the Garden State will have squandered an opportunity to grow their numbers and influence .
I ’ d hate to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure Gov .
Murphy would be thrilled .

Atlantic County, New Jersey isn’t a Second Amendment Sanctuary, but local lawmakers designated the community a “Second Amendment/Lawful Gun Owner County” at a freeholders meeting on Tuesday night.
The 6-2 vote was greeted with cheers from supporters, but as the Press of Atlantic City reports, opponents of the measure were on hand as well.
“You will have blood on your hands,” said one audience member as the last freeholder voted.
The language endorsed by the freeholder board is largely symbolic, but I’m a little curious as to who will deem any restrictions as unconstitutional. Will the freeholders endorse gun control measures that have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or will they take a stand in opposition to proposed measures like Gov. Phil Murphy’s plan to jack up the fees New Jersey residents must pay in order to get permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights?
Murphy is asking lawmakers to raise the cost of a $2 gun application to $50, and a firearm ID card from $5 to $100, according to the state’s treasury department. The Democratic governor also proposed a 2.5% tax on firearms and a 10% tax on ammunition. Murphy said Tuesday that raising the cost of handgun permits especially would improve public safety. “These fees are meant to cover the costs of State Police background checks on prospective gun buyers — and, right now, they don’t come close to doing so,” he said during his annual budget address.
I think the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has been a good thing, and it’s been great to see the movement take hold in anti-gun states like New Jersey. Still, the gun owners and Second Amendment supporters responsible for getting places like Atlantic County to adopt pro-2A resolutions can’t rest once that vote has been taken. They need to continue to press their local lawmakers as well as their state representatives and senators to take bold stands in defense of their right to keep and bear arms.
Democrats in the state house are divided over Murphy’s call to make it a financial burden to exercise a constitutional right, with State Senate President Steve Sweeney (who helped block a similar fee increase in 2019) saying he doesn’t believe the state needs any new taxes beyond a tax increase on millionaires. If New Jersey’s gun owners stay engaged and involved, both in Trenton and in their towns and counties, I think they have a real shot at defeating Murphy’s proposal. If the local movements fade away after their 2A resolutions pass, on the other hand, gun owners in the Garden State will have squandered an opportunity to grow their numbers and influence. I’d hate to see that happen, but I’m sure Gov. Murphy would be thrilled.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--Will Bloomberg Drop Out After His Not-So-Super Tuesday? <b>Update: Campaign Suspended</b>

Michael Bloomberg is huddling with campaign advisors in New York today , reassessing his presidential campaign after his Super Tuesday strategy crashed and burned .
Of the fourteen primaries held on March 3rd , Bloomberg won only the primary in American Samoa , which was worth a whopping seven delegates .
Bloomberg ’ s strategy was to roll up delegates in population-rich states like Texas and California , but that didn ’ t happen .
Instead , Joe Biden narrowly won the Lone Star State , while Sanders appears to have won the California primary fairly handily .
As of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates , while Sanders has about 380 .
Bloomberg is a distant fourth , with 44 delegates allotted to him and trailing Elizabeth Warren thanks to his dismal showing on Tuesday .
Bloomberg ’ s plan has always been to get to a contested convention where no candidate has the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot .
According to the latest predictions from the 538 political blog , the odds of a contested convention are still pretty high , with a 3-in-5 chance that no candidate gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Democrat convention in Milwaukee .
So , despite Bloomberg ’ s bad night , the prospects of a contested convention are still pretty good .
Does that mean that Bloomberg stays in the race despite blowing $ 500-million and getting almost nothing in return ?
According to CNN , the campaign calculus seems to be simple : will staying in the race help or hurt Bernie Sanders .
With the establishment ( which is not moderate , despite CNN ’ s characterization ) wing of the Democrat party coalescing behind Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much room for Bloomberg to grow his campaign , and even though his strategy didn ’ t depend on him actually winning in states like California and Texas , he was supposed to be competitive .
Not only did he finish well behind Sanders and Biden in both states , he couldn ’ t even get to 15 % in states like Virginia and North Carolina , where Bloomberg spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts .
Biden won both states handily , despite the fact that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region .
The conventional wisdom is that Bloomberg will drop out and start spending his money backing Biden and down-ticket Democrats .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised to see that happen , though if I were the anti-gun billionaire I think I ’ d stick around for awhile .
After all , Biden ’ s surge in support in South Carolina and Super Tuesday came largely out of nowhere , and if he continues to stumble on the campaign trail , it ’ s possible that voters in states that have yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former vice president as damaged goods .
On the other hand , I ’ m not convinced that establishment Democrats would turn to Bloomberg even if that happened .
I think his abysmal debate performances , coupled with his inability to win a single competitive state on Super Tuesday , have crippled his argument that he ’ s the candidate who can best take on Donald Trump , and even if Democrats end up at a contested convention , I don ’ t think Bloomberg would be a shoo-in to win the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later today that explores what Bloomberg ’ s bad night might mean for his gun control agenda and organizations going forward , but for now , gun owners and Second Amendment supporters can take some small satisfaction in Bloomberg ’ s face-plant on Super Tuesday .
I can ’ t fathom Bloomberg spending a penny to support Bernie Sanders , so I ’ m assuming that Bloomberg ’ s now betting on Biden eventually getting the nomination .

Michael Bloomberg is huddling with campaign advisors in New York today, reassessing his presidential campaign after his Super Tuesday strategy crashed and burned. Of the fourteen primaries held on March 3rd, Bloomberg won only the primary in American Samoa, which was worth a whopping seven delegates. Bloomberg’s strategy was to roll up delegates in population-rich states like Texas and California, but that didn’t happen. Instead, Joe Biden narrowly won the Lone Star State, while Sanders appears to have won the California primary fairly handily.
As of Wednesday morning, Biden has about 450 delegates, while Sanders has about 380. Bloomberg is a distant fourth, with 44 delegates allotted to him and trailing Elizabeth Warren thanks to his dismal showing on Tuesday.
Bloomberg’s plan has always been to get to a contested convention where no candidate has the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot. According to the latest predictions from the 538 political blog, the odds of a contested convention are still pretty high, with a 3-in-5 chance that no candidate gets to the magic number of 1,991 delegates before the Democrat convention in Milwaukee.
So, despite Bloomberg’s bad night, the prospects of a contested convention are still pretty good. Does that mean that Bloomberg stays in the race despite blowing $500-million and getting almost nothing in return? According to CNN, the campaign calculus seems to be simple: will staying in the race help or hurt Bernie Sanders.
A grim reality has set in around Bloomberg’s New York headquarters: Former Vice President Joe Biden is overwhelming him in one state after another, despite spending virtually nothing compared to Bloomberg’s millions “This isn’t going as planned,” one adviser said bluntly. That mood is compounded by a sense of fear sweeping through Bloomberg’s operation that the New York mayor’s well-funded, sprawling operation could complicate Biden’s extraordinarily swift consolidation of the moderate wing of the party, and eventually help Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the candidate he set out to stop. “No,” a top Democrat close to the campaign told CNN. “He does not want to help Sanders become the nominee.”
With the establishment (which is not moderate, despite CNN’s characterization) wing of the Democrat party coalescing behind Biden, there doesn’t appear to be much room for Bloomberg to grow his campaign, and even though his strategy didn’t depend on him actually winning in states like California and Texas, he was supposed to be competitive. Not only did he finish well behind Sanders and Biden in both states, he couldn’t even get to 15% in states like Virginia and North Carolina, where Bloomberg spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. Biden won both states handily, despite the fact that he spent almost nothing on advertising in the region.
The conventional wisdom is that Bloomberg will drop out and start spending his money backing Biden and down-ticket Democrats. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen, though if I were the anti-gun billionaire I think I’d stick around for awhile. After all, Biden’s surge in support in South Carolina and Super Tuesday came largely out of nowhere, and if he continues to stumble on the campaign trail, it’s possible that voters in states that have yet to hold their primaries could see the former vice president as damaged goods.
On the other hand, I’m not convinced that establishment Democrats would turn to Bloomberg even if that happened. I think his abysmal debate performances, coupled with his inability to win a single competitive state on Super Tuesday, have crippled his argument that he’s the candidate who can best take on Donald Trump, and even if Democrats end up at a contested convention, I don’t think Bloomberg would be a shoo-in to win the nomination.
I’ll have another piece later today that explores what Bloomberg’s bad night might mean for his gun control agenda and organizations going forward, but for now, gun owners and Second Amendment supporters can take some small satisfaction in Bloomberg’s face-plant on Super Tuesday.
**UPDATE**
Well that was a quick assessment. Bloomberg announced Wednesday morning that he’s suspending his presidential campaign and is endorsing Joe Biden . Most importantly, Bloomberg is planning on keeping his team in place to back Biden in the general election. From Axios:
Bloomberg has pledged to pay his massive staff to continue to work through November to support whoever becomes the eventual Democratic nominee.
I can’t fathom Bloomberg spending a penny to support Bernie Sanders, so I’m assuming that Bloomberg’s now betting on Biden eventually getting the nomination.


bearingarms--2020-03-04--What Super Tuesday Means For Gun Debate

What Super Tuesday Means For Gun Debate

The early primaries have been , for the most part , the Bernie Sanders show .
Bernie notched early victories and had a lead in the delegate count .
Meanwhile , early frontrunner Joe Biden was crashing in the polls and had failed to claim some of those key early wins .
This despite a victory in South Carolina .
All that changed on Tuesday .
Former Vice President Joe Biden surged to victory in Super Tuesday contests across the South and beyond , while Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , claimed gold with a sizable win in delegate-prize California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest primary day of the season and indicating a tight battle between the two that is likely to drag on for weeks or more .
It emerged after midnight Wednesday that Biden had narrowly defeated Sanders in Texas , the second-biggest contest of the day .
With 90 percent of precincts reporting , Biden was ahead of Sanders 33.3 percent to 29.3 percent , or 602,352 votes to 531,626 votes .
The two candidates are likely to receive a similar share of the state ’ s 228 pledged delegates .
Biden had courted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign , even hosting a rally in Dallas on Monday night featuring a surprise appearance by former Texas Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke .
Onetime rivals Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar , as well as several Obama administration officials , endorsed Biden ’ s presidential bid within the past week .
In a worrying sign for Sanders , who had expected to perform well in the state , Maine ’ s race call is still outstanding .
With 71 percent of precincts reporting , Sanders and Biden are within two percentage points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comeback was remarkable given his poor performances in Iowa , New Hampshire , and Nevada earlier this year , which left many pundits declaring his campaign dead in the water .
Biden won the most contests Tuesday – though who came out ahead in the delegate race remains unclear – and certainly outperformed expectations from just a week ago .
So what does this mean for the gun debate ?
While Bernie Sanders has an anti-gun plan , that plan goes against his earlier support for gun rights .
I ’ ve argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base .
I ’ m not saying Sanders would be decent for gun rights , mind you , but that he might be less bad in that regard .
I think he ’ d be a trainwreck on literally everything else , but a bit less so on guns .
Biden , however , is a gun grabber and we all know it .
He ’ s been one his entire political career and that ’ s not likely to change anytime soon .
He ’ s made guns a focal point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has looked for a while that wasn ’ t a winning strategy even in the primaries , he ’ s surged ahead and is now a legitimate threat to Bernie .
However , the fact that two major Democrats dropped out of the race just the day before the biggest contest and threw their weight behind Biden is likely to smell fishy to many Bernie supporters .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine many voting against the eventual nominee much like some did four years ago .
If that happens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Biden says about gun control .
The election will be about far more than that , even if a majority did somehow support Biden ’ s gun control proposals .
And let ’ s be honest , that ’ s a far cry from certainty .
Yet with Biden ’ s big win on Tuesday , that may well be signaling a shift in momentum that will eventually lead to guns playing a much bigger role in the general election than might otherwise be the case .
So get ready .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride .

The early primaries have been, for the most part, the Bernie Sanders show. Bernie notched early victories and had a lead in the delegate count. Meanwhile, early frontrunner Joe Biden was crashing in the polls and had failed to claim some of those key early wins. This despite a victory in South Carolina.
All that changed on Tuesday.
Former Vice President Joe Biden surged to victory in Super Tuesday contests across the South and beyond, while Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed gold with a sizable win in delegate-prize California – divvying up the map on the biggest primary day of the season and indicating a tight battle between the two that is likely to drag on for weeks or more. It emerged after midnight Wednesday that Biden had narrowly defeated Sanders in Texas, the second-biggest contest of the day. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Biden was ahead of Sanders 33.3 percent to 29.3 percent, or 602,352 votes to 531,626 votes. The two candidates are likely to receive a similar share of the state’s 228 pledged delegates. Biden had courted Texans as establishment support suddenly built for his campaign, even hosting a rally in Dallas on Monday night featuring a surprise appearance by former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke. Onetime rivals Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, as well as several Obama administration officials, endorsed Biden’s presidential bid within the past week. In a worrying sign for Sanders, who had expected to perform well in the state, Maine’s race call is still outstanding. With 71 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders and Biden are within two percentage points. The former vice president’s comeback was remarkable given his poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada earlier this year, which left many pundits declaring his campaign dead in the water. Biden won the most contests Tuesday – though who came out ahead in the delegate race remains unclear – and certainly outperformed expectations from just a week ago.
So what does this mean for the gun debate?
While Bernie Sanders has an anti-gun plan, that plan goes against his earlier support for gun rights. I’ve argued that Sanders is pandering for the Democratic base. I’m not saying Sanders would be decent for gun rights, mind you, but that he might be less bad in that regard. I think he’d be a trainwreck on literally everything else, but a bit less so on guns.
Maybe.
Biden, however, is a gun grabber and we all know it. He’s been one his entire political career and that’s not likely to change anytime soon. He’s made guns a focal point of his campaign as well, and while it has looked for a while that wasn’t a winning strategy even in the primaries, he’s surged ahead and is now a legitimate threat to Bernie.
However, the fact that two major Democrats dropped out of the race just the day before the biggest contest and threw their weight behind Biden is likely to smell fishy to many Bernie supporters. It’s not difficult to imagine many voting against the eventual nominee much like some did four years ago.
If that happens, it won’t matter too much what Biden says about gun control. The election will be about far more than that, even if a majority did somehow support Biden’s gun control proposals.
And let’s be honest, that’s a far cry from certainty.
Yet with Biden’s big win on Tuesday, that may well be signaling a shift in momentum that will eventually lead to guns playing a much bigger role in the general election than might otherwise be the case.
So get ready. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.