bearingarms--2020-10-27--Why Kidnapping Plotters Had "Ghost Guns"

The plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer seemed to have more in common with a bad direct-to-video movie than any real plan to capture a high-ranking elected official ever would .
It included a high degree of stupidity that I don ’ t want to go into simply because I don ’ t want to help the next gaggle of misfits looking to score notoriety , but it doesn ’ t take a lot of brainpower to spot those issues yourself .
However , in addition to some other illegal activities besides trying to kidnap a governor , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreaded “ ghost guns.
” FBI agents found “ ghost guns ” and explosives during searches connected to an investigation into a group of militia men and their affiliates accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , according to a Monday court filing and testimony from earlier this month .
The U.S. Attorney ’ s Office is now considering additional charges and has asked U.S. District Judge Judge Sally J. Berens for more time to organize and present their case to a grand jury .
“ The evidence also included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which must be examined by FBI and ATF experts to determine whether additional federal charges are appropriate , ” the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office said in its motion for an extension .
“ A ghost gun is basically a weapon that is created and has no serial number or no way to track the weapon , ” FBI Special Agent Richard J. Trask II testified on Oct. 13 .
“ It ’ s not registered with any agencies.
” Trask at the time said agents “ very recently ” seized two such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an undercover FBI informant to manufacture .
Franks “ requested Ty Garbin and ( the informant ) to help him in creating two pistols , unregistered , and then also drilling out a lower receiver , ” Trask said .
“ Those weapons were intended for an individual who is a friend of Kaleb Franks , who has a previous conviction .
He is a drug dealer .
“ They believe that he was under surveillance and so they were going to create those weapons and provide them back to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rate of three times what they cost to make.
” Well , it just gets better and better for these boys , doesn ’ t it ?
Look , it ’ s important to understand much of why these ghost guns were made .
I ’ m not about to excuse selling such a gun to a convicted drug dealer , but I am going to point out why this group , themselves , would have unserialized firearms in their possession .
See , while we don ’ t have gun registration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paperwork for guns sold through FFL holders .
Michigan has universal background checks on handguns , which means there ’ s a paper trail for every handgun lawfully sold in the state .
If such paperwork were to be centrally located , it could be combined in such a way that you ’ d know who has what guns .
More or less , anyway .
It won ’ t account for everything–a firearm purchased with a background check , then sold before universal background checks when into effect or moved out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then sold , etc–but it ’ s enough to make some of us more than a little nervous .
Unserialized receivers provide those with such concerns a way to arm themselves without asking the state , “ Mother may I ?
” In fact , unserialized receivers may be a key reason why we ’ re not in the midst of a civil war right now over gun rights , at least in some parts of the country .
For guys like these , who harbor some serious anti-government sympathies , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government being able to figure out what guns they have and don ’ t have .
However , it should also be noted that there ’ s absolutely no way to have stopped these guys .
After all , they were trying to build explosives , which are illegal , and that law didn ’ t seem to slow them down in the least , so why would a law against so-called “ ghost guns ” be any different ?
Besides which , these are high-profile but isolated numbskulls .
Most who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who like building stuff and like guns .
That ’ s it .
Yet they ’ re going to be painted with this same brush no matter what .

The plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer seemed to have more in common with a bad direct-to-video movie than any real plan to capture a high-ranking elected official ever would. It included a high degree of stupidity that I don’t want to go into simply because I don’t want to help the next gaggle of misfits looking to score notoriety, but it doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to spot those issues yourself.
However, in addition to some other illegal activities besides trying to kidnap a governor, it seems the plotters also had some of the dreaded “ghost guns.”
FBI agents found “ghost guns” and explosives during searches connected to an investigation into a group of militia men and their affiliates accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, according to a Monday court filing and testimony from earlier this month. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is now considering additional charges and has asked U.S. District Judge Judge Sally J. Berens for more time to organize and present their case to a grand jury. “The evidence also included potentially illegal firearms and explosives evidence, which must be examined by FBI and ATF experts to determine whether additional federal charges are appropriate,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in its motion for an extension. … “A ghost gun is basically a weapon that is created and has no serial number or no way to track the weapon,” FBI Special Agent Richard J. Trask II testified on Oct. 13. “It’s not registered with any agencies.” Trask at the time said agents “very recently” seized two such guns that Franks enlisted co-defendant Ty Garbin and an undercover FBI informant to manufacture. Franks “requested Ty Garbin and (the informant) to help him in creating two pistols, unregistered, and then also drilling out a lower receiver,” Trask said. “Those weapons were intended for an individual who is a friend of Kaleb Franks, who has a previous conviction. He is a drug dealer. “They believe that he was under surveillance and so they were going to create those weapons and provide them back to him. They were going to sell them at a rate of three times what they cost to make.”
Well, it just gets better and better for these boys, doesn’t it?
Look, it’s important to understand much of why these ghost guns were made. I’m not about to excuse selling such a gun to a convicted drug dealer, but I am going to point out why this group, themselves, would have unserialized firearms in their possession.
See, while we don’t have gun registration in this country, we do have paperwork for guns sold through FFL holders. Michigan has universal background checks on handguns, which means there’s a paper trail for every handgun lawfully sold in the state. If such paperwork were to be centrally located, it could be combined in such a way that you’d know who has what guns.
More or less, anyway.
It won’t account for everything–a firearm purchased with a background check, then sold before universal background checks when into effect or moved out of state to somewhere without such a law and then sold, etc–but it’s enough to make some of us more than a little nervous. Unserialized receivers provide those with such concerns a way to arm themselves without asking the state, “Mother may I?”
In fact, unserialized receivers may be a key reason why we’re not in the midst of a civil war right now over gun rights, at least in some parts of the country.
For guys like these, who harbor some serious anti-government sympathies, it’s easy to believe they feared the government being able to figure out what guns they have and don’t have.
However, it should also be noted that there’s absolutely no way to have stopped these guys. After all, they were trying to build explosives, which are illegal, and that law didn’t seem to slow them down in the least, so why would a law against so-called “ghost guns” be any different?
Besides which, these are high-profile but isolated numbskulls. Most who build those guns are just average folks who like building stuff and like guns. That’s it.
Yet they’re going to be painted with this same brush no matter what.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--Will Biden Say Anything About The Philly Riots?

The rioting in Philadelphia that left 30 police officers injured , dozens arrested , and scores of businesses looted Monday night and early Tuesday morning erupted less than five miles from Joe Biden ’ s national campaign headquarters in downtown Philly .
The Biden/Harris campaign has made Philadelphia a centerpiece of their campaign strategy , and just hours before the riots erupted after police shot and killed a man that witnesses said was armed with a knife , Biden was asked by news anchor Jessica Kartalija with the local CBS affiliate about the increase in homicides in the city .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you know , are at an all-time high .
As of this morning , 391 homicides already this year .
What is your plan to reduce crime in our city specifically and around the country amid these calls to defund the police ?
Biden : Well , first of all , I do not support defunding the police as you know .
I ’ m glad you didn ’ t ask it that way because you know I didn ’ t .
And secondly , the police department of Philly knows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vice president , Barack and I , the crime rate fell 15 % .
It fell 15 % because we provided support for law enforcement , we condemned all violence , whether it ’ s violence by a renegade cop or it ’ s violence by a protester taking a baseball and smashing a window or burning a place down .
I think police departments need more resources , not fewer .
One of the things I ’ m going to do as soon as I get elected , if I get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission made up of law enforcement , made up of the community , made up of the civil rights community as well and sit us down and work out rational means about how we move forward .
First , let ’ s note that Biden didn ’ t bring up any of his gun control plans in response to Kartalija ’ s question ; no mention of his gun and magazine ban , his ban on online sales of ammunition and gun parts , his gun rationing scheme , or his plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjective and restrictive gun licensing laws .
Given the fact that even gun control groups are downplaying the issue in their own campaign ads , it ’ s pretty clear that Democrats and gun control advocates are doing everything they can to downplay their extreme anti-gun agenda , and that includes the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket .
Instead , Biden kept his focus on his supposed support for law enforcement , but what , if anything , will he have to say about the shooting of 27-year old Walter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday afternoon ?
Cell phone video shows the moments leading up to a deadly police-involved shooting which started out around 2:45 p.m. as a call for a man with a weapon .
“ Responding officers witnessed a male on the block .
Immediately they noticed he had a knife in his possession and he was brandishing it , and waiving it erratically , ” said Philadelphia Police Sgt .
Eric Gripp .
On that West Philly block , near 61st and Locust video shows that man raising his arm as he approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both officers open fire .
“ Upon being struck the male immediately dropped the knife and was scooped up by one of the discharging officers who took him into his police car , drove him over to Presbyterian Hospital where unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries , ” Sgt .
Gripp said .
“ I don ’ t know what his demeanor was .
I do know something had to be going on that wasn ’ t normal , ” witness Maurice Holoway said .
Holoway says he and others in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Walter Wallace Jr. to drop the knife but that didn ’ t happen .
Now he wishes this call to police for help didn ’ t lead to Wallace Jr ’ s death .
“ Shoot him in his leg , or not shoot him at all , ” Holoway said .
You know who else has repeatedly suggested that police officers aim for the leg when they ’ re forced to use their firearm ?
None other than Biden himself , despite the fact that if law enforcement listened to Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be putting themselves at greater risk , but the safety of bystanders like Holoway himself .
There ’ s also the fact that a shot to the leg could still hit a femoral artery , causing the person shot to bleed out within a matter of minutes .
Officers use a firearm as a means of lethal force , and aiming for the leg doesn ’ t suddenly turn a gun into a less-lethal means of defense .
While most gun owners realize this , clearly Joe Biden doesn ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden pressed on whether or not he agrees with Holoway that the officers who shot Wallace should have aimed for his leg or maybe even tried to shoot the knife out of his hand .
Of course , I don ’ t think Biden will face a single question about the riots in Philadelphia , no matter how close they might have come to his campaign headquarters .
Most of the media is interested in protecting Biden in the last week of the campaign , and asking him tough questions about the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few miles from his base of operations only opens the door for a muddled and confused response from the candidate .
The American people deserve to hear what Biden really thinks about the riots and Wallace ’ s death , but I doubt we ’ ll get the chance before Election Day .

The rioting in Philadelphia that left 30 police officers injured, dozens arrested, and scores of businesses looted Monday night and early Tuesday morning erupted less than five miles from Joe Biden’s national campaign headquarters in downtown Philly. The Biden/Harris campaign has made Philadelphia a centerpiece of their campaign strategy, and just hours before the riots erupted after police shot and killed a man that witnesses said was armed with a knife, Biden was asked by news anchor Jessica Kartalija with the local CBS affiliate about the increase in homicides in the city.
Kartalija: Crime rates in Philadelphia, as you know, are at an all-time high. As of this morning, 391 homicides already this year. What is your plan to reduce crime in our city specifically and around the country amid these calls to defund the police? Biden: Well, first of all, I do not support defunding the police as you know. I’m glad you didn’t ask it that way because you know I didn’t. And secondly, the police department of Philly knows that as well. When we were president and vice president, Barack and I, the crime rate fell 15%. It fell 15% because we provided support for law enforcement, we condemned all violence, whether it’s violence by a renegade cop or it’s violence by a protester taking a baseball and smashing a window or burning a place down. I think police departments need more resources, not fewer. One of the things I’m going to do as soon as I get elected, if I get elected, is to call together a commission made up of law enforcement, made up of the community, made up of the civil rights community as well and sit us down and work out rational means about how we move forward.
First, let’s note that Biden didn’t bring up any of his gun control plans in response to Kartalija’s question; no mention of his gun and magazine ban, his ban on online sales of ammunition and gun parts, his gun rationing scheme, or his plan to give federal grants to states that implement subjective and restrictive gun licensing laws. Given the fact that even gun control groups are downplaying the issue in their own campaign ads, it’s pretty clear that Democrats and gun control advocates are doing everything they can to downplay their extreme anti-gun agenda, and that includes the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Instead, Biden kept his focus on his supposed support for law enforcement, but what, if anything, will he have to say about the shooting of 27-year old Walter Wallace, Jr. by Philadelphia police officers on Monday afternoon?
Cell phone video shows the moments leading up to a deadly police-involved shooting which started out around 2:45 p.m. as a call for a man with a weapon. “Responding officers witnessed a male on the block. Immediately they noticed he had a knife in his possession and he was brandishing it, and waiving it erratically,” said Philadelphia Police Sgt. Eric Gripp. On that West Philly block, near 61st and Locust video shows that man raising his arm as he approaches police. Less than a second later, both officers open fire. “Upon being struck the male immediately dropped the knife and was scooped up by one of the discharging officers who took him into his police car, drove him over to Presbyterian Hospital where unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries,” Sgt. Gripp said. “I don’t know what his demeanor was. I do know something had to be going on that wasn’t normal,” witness Maurice Holoway said. Holoway says he and others in the neighborhood plead with the man, identified as Walter Wallace Jr. to drop the knife but that didn’t happen. Now he wishes this call to police for help didn’t lead to Wallace Jr’s death. “Shoot him in his leg, or not shoot him at all,” Holoway said.
You know who else has repeatedly suggested that police officers aim for the leg when they’re forced to use their firearm? None other than Biden himself, despite the fact that if law enforcement listened to Biden’s demand they would be not only be putting themselves at greater risk, but the safety of bystanders like Holoway himself. There’s also the fact that a shot to the leg could still hit a femoral artery, causing the person shot to bleed out within a matter of minutes.
Officers use a firearm as a means of lethal force, and aiming for the leg doesn’t suddenly turn a gun into a less-lethal means of defense. While most gun owners realize this, clearly Joe Biden doesn’t, and I’d love to hear Biden pressed on whether or not he agrees with Holoway that the officers who shot Wallace should have aimed for his leg or maybe even tried to shoot the knife out of his hand.
Of course, I don’t think Biden will face a single question about the riots in Philadelphia, no matter how close they might have come to his campaign headquarters. Most of the media is interested in protecting Biden in the last week of the campaign, and asking him tough questions about the police shooting and the ensuing riots just a few miles from his base of operations only opens the door for a muddled and confused response from the candidate. The American people deserve to hear what Biden really thinks about the riots and Wallace’s death, but I doubt we’ll get the chance before Election Day.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--On Biden's Anti-Gun Agenda: Gun Rationing

It ’ s a beautiful day .
You ’ ve finally saved up enough money to make some purchases you ’ ve wanted to make for some time .
The sport of three-gun looks intriguing and you ’ re ready to pick up some firearms to help you give it a try .
Sure , you had a revolver you keep close at hand in case of a burglar and maybe even for concealed carry , but that ’ s not really going to work for three-gun .
As a result , you need to purchase three firearms .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semi-auto ) , and a semi-auto handgun .
There ’ s a match in your area in a month and you need to start practicing .
See , despite you being a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record wishing to engage in a lawful recreational activity , the law now limits you as to how many firearms you can purchase per month .
That ’ s what ’ s likely to happen if Joe Biden wins on November 3 .
Of course , this is far from the only example of Biden trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of ordinary Americans , but let ’ s focus on this one for now .
Let ’ s understand why the idea of gun rationing even exists .
In theory , one of the things it ’ s supposed to stop is straw buying .
There are people who buy a ton of guns for people who can ’ t purchase their own .
They apparently make a fair bit of cash doing this , too .
However , those people are surprisingly rare .
Most straw buys are committed when someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buddy to make the purchase for them .
Gun rationing doesn ’ t actually stop many straw buyers .
But it does stop law-abiding citizens from buying guns when they want to , and that ’ s a problem .
A right delayed is a right denied , and telling me I can ’ t exercise my Second Amendment rights twice in a given month is most definitely delaying that right .
I can ’ t help but believe the real reason Biden is pushing gun rationing , though , is that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of gun control he really wants , it ’ ll spark a buying frenzy as people gear up to resist him .
If they can only purchase one a month , that becomes an issue .
Of course , that goes out the window because if he wins in November , the only reason the buying frenzy won ’ t start then is because it hasn ’ t died down from when it kicked off in March .
Either way , gun rationing is stupid .
However , let ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t talking about this .
Debate moderators aren ’ t asking about it .
The members of the press that follows Biden ’ s every move fail to ask about it .
No one in the media seems to want to discuss gun control with Biden .
In other words , the most radical anti-gun agenda we ’ ve ever seen in a presidential campaign is being swept under the rug by a complicit media .

It’s a beautiful day. You’ve finally saved up enough money to make some purchases you’ve wanted to make for some time. The sport of three-gun looks intriguing and you’re ready to pick up some firearms to help you give it a try. Sure, you had a revolver you keep close at hand in case of a burglar and maybe even for concealed carry, but that’s not really going to work for three-gun.
As a result, you need to purchase three firearms. A semi-auto rifle, a shotgun (preferably semi-auto), and a semi-auto handgun. There’s a match in your area in a month and you need to start practicing.
Only, you can’t.
See, despite you being a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record wishing to engage in a lawful recreational activity, the law now limits you as to how many firearms you can purchase per month.
That’s what’s likely to happen if Joe Biden wins on November 3.
Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s gun control proposals include supporting legislation to limit Americans to purchasing only one firearm a month. The proposal is contained on Biden’s campaign website, which says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
Of course, this is far from the only example of Biden trying to step all over the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans, but let’s focus on this one for now.
Let’s understand why the idea of gun rationing even exists. In theory, one of the things it’s supposed to stop is straw buying. There are people who buy a ton of guns for people who can’t purchase their own. They apparently make a fair bit of cash doing this, too. However, those people are surprisingly rare.
Most straw buys are committed when someone asks their girlfriend, wife, or buddy to make the purchase for them. Gun rationing doesn’t actually stop many straw buyers.
But it does stop law-abiding citizens from buying guns when they want to, and that’s a problem. A right delayed is a right denied, and telling me I can’t exercise my Second Amendment rights twice in a given month is most definitely delaying that right.
I can’t help but believe the real reason Biden is pushing gun rationing, though, is that he knows that if he pushes for the kind of gun control he really wants, it’ll spark a buying frenzy as people gear up to resist him. If they can only purchase one a month, that becomes an issue.
Of course, that goes out the window because if he wins in November, the only reason the buying frenzy won’t start then is because it hasn’t died down from when it kicked off in March.
Either way, gun rationing is stupid.
However, let’s also note that the mainstream media isn’t talking about this. Debate moderators aren’t asking about it. The members of the press that follows Biden’s every move fail to ask about it. No one in the media seems to want to discuss gun control with Biden.
In other words, the most radical anti-gun agenda we’ve ever seen in a presidential campaign is being swept under the rug by a complicit media.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--Boston DA: No More Bail On Gun Charges

Boston DA: No More Bail On Gun Charges

With homicides in Boston up 40 % over last year , and non-fatal shootings 32 % higher than 2019 , the city ’ s top prosecutor is vowing to keep those arrested on gun-related charges behind bars without bail until their trial .
Rachael Rollins made the announcement as a man charged with murder while out on bail for an armed robbery made his first court appearance on Monday .
The case of Uhmari Bufford has generated a lot of headlines and headaches for Rollins , given that her office allowed Bufford to be released on bail just months before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46-year old Augusta Parker , who was shot and killed in a Boston park last week .
Bufford , who has a history of violent offenses , was out on bail , awaiting trial on charges in connection with a 2019 armed robbery of a taxi driver when prosecutors say he was caught on surveillance camera at 950 Parker St. in Jamaica Plain approaching and then open firing on Carter , striking him several times .
“ Mr .
Bufford then stood over the victim and fired twice more , ” Assistant District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bufford was arrested in the basement of a Brockton home two days later , authorities said .
In court on Monday , Bufford hid behind a gray slate door , poking his out every now and then to look around the courtroom .
His lawyer did not fight prosecutors ’ pleas to hold Bufford until trial .
Bufford was also arrested earlier this year and charged with interfering with a police officer and disturbing the peace after a shooting in the city ’ s Jamaica Plain neighborhood , but his bail for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
Now Rachael Rollins says her office is going to be cracking down on those accused of a firearm-related crime , and will be holding dangerousness hearings in order to try to keep defendants behind bars until their trial .
Rollins announcement that her department is stepping up its use of dangerousness hearings — also called 58A hearings , which allow for a defendant to be held prior to conviction if a judge determines them to be too dangerous to release back into the community — comes after what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days ” in Boston .
Since Wednesday , there have been two homicides and 15 gun arrests , she said .
“ That ’ s a lot of guns , ” said Rollins , who lives in Roxbury .
“ Rather than the previous practices of other administrations — and even earlier in mine — where some individuals might have been held on a low bail , the commonwealth will be moving for dangerousness , ” Rollins continued .
It ’ s unclear whether Rollins ’ pledge includes dangerousness hearings for those arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone is caught merely carrying a firearm without a license , will Rollins seek to detain them until their trial , or will that be reserved for those accused of committing a violent crime in which a gun was used ?
That ’ s a real issue , because getting a license to carry in Suffolk County/Boston is nearly impossible for the average citizen .
Thanks to the state ’ s discretionary licensing laws , applicants for a Class A license can be denied based on the police department ’ s determination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if you meet the statutory requirements to receive a license , you can be denied for any reason or no reason at all .
As long as prosecutors are cracking down on violent criminals , the police department should also ensure that the average resident of Boston has the ability and the means to protect themselves , not only in their home but on city streets as well .
It ’ s time to get rid of their subjective standards and allow ordinary citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are truly dangers to themselves and the community .

With homicides in Boston up 40% over last year, and non-fatal shootings 32% higher than 2019, the city’s top prosecutor is vowing to keep those arrested on gun-related charges behind bars without bail until their trial. Rachael Rollins made the announcement as a man charged with murder while out on bail for an armed robbery made his first court appearance on Monday.
The case of Uhmari Bufford has generated a lot of headlines and headaches for Rollins, given that her office allowed Bufford to be released on bail just months before he was arrested for the murder of 46-year old Augusta Parker, who was shot and killed in a Boston park last week.
Bufford, who has a history of violent offenses, was out on bail, awaiting trial on charges in connection with a 2019 armed robbery of a taxi driver when prosecutors say he was caught on surveillance camera at 950 Parker St. in Jamaica Plain approaching and then open firing on Carter, striking him several times. “Mr. Bufford then stood over the victim and fired twice more,” Assistant District Attorney Elizabeth Riley told the judge. Bufford was arrested in the basement of a Brockton home two days later, authorities said. In court on Monday, Bufford hid behind a gray slate door, poking his out every now and then to look around the courtroom. His lawyer did not fight prosecutors’ pleas to hold Bufford until trial.
Bufford was also arrested earlier this year and charged with interfering with a police officer and disturbing the peace after a shooting in the city’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood, but his bail for the armed robbery charge wasn’t revoked at the time. Now Rachael Rollins says her office is going to be cracking down on those accused of a firearm-related crime, and will be holding dangerousness hearings in order to try to keep defendants behind bars until their trial.
Rollins announcement that her department is stepping up its use of dangerousness hearings — also called 58A hearings, which allow for a defendant to be held prior to conviction if a judge determines them to be too dangerous to release back into the community — comes after what she called “a pretty violent last few days” in Boston. Since Wednesday, there have been two homicides and 15 gun arrests, she said. “That’s a lot of guns,” said Rollins, who lives in Roxbury. “Rather than the previous practices of other administrations — and even earlier in mine — where some individuals might have been held on a low bail, the commonwealth will be moving for dangerousness,” Rollins continued.
It’s unclear whether Rollins’ pledge includes dangerousness hearings for those arrested for non-violent offenses involving firearms. If someone is caught merely carrying a firearm without a license, will Rollins seek to detain them until their trial, or will that be reserved for those accused of committing a violent crime in which a gun was used?
That’s a real issue, because getting a license to carry in Suffolk County/Boston is nearly impossible for the average citizen. Thanks to the state’s discretionary licensing laws, applicants for a Class A license can be denied based on the police department’s determination of “suitability,” which means that even if you meet the statutory requirements to receive a license, you can be denied for any reason or no reason at all.
As long as prosecutors are cracking down on violent criminals, the police department should also ensure that the average resident of Boston has the ability and the means to protect themselves, not only in their home but on city streets as well. It’s time to get rid of their subjective standards and allow ordinary citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and to focus law enforcement efforts on those who are truly dangers to themselves and the community.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--What Barrett's Confirmation Means For Second Amendment

Last night , liberals throughout the nation began their wailing and gnashing of teeth .
Despite the fact that it had to be obvious this was going to happen , remarkably few bothered to prepare themselves for the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
Among others , this represents a major setback for gun control advocates who been hoping to keep a Supreme Court that was lukewarm toward gun cases since the McDonald decision a decade ago .
This despite a conservative majority on the Court .
With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg , though , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett has an opportunity to step in and make the most of it .
To be sure , there are a wide variety of cases the Court will hear in the coming year or two , but for our purposes , let ’ s talk about guns .
Much of the blame for the lack of movement on Second Amendment cases appears to have been laid at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts .
To be sure , Roberts may well be a factor , but he can ’ t be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes four justices to agree to hear a case , and with a 5-4 majority , the Court should have been inclined to address gun rights .
Even if Roberts is voting against hearing gun cases , he alone isn ’ t the reason .
It means at least one more of the conservative justices has been voting not to hear those cases .
However , we now see a 6-3 majority and Barrett take pro-Second Amendment into directions many of us wouldn ’ t have thought likely .
After all , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be barred from owning guns .
That was a position many pro-gun people wouldn ’ t have even thought of taking , to be sure .
Between her , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh–all nominated by President Donald Trump–one would think only one more vote would be needed .
In that , I think you ’ d see Justice Clarence Thomas side with the newcomers and agree to hear gun cases .
At least , that ’ s my hope .
Of course , I ’ ve also been disappointed a lot in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve argued that now we ’ re likely to see some movement to gain ground previously lost to anti-gunners , but so far , nothing .
With each confirmation , my hope soars , only to see it end up smashed against the rocks .
Yet logistically , the Court that reached the Heller and McDonald decisions should have had at least four people who wanted to hear more gun cases , to clamp down on lower courts ignoring the previous rulings whenever they felt like it .
One would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case just to clarify the Court ’ s opinions if nothing else .
Instead , we ’ ve seen pretty much every gun case ignored .
With Barrett , though , we may finally get what we ’ ve been hoping for .
While I don ’ t think non-violent felons should rejoice just yet–I doubt many other justices will side with her on that particular issue–it may become time for the Court to start hearing gun cases once again .
This time it may be different .
However , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t see the Court accept a Second Amendment case soon , I ’ m going to feel a lot more like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football than I care to .

Last night, liberals throughout the nation began their wailing and gnashing of teeth. Despite the fact that it had to be obvious this was going to happen, remarkably few bothered to prepare themselves for the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Among others, this represents a major setback for gun control advocates who been hoping to keep a Supreme Court that was lukewarm toward gun cases since the McDonald decision a decade ago. This despite a conservative majority on the Court.
With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, though, an opportunity opened up. Now, Justice Barrett has an opportunity to step in and make the most of it.
To be sure, there are a wide variety of cases the Court will hear in the coming year or two, but for our purposes, let’s talk about guns.
Much of the blame for the lack of movement on Second Amendment cases appears to have been laid at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts. To be sure, Roberts may well be a factor, but he can’t be the only one. After all, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and with a 5-4 majority, the Court should have been inclined to address gun rights.
Even if Roberts is voting against hearing gun cases, he alone isn’t the reason. It means at least one more of the conservative justices has been voting not to hear those cases.
However, we now see a 6-3 majority and Barrett take pro-Second Amendment into directions many of us wouldn’t have thought likely. After all, she argued that non-violent felons shouldn’t be barred from owning guns. That was a position many pro-gun people wouldn’t have even thought of taking, to be sure.
Between her, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh–all nominated by President Donald Trump–one would think only one more vote would be needed. In that, I think you’d see Justice Clarence Thomas side with the newcomers and agree to hear gun cases.
At least, that’s my hope.
Of course, I’ve also been disappointed a lot in the last four years. Following every confirmation, I’ve argued that now we’re likely to see some movement to gain ground previously lost to anti-gunners, but so far, nothing. With each confirmation, my hope soars, only to see it end up smashed against the rocks.
Yet logistically, the Court that reached the Heller and McDonald decisions should have had at least four people who wanted to hear more gun cases, to clamp down on lower courts ignoring the previous rulings whenever they felt like it. One would have imagined they’d have taken a case just to clarify the Court’s opinions if nothing else.
Instead, we’ve seen pretty much every gun case ignored.
With Barrett, though, we may finally get what we’ve been hoping for. While I don’t think non-violent felons should rejoice just yet–I doubt many other justices will side with her on that particular issue–it may become time for the Court to start hearing gun cases once again. This time it may be different.
However, I’m also going to say that if we don’t see the Court accept a Second Amendment case soon, I’m going to feel a lot more like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football than I care to.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--The 2A Cases That SCOTUS Could Accept With ACB On The Bench

With Monday evening ’ s confirmation and swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett , the Supreme Court is back to nine justices , and in the coming weeks and months Barrett is likely to provide a crucial vote in deciding what , if any , Second Amendment-related cases the Court should consider .
While the Supreme Court just turned away a case called Rodriguez vs. City of San Jose that dealt with firearms seizures , gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that with Barrett on the bench , 2A cases will start to be addressed by the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was 2010 when the Court struck down the city of Chicago ’ s ban on handguns in the McDonald case , but since then SCOTUS has been mostly silent on the issue .
So what are the cases that could soon come before the Court ?
While the Supreme Court doesn ’ t currently have any Second Amendment-related cases that are being considered in conference , a case called Caldara vs. City of Boulder could go to conference by the end of the year .
This case is a challenge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s so-called assault weapons ban , but the question before the Court is whether or not the plaintiffs in the case will actually be able to bring a challenge to the local ordinance , with lower courts turning away the case and petitioners asking the Supreme Court to revive the issue .
The Court will also soon consider a case called Carey v. Throwe , which involves a right-to-carry challenge brought by Norris Paul Carey , Jr. , a retired officer with the Maryland Natural Resources Police who sought to carry under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had his LEOSA card stripped from him after his former department claimed that he had not retired in good standing .
While this case could ultimately be used as a vehicle for the Court to weigh in on the right to bear arms outside of the home , because the challenge deals with LEOSA and not the standard concealed carry licenses for civilians , if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it could issue a narrow ruling that doesn ’ t directly impact the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases currently in circuit courts of appeals that could soon make their way to the Supreme Court for consideration , including a challenge to California ’ s ban on online and out-of-state sales of ammunition ( Rhode v. Becerra ) , a case taking on California ’ s magazine ban ( Duncan v. Becerra ) , and a challenge to the state of Hawaii ’ s ban on open carry ( Young v. Hawaii ) .
The Young case could be one of the next cases to arrive at the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the en banc review of the case in the Ninth Circuit .
Once the en banc decision comes down , it ’ s likely that the losing side will appeal the case up to the Supreme Court , and that could be the first case that deals with a right to carry that the Court will hear after Barrett ’ s confirmation .
This case not only deals with the right to openly carry a firearm , it also implicates an earlier case out of the Ninth Circuit ( Peruta v. San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no constitutional right to carry concealed .
The Young case would allow the Supreme Court to not only undo the damage done in Peruta , but to finally weigh in on whether the right to keep and bear arms actually protects a right to , you know , bear arms .
There are a few other cases percolating in the circuit courts of appeals that we ’ ll be taking a closer look at later today , but I ’ d say the cases listed above are the first that have the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that Amy Coney Barrett is officially an Associate Justice .

With Monday evening’s confirmation and swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court is back to nine justices, and in the coming weeks and months Barrett is likely to provide a crucial vote in deciding what, if any, Second Amendment-related cases the Court should consider.
While the Supreme Court just turned away a case called Rodriguez vs. City of San Jose that dealt with firearms seizures, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that with Barrett on the bench, 2A cases will start to be addressed by the Court for the first time in a decade. It was 2010 when the Court struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in the McDonald case, but since then SCOTUS has been mostly silent on the issue.
So what are the cases that could soon come before the Court? While the Supreme Court doesn’t currently have any Second Amendment-related cases that are being considered in conference, a case called Caldara vs. City of Boulder could go to conference by the end of the year. This case is a challenge to the city of Boulder, Colorado’s so-called assault weapons ban, but the question before the Court is whether or not the plaintiffs in the case will actually be able to bring a challenge to the local ordinance, with lower courts turning away the case and petitioners asking the Supreme Court to revive the issue.
The Court will also soon consider a case called Carey v. Throwe, which involves a right-to-carry challenge brought by Norris Paul Carey, Jr., a retired officer with the Maryland Natural Resources Police who sought to carry under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, but had his LEOSA card stripped from him after his former department claimed that he had not retired in good standing.
While this case could ultimately be used as a vehicle for the Court to weigh in on the right to bear arms outside of the home, because the challenge deals with LEOSA and not the standard concealed carry licenses for civilians, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it could issue a narrow ruling that doesn’t directly impact the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm.
There are also a number of cases currently in circuit courts of appeals that could soon make their way to the Supreme Court for consideration, including a challenge to California’s ban on online and out-of-state sales of ammunition (Rhode v. Becerra), a case taking on California’s magazine ban (Duncan v. Becerra), and a challenge to the state of Hawaii’s ban on open carry (Young v. Hawaii).
The Young case could be one of the next cases to arrive at the Supreme Court, since oral arguments have been held in the en banc review of the case in the Ninth Circuit. Once the en banc decision comes down, it’s likely that the losing side will appeal the case up to the Supreme Court, and that could be the first case that deals with a right to carry that the Court will hear after Barrett’s confirmation.
This case not only deals with the right to openly carry a firearm, it also implicates an earlier case out of the Ninth Circuit (Peruta v. San Diego) that held that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed. The Young case would allow the Supreme Court to not only undo the damage done in Peruta, but to finally weigh in on whether the right to keep and bear arms actually protects a right to, you know, bear arms.
There are a few other cases percolating in the circuit courts of appeals that we’ll be taking a closer look at later today, but I’d say the cases listed above are the first that have the opportunity to be heard by the Supreme Court now that Amy Coney Barrett is officially an Associate Justice.


bearingarms--2020-10-27--Philadelphia Riots, Dozens Of Cops Injured, Most Media Silent

In this day and age , any officer-involved shooting is likely to spark a riot .
The media has gotten everyone so conditioned to the idea that police are simply gunning down folks for fun that they don ’ t bother to get any facts before deciding to burn everything to the ground .
We ’ ve seen this time and time again .
Unfortunately , we also saw it again last night .
Angry crowds took to the streets in West Philadelphia overnight after police shot and killed a man armed with a knife Monday , with some in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police and some looting or vandalizing businesses .
At least 30 police officers were hurt , police said .
One was hospitalized , a 56-year-old sergeant who was struck by a pickup truck at 52nd and Walnut streets early Tuesday .
Her leg was broken , among other injuries , police said .
All the officers , except for the one struck by the truck , had been treated and released as of early Tuesday .
The violence followed protests in response to the death of Walter Wallace , a Black man who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city ’ s Cobbs Creek neighborhood .
Police said several stores were looted , including several Rite Aid stores in West Philadelphia , clothing and shoe stores and at least one restaurant .
They could also be seen trying to break into a check cashing store and going in and out of a beauty supply store .
In other words , it was a significant riot .
I mean , if 30 police officers are injured , I ’ m going to say it ’ s a big thing .
However , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to cover the riot , few others are .
For example , while Fox News covered the riots , their chief competitors didn ’ t .
Here are screenshots taken this morning after I actively looked for Philadelphia on their sites .
First , CNN : Note the time and date .
Plenty of time for CNN to have filed some kind of report on their website .
CNN isn ’ t the only one to ignore the riot , though .
MSNBC did as well .
Both sites were sorted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been at the top .
Instead , there ’ s nothing .
This is despite 30 law enforcement officers being injured in the line of duty during civil unrest over the killing of an armed suspect .
Now , I get that Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice , but these sites have the capability to cover more than one story at a time .
So why the silence on the riot ?
Of course , both networks are known to lean fairly leftward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t play well with many Americans .
It tends to push them toward GOP candidates .
With the election just days away now , it wouldn ’ t be difficult to imagine these networks trying to downplay any such unrest lest it benefit Republicans .
Then again , they might just suck at their jobs .
Either way , unrest in Philadelphia that can only be described as a riot happened , but if you stick with most mainstream media outlets , you ’ re probably going to miss it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve failed to report on in recent weeks , doesn ’ t it ?
Does the name “ Hunter Biden ” mean anything to anyone ?

In this day and age, any officer-involved shooting is likely to spark a riot. The media has gotten everyone so conditioned to the idea that police are simply gunning down folks for fun that they don’t bother to get any facts before deciding to burn everything to the ground.
We’ve seen this time and time again.
Unfortunately, we also saw it again last night.
Angry crowds took to the streets in West Philadelphia overnight after police shot and killed a man armed with a knife Monday, with some in the crowds throwing rocks and bricks at police and some looting or vandalizing businesses. At least 30 police officers were hurt, police said. One was hospitalized, a 56-year-old sergeant who was struck by a pickup truck at 52nd and Walnut streets early Tuesday. Her leg was broken, among other injuries, police said. All the officers, except for the one struck by the truck, had been treated and released as of early Tuesday. The violence followed protests in response to the death of Walter Wallace, a Black man who police shot and killed Monday in the city’s Cobbs Creek neighborhood. Police said several stores were looted, including several Rite Aid stores in West Philadelphia, clothing and shoe stores and at least one restaurant. They could also be seen trying to break into a check cashing store and going in and out of a beauty supply store.
In other words, it was a significant riot.
I mean, if 30 police officers are injured, I’m going to say it’s a big thing.
However, it seems that while the NY Post is willing to cover the riot, few others are. For example, while Fox News covered the riots, their chief competitors didn’t.
Here are screenshots taken this morning after I actively looked for Philadelphia on their sites. First, CNN:
Note the time and date. Plenty of time for CNN to have filed some kind of report on their website.
CNN isn’t the only one to ignore the riot, though. MSNBC did as well.
Both sites were sorted by date, meaning any recent news should have been at the top. Instead, there’s nothing. This is despite 30 law enforcement officers being injured in the line of duty during civil unrest over the killing of an armed suspect.
Now, I get that Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, but these sites have the capability to cover more than one story at a time. So why the silence on the riot?
Of course, both networks are known to lean fairly leftward, to put it mildly, and riots don’t play well with many Americans. It tends to push them toward GOP candidates. With the election just days away now, it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine these networks trying to downplay any such unrest lest it benefit Republicans.
Then again, they might just suck at their jobs.
Either way, unrest in Philadelphia that can only be described as a riot happened, but if you stick with most mainstream media outlets, you’re probably going to miss it. Kind of makes you wonder what else they’ve failed to report on in recent weeks, doesn’t it? Does the name “Hunter Biden” mean anything to anyone?


bearingarms--2020-10-28--MD Man Acquitted In Self-Defense Shooting

In most cases of self-defense , the shooter never goes to trial .
It ’ s clear it was self-defense and so they ’ re never prosecuted in the first place .
While there have been high-profile exceptions , a lot of times when a self-defense shooter does make it inside the courtroom , it doesn ’ t work out well for them .
This is especially true in anti-gun states .
Yet sometimes , the armed citizen does come out on top .
The problem with the prosecutors ’ argument , though , is that it ’ s impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked .
Korwek might well have died if he ’ d tried that approach .
The standard for self-defense isn ’ t whether you can hide until police arrive , it ’ s whether you fear for your life .
Korwek not only did , he had ample reason to believe Dickinson intended to kill him .
Now , that said , it ’ s important to remember that Maryland isn ’ t a Stand-Your-Ground state .
They do have a duty to retreat .
However , the prosecutors arguing that Korwek should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew damn good and well that retreat wasn ’ t really an option .
They knew Korwek couldn ’ t get away .
Yet they still believed he should have waited , potentially risking his life , on the slim chance law enforcement would arrive in time to save the day .
Neither did the jury , though .
As a result , Korwek is cleared of all charges and can go about his life .
That ’ s not something you really expect to see happen in an anti-gun state like Maryland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a big win for the good guys , but it really shouldn ’ t have happened at all .
Korwek should never have had to go through all of this .
Unfortunately , Maryland prefers to keep its citizens terrified of defending their own life .

In most cases of self-defense, the shooter never goes to trial. It’s clear it was self-defense and so they’re never prosecuted in the first place.
While there have been high-profile exceptions, a lot of times when a self-defense shooter does make it inside the courtroom, it doesn’t work out well for them. This is especially true in anti-gun states.
Yet sometimes, the armed citizen does come out on top.
The problem with the prosecutors’ argument, though, is that it’s impossible to know if that would have actually worked. Korwek might well have died if he’d tried that approach.
The standard for self-defense isn’t whether you can hide until police arrive, it’s whether you fear for your life. Korwek not only did, he had ample reason to believe Dickinson intended to kill him.
Now, that said, it’s important to remember that Maryland isn’t a Stand-Your-Ground state. They do have a duty to retreat. However, the prosecutors arguing that Korwek should have “hunkered down” suggests they knew damn good and well that retreat wasn’t really an option. They knew Korwek couldn’t get away.
Yet they still believed he should have waited, potentially risking his life, on the slim chance law enforcement would arrive in time to save the day.
Nope. Sorry. I ain’t buying it.
Neither did the jury, though. As a result, Korwek is cleared of all charges and can go about his life. That’s not something you really expect to see happen in an anti-gun state like Maryland, yet here it is. That’s a big win for the good guys, but it really shouldn’t have happened at all. Korwek should never have had to go through all of this.
Unfortunately, Maryland prefers to keep its citizens terrified of defending their own life.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--SD Ballot Initiative On Pot Runs Afoul Of Federal Gun Laws

When I was a kid , pot was illegal and while there were some who wanted to see it legalized , there wasn ’ t really any broad support for such a measure .
It looked like marijuana was going to remain illicit forever .
However , that doesn ’ t really seem to be the case anymore .
A number of states have some form of legalized marijuana on the books and while federal law still bans it , the feds aren ’ t exactly kicking in the doors of lawful dispensaries .
Yet there are still problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Dakota highlights a big one .
If South Dakota voters approve proposed Constitutional Amendment A that would legalize recreational marijuana for people age 21 and older , or Initiated Measure 26 that would legalize medical marijuana , South Dakota ’ s would-be gun buyers could find themselves in a legal jam .
That ’ s because one of the questions the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives asks on its firearms transaction record is , “ Are you an unlawful user of , or addicted to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narcotic drug , or any other controlled substance ?
” The form goes on to note , “ Warning : The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
” KELOLAND News asked several leaders for the pro-marijuana side about it .
Drey Samuelson said he had to do some quick digging .
“ Amendment A and Measure 26 make no changes to gun laws in South Dakota .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Samuelson replied .
“ As is the case in all 34 states that have legalized medical marijuana and in the 11 states that have legalized marijuana for adults , state policies do not change the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
” And Samuelson is correct .
Legalizing marijuana on a state level doesn ’ t change the federal laws at all .
What that means , though , is that the feds need to either fish or cut bait on the issue of marijuana .
See , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands-off approach on pot at the state level , that approach has raised a number of questions .
What the federal government needs to do at this point is either tell the states that it ’ s not their call to make or , back off on considering marijuana an illicit substance , or at least change federal gun laws so that marijuana consumption isn ’ t a prohibitive act for purchasing a gun .
This would also help prevent acts like the Honolulu Police Department comparing marijuana cards with gun licenses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their guns .
At the end of the day , what I ’ m really wanting to see is the federal government maintain something close to a consistent position here .
Either marijuana consumption is fine or it ’ s not .
It shouldn ’ t be a completely legal act…until you want to purchase a firearm .
That ’ s not how our Second Amendment rights work .
That ’ s not how any rights work .
It ’ s well past time to fix this mess .

When I was a kid, pot was illegal and while there were some who wanted to see it legalized, there wasn’t really any broad support for such a measure. It looked like marijuana was going to remain illicit forever.
However, that doesn’t really seem to be the case anymore.
A number of states have some form of legalized marijuana on the books and while federal law still bans it, the feds aren’t exactly kicking in the doors of lawful dispensaries.
Yet there are still problems with legalized pot, and a ballot initiative in South Dakota highlights a big one.
If South Dakota voters approve proposed Constitutional Amendment A that would legalize recreational marijuana for people age 21 and older, or Initiated Measure 26 that would legalize medical marijuana, South Dakota’s would-be gun buyers could find themselves in a legal jam. That’s because one of the questions the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives asks on its firearms transaction record is, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” The form goes on to note, “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” KELOLAND News asked several leaders for the pro-marijuana side about it. Drey Samuelson said he had to do some quick digging. “Amendment A and Measure 26 make no changes to gun laws in South Dakota. This is a federal issue that affects all states,” Samuelson replied. “As is the case in all 34 states that have legalized medical marijuana and in the 11 states that have legalized marijuana for adults, state policies do not change the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”
And Samuelson is correct. Legalizing marijuana on a state level doesn’t change the federal laws at all.
What that means, though, is that the feds need to either fish or cut bait on the issue of marijuana.
See, while the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach on pot at the state level, that approach has raised a number of questions. What the federal government needs to do at this point is either tell the states that it’s not their call to make or, back off on considering marijuana an illicit substance, or at least change federal gun laws so that marijuana consumption isn’t a prohibitive act for purchasing a gun.
This would also help prevent acts like the Honolulu Police Department comparing marijuana cards with gun licenses and demanding those with pot cards turn in their guns.
At the end of the day, what I’m really wanting to see is the federal government maintain something close to a consistent position here. Either marijuana consumption is fine or it’s not. It shouldn’t be a completely legal act…until you want to purchase a firearm. That’s not how our Second Amendment rights work. That’s not how any rights work.
It’s well past time to fix this mess.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--Healthcare Workers Embrace 2A During Pandemic

According to a new study by researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo , healthcare workers were among those Americans most likely to purchase a firearm during the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Dr. Robert Young with Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership joins me to talk about the study ’ s findings , as well as his own personal experience with colleagues and other medical professionals over the past few months .
A tip of the hat to the Free Beacon ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study and its results , which Dr. Young calls “ surprising.
” Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic .
Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals .
“ One of the things we should see , in my limited view , is these are people who are civilians who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of unrest in the past six months , ” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon .
“ And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.
” Khubchandani said this surprising finding becomes more understandable when considered alongside the study ’ s other main finding : Gun-ownership demographics as a whole have shifted during the pandemic .
We know that over the past few months there ’ s been an influx in the number of women , racial minorities , and big-city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time , so it wouldn ’ t be surprising if that included members of those demographic groups who work in healthcare .
I will say I ’ m a bit skeptical that during the time that the survey asked about , 67 % of gun buyers were involved in the healthcare industry in some way .
The idea that 2/3rds of those standing in line to buy a gun back in March and April worked in health care in some way seems inflated , but the notion that frontline healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun for self-defense as the lockdown orders were taking effect doesn ’ t strike me as unheard of .
One of the biggest questions I have is whether or not these new gun owners in the healthcare industry might have any impact on the support for gun control within that community .
Over the past several years we ’ ve seen a big push by many doctors and other medical professionals to declare that gun violence is a “ public health emergency ” that can only be addressed through gun control measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ranks of gun owners , will they start to sour on the idea of banning our way to safety ?
Dr. Young is hopeful that could happen , and says that he ’ s had several conversations over the past few months with colleagues who ’ ve reached out to him about purchasing a firearm for the very first time .
Perhaps this is the start of a new movement away from supply-side gun controls like gun bans and licensing laws and towards efforts to reduce the demand for guns among those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of targeting legal gun owners with anti-gun bills and regulations .

According to a new study by researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo, healthcare workers were among those Americans most likely to purchase a firearm during the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Dr. Robert Young with Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership joins me to talk about the study’s findings, as well as his own personal experience with colleagues and other medical professionals over the past few months.
A tip of the hat to the Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski for first reporting on the study and its results, which Dr. Young calls “surprising.”
Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals. “One of the things we should see, in my limited view, is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months,” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon. “And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.” Khubchandani said this surprising finding becomes more understandable when considered alongside the study’s other main finding: Gun-ownership demographics as a whole have shifted during the pandemic.
We know that over the past few months there’s been an influx in the number of women, racial minorities, and big-city residents who’ve purchased a gun for the first time, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that included members of those demographic groups who work in healthcare.
I will say I’m a bit skeptical that during the time that the survey asked about, 67% of gun buyers were involved in the healthcare industry in some way. The idea that 2/3rds of those standing in line to buy a gun back in March and April worked in health care in some way seems inflated, but the notion that frontline healthcare workers were suddenly more interested in buying a gun for self-defense as the lockdown orders were taking effect doesn’t strike me as unheard of.
One of the biggest questions I have is whether or not these new gun owners in the healthcare industry might have any impact on the support for gun control within that community. Over the past several years we’ve seen a big push by many doctors and other medical professionals to declare that gun violence is a “public health emergency” that can only be addressed through gun control measures. If more medical professionals are joining the ranks of gun owners, will they start to sour on the idea of banning our way to safety?
Dr. Young is hopeful that could happen, and says that he’s had several conversations over the past few months with colleagues who’ve reached out to him about purchasing a firearm for the very first time. Perhaps this is the start of a new movement away from supply-side gun controls like gun bans and licensing laws and towards efforts to reduce the demand for guns among those who use them in criminal activity instead of targeting legal gun owners with anti-gun bills and regulations.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--McCloskeys Want Prosecutor Removed From Their Case

Ideally , Mark and Patricia McCloskey want charges of evidence tampering and unlawful use of a weapon dropped entirely , but for the moment their attorney is focusing his efforts on getting St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner removed from the prosecution team .
Joel Schwartz argues that Gardner ’ s efforts have been politically motivated throughout the investigation into the St. Louis attorneys accused of pointing guns at protesters who were trespassing through their private neighborhood , and today he ’ s asking a judge to agree .
Gardner ’ s campaign emails , Schwartz has said in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from the confrontation outside the McCloskeys ’ mansion to “ Gardner ’ s political antagonists , and from there a call for donations to further her reelection efforts.
” Gardner ’ s office in a court filing has rejected Schwartz ’ s claim of impropriety and argued the emails were in response to Republican political opponents from Missouri and elsewhere .
“ The circuit attorney ’ s actions throughout this case thus far establish any proper , lawful motive , ” her office said in the court filing .
“ And even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only in pushing back against Republican attacks on her and her prosecutorial authority — which have nothing to do with the defendants.
” I think it ’ s a given that Gardner ’ s attacks on the McCloskeys were motivated at least in part by politics .
Contrary to what her office says about the fundraising emails , Gardner ’ s comments had as much to do with the McCloskeys themselves as their high-profile defenders .
Here ’ s a portion of the fundraising email sent out during the primary campaign .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I want to make you aware of a few late-breaking developments that are making national headlines right now .
You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansion .
Instead of fighting for the millions of Americans affected by the pandemic , including 31,000 Missourians , President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens during the Black Lives Matter protests.
” That ’ s pretty blatant .
Long before a grand jury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecutor in charge of the case was raising money off of the attention it had received and portrayed the couple as dangerous individuals .
A decision on Schwartz ’ s motion to remove Gardner from the prosecution team isn ’ t expected today , and in the meantime the couple still have Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Governor Brad Parson on their side .
Schmitt has sought to intervene in the case and have all charges dropped , while Parson has reiterated his intention to pardon the McCloskeys if they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attorney says his clients aren ’ t interested in any pre-trial diversion , though it ’ s unclear if that has officially been offered to the McCloskeys .
Gardner originally stated that she planned to present the option to the couple , but as of a few weeks ago Schwartz told the media that he ’ d heard nothing more from prosecutors about the potential of taking a plea deal and avoiding prison time .
So , it looks like the McCloskeys will eventually have their day in court .
The biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not Kim Gardner will be in the courtroom when it happens .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

Ideally, Mark and Patricia McCloskey want charges of evidence tampering and unlawful use of a weapon dropped entirely, but for the moment their attorney is focusing his efforts on getting St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner removed from the prosecution team.
Joel Schwartz argues that Gardner’s efforts have been politically motivated throughout the investigation into the St. Louis attorneys accused of pointing guns at protesters who were trespassing through their private neighborhood, and today he’s asking a judge to agree.
Gardner’s campaign emails, Schwartz has said in court filing, “drew a direct line” from the confrontation outside the McCloskeys’ mansion to “Gardner’s political antagonists, and from there a call for donations to further her reelection efforts.” Gardner’s office in a court filing has rejected Schwartz’s claim of impropriety and argued the emails were in response to Republican political opponents from Missouri and elsewhere. “The circuit attorney’s actions throughout this case thus far establish any proper, lawful motive,” her office said in the court filing. “And even the fundraising emails establish her interest was only in pushing back against Republican attacks on her and her prosecutorial authority — which have nothing to do with the defendants.”
I think it’s a given that Gardner’s attacks on the McCloskeys were motivated at least in part by politics. Contrary to what her office says about the fundraising emails, Gardner’s comments had as much to do with the McCloskeys themselves as their high-profile defenders. Here’s a portion of the fundraising email sent out during the primary campaign.
“Because you are a supporter of Kim, I want to make you aware of a few late-breaking developments that are making national headlines right now. You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansion. Instead of fighting for the millions of Americans affected by the pandemic, including 31,000 Missourians, President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens during the Black Lives Matter protests.”
That’s pretty blatant. Long before a grand jury had returned indictments against the McCloskeys, the prosecutor in charge of the case was raising money off of the attention it had received and portrayed the couple as dangerous individuals.
A decision on Schwartz’s motion to remove Gardner from the prosecution team isn’t expected today, and in the meantime the couple still have Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Governor Brad Parson on their side. Schmitt has sought to intervene in the case and have all charges dropped, while Parson has reiterated his intention to pardon the McCloskeys if they are convicted at trial.
The couple’s attorney says his clients aren’t interested in any pre-trial diversion, though it’s unclear if that has officially been offered to the McCloskeys. Gardner originally stated that she planned to present the option to the couple, but as of a few weeks ago Schwartz told the media that he’d heard nothing more from prosecutors about the potential of taking a plea deal and avoiding prison time.
So, it looks like the McCloskeys will eventually have their day in court. The biggest question at the moment is whether or not Kim Gardner will be in the courtroom when it happens.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--Breonna Taylor Killing May Mark End Of No-Knock Raids

One of many things I ’ ve worried about over the years is the idea of a misplaced no-knock raid coming to my door .
After all , if someone busts in my door in the middle of the night , I ’ m likely to start firing before I realize they ’ re police .
That could result in officers being killed as well as myself or a member of my family .
The one thing that actually keeps me from completely freaking out about it is that such accidents are rare .
However , things happen .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with regard to what happened to Breonna Taylor , it doesn ’ t look like police hit the wrong house .
Regardless , though , she ’ s dead , and now a lot of attention is being paid to no-knock warrants .
Like Columbus , more than two dozen state and local jurisdictions have introduced or finalized policies to restrict the use of no-knock warrants since June .
Virginia could join Florida and Oregon in banning the practice entirely , if the governor signs a recently approved bill .
“ This legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ] name , her story to literally be a catalyst of dismantling systems that have been in place and have been causing harm to our , by ‘ our ’ I mean Black and brown , communities , ” said Virginia state Del .
Lashrecse Aird , a Democrat who introduced the bill .
But some lawmakers and police groups oppose banning no-knock warrants , saying they are useful in dangerous situations .
“ The element of surprise is one of the best tools , ” said Wayne Huggins , executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When you have to knock and announce , you ’ ve given up the element of surprise.
” No-knock warrants became a popular policing technique in the late 1980s .
The warrants , typically issued by a judge , allow law enforcement to enter a home without notice to anyone inside .
This practice can give police two major advantages : One , a suspect can ’ t hide evidence .
Two , a suspect is less likely to be ready with a weapon .
But even with those advantages , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents and law enforcement .
Let ’ s be honest here .
I ’ m not a fan of no-knock warrants .
However , there are times when they do actually make sense .
Much like Joe Biden telling police to shoot people in the leg , it ’ s generally a bad idea for politicians to tell police how to do their jobs .
Yes , there should be oversight , but when politicians tell police what not to do , even if it makes more sense from a safety standpoint , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of banning no-knock raids , it would make more sense to limit them to some degree .
Yes , use them in dangerous situations , but don ’ t automatically assume every situation is dangerous simply because you can .
Unfortunately , right now , public opinion is strongly against these raids .
That means lawmakers from both parties will try to ban these kinds of warrants simply because it ’ ll help them score points that they ’ ll need come election time .
There ’ s a good chance that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds of warrants being issued .
I ’ m just not sure that ’ s a good thing .

One of many things I’ve worried about over the years is the idea of a misplaced no-knock raid coming to my door. After all, if someone busts in my door in the middle of the night, I’m likely to start firing before I realize they’re police. That could result in officers being killed as well as myself or a member of my family.
The one thing that actually keeps me from completely freaking out about it is that such accidents are rare. However, things happen.
While there’s a lot to unpack with regard to what happened to Breonna Taylor, it doesn’t look like police hit the wrong house. Regardless, though, she’s dead, and now a lot of attention is being paid to no-knock warrants.
Like Columbus, more than two dozen state and local jurisdictions have introduced or finalized policies to restrict the use of no-knock warrants since June. Virginia could join Florida and Oregon in banning the practice entirely, if the governor signs a recently approved bill. “This legislation, it allows [Breonna Taylor’s] name, her story to literally be a catalyst of dismantling systems that have been in place and have been causing harm to our, by ‘our’ I mean Black and brown, communities,” said Virginia state Del. Lashrecse Aird, a Democrat who introduced the bill. But some lawmakers and police groups oppose banning no-knock warrants, saying they are useful in dangerous situations. “The element of surprise is one of the best tools,” said Wayne Huggins, executive director of the Virginia State Police Association. “When you have to knock and announce, you’ve given up the element of surprise.” No-knock warrants became a popular policing technique in the late 1980s. The warrants, typically issued by a judge, allow law enforcement to enter a home without notice to anyone inside. This practice can give police two major advantages: One, a suspect can’t hide evidence. Two, a suspect is less likely to be ready with a weapon. But even with those advantages, the warrants have been dangerous — for both residents and law enforcement.
Let’s be honest here. I’m not a fan of no-knock warrants. However, there are times when they do actually make sense.
Much like Joe Biden telling police to shoot people in the leg, it’s generally a bad idea for politicians to tell police how to do their jobs. Yes, there should be oversight, but when politicians tell police what not to do, even if it makes more sense from a safety standpoint, then bad things can happen.
Instead of banning no-knock raids, it would make more sense to limit them to some degree. Yes, use them in dangerous situations, but don’t automatically assume every situation is dangerous simply because you can.
Unfortunately, right now, public opinion is strongly against these raids. That means lawmakers from both parties will try to ban these kinds of warrants simply because it’ll help them score points that they’ll need come election time.
There’s a good chance that we’ll see the end of these kinds of warrants being issued. I’m just not sure that’s a good thing.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--Grand Jurors: Cops In Breonna Taylor Raid "Negligent" and "Criminal"

Two of the jurors who were a part of the grand jury investigating the death of Breonna Taylor during a police raid on her Louisville apartment back in March are now speaking out , accusing Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron of directing their investigation and alleging that the actions of the officers in charge of the raid were both “ criminal ” and “ negligent ” in their behavior .
The two men , who asked to remain anonymous , also said Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron misled the public when he said that “ the grand jury agreed ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t warranted , according to a new interview on “ CBS This Morning ” scheduled to air Wednesday .
Both grand jurors told the station they believed cops were at fault in the raid that led to Taylor ’ s death in a barrage of police bullets .
“ Negligent , ” said one of the men , identified by the station as Juror No .
1 .
“ They couldn ’ t even provide a risk assessment , and it sounded like they hadn ’ t done one .
So , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what I mean by they were negligent in the operations.
” Juror No .
2 told co-host Gayle King that he believed the actions of the three cops — Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly , Detective Myles Cosgrove , and since-fired Detective Brett Hankison — were “ criminal.
” “ They were criminal leading up to this , ” he said .
“ The way they moved forward on it , including the warrant , was deception.
” I confess to being a little confused by the grand jurors statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t present any charges beyond the wanton endangerment charges against Det .
Brett Hankison , then how can the jurors have reached a decision about the culpability of other officers including Mattingly and Cosgrove ?
When it comes to Cameron ’ s public statements about the grand jury and potential murder charges , I agree with the jurors that the AG ’ s statements were misleading .
Cameron definitely made it sound like the jury could have indicted Mattingly and Cosgrove if jurors wanted to , but we now know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the grand jury were the charges of wanton endangerment against Hankison .
It ’ s also worth pointing out that the two grand jurors who are now speaking out , albeit anonymously , haven ’ t said that any of the officers should have been indicted for murder .
Instead , it seems like their criticism of the officers involved is centered around the decision to raid Taylor ’ s apartment in the first place .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend Kenneth Walker doesn ’ t deny firing the first shot as officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home , but he says he never heard police identify themselves and that he believed he was defending Taylor and himself against home invaders .
Police returned fire , killing Taylor , who was unarmed , but based on the publicly available evidence , it still seems like the most likely explanation is that both Taylor and police fired believing that they were acting in self-defense .
Taylor ’ s death was an undeniable tragedy , but I ’ m still not convinced that cops committed a crime when they returned fire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in planning the raid , I ’ m open to further investigation .
In fact , the FBI investigation into the raid on Taylor ’ s apartment is still ongoing , and hopefully that will provide an opportunity to address the allegations raised by the grand jurors .
In fact , according to Daniel Cameron , the FBI is specifically looking at how the police department obtained the search warrant for Taylor ’ s apartment , so hopefully we ’ ll soon know more about what led up to the search warrant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apartment .

Two of the jurors who were a part of the grand jury investigating the death of Breonna Taylor during a police raid on her Louisville apartment back in March are now speaking out, accusing Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron of directing their investigation and alleging that the actions of the officers in charge of the raid were both “criminal” and “negligent” in their behavior.
The two men, who asked to remain anonymous, also said Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron misled the public when he said that “the grand jury agreed” that murder charges against three cops weren’t warranted, according to a new interview on “CBS This Morning” scheduled to air Wednesday. Both grand jurors told the station they believed cops were at fault in the raid that led to Taylor’s death in a barrage of police bullets. “Negligent,” said one of the men, identified by the station as Juror No. 1. “They couldn’t even provide a risk assessment, and it sounded like they hadn’t done one. So, their organization leading up to this was lacking. That’s what I mean by they were negligent in the operations.” Juror No. 2 told co-host Gayle King that he believed the actions of the three cops — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, Detective Myles Cosgrove, and since-fired Detective Brett Hankison — were “criminal.” “They were criminal leading up to this,” he said. “The way they moved forward on it, including the warrant, was deception.”
I confess to being a little confused by the grand jurors statements. If in fact Daniel Cameron didn’t present any charges beyond the wanton endangerment charges against Det. Brett Hankison, then how can the jurors have reached a decision about the culpability of other officers including Mattingly and Cosgrove?
When it comes to Cameron’s public statements about the grand jury and potential murder charges, I agree with the jurors that the AG’s statements were misleading. Cameron definitely made it sound like the jury could have indicted Mattingly and Cosgrove if jurors wanted to, but we now know that the only charges that were presented and considered by the grand jury were the charges of wanton endangerment against Hankison.
It’s also worth pointing out that the two grand jurors who are now speaking out, albeit anonymously, haven’t said that any of the officers should have been indicted for murder. Instead, it seems like their criticism of the officers involved is centered around the decision to raid Taylor’s apartment in the first place. Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker doesn’t deny firing the first shot as officers breached the door into Taylor’s home, but he says he never heard police identify themselves and that he believed he was defending Taylor and himself against home invaders.
Police returned fire, killing Taylor, who was unarmed, but based on the publicly available evidence, it still seems like the most likely explanation is that both Taylor and police fired believing that they were acting in self-defense. Taylor’s death was an undeniable tragedy, but I’m still not convinced that cops committed a crime when they returned fire.
As for the supposed negligence of police in planning the raid, I’m open to further investigation. In fact, the FBI investigation into the raid on Taylor’s apartment is still ongoing, and hopefully that will provide an opportunity to address the allegations raised by the grand jurors. In fact, according to Daniel Cameron, the FBI is specifically looking at how the police department obtained the search warrant for Taylor’s apartment, so hopefully we’ll soon know more about what led up to the search warrant and the raid on Breonna Taylor’s apartment.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--DeWine Whines For GOP To Embrace His Gun Control Plans

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is proof that being a Republican doesn ’ t mean you ’ re not willing to push for gun control if you think it ’ s politically expedient .
After all , in the wake of a mass shooting in Dayton , DeWine stepped into the gun control battle with his own plan that , while not as comprehensive as anti-gunners would prefer , also isn ’ t something pro-gunners could tolerate .
In fact , DeWine managed to create a plan that damn near no one actually liked .
Now , he ’ s DeWhining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving on his proposals .
What DeWine doesn ’ t seem to get is that many of those legislators represent people who understand that as awful as Dayton was , gun control laws on the books actually failed to prevent that attack .
As such , backing DeWine ’ s plan would mean they ’ re not listening to their constituents .
Do that enough and it ’ s a good way to become an ex-legislator .
Violence is plaguing every city , but let ’ s put things in perspective .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state over a week , that sounds like a lot…if you don ’ t live in Chicago , anyway .
Then , it ’ s just a weekend .
Regardless , though , DeWine is going to keep beating this particular drum until he ’ s out of office .
It might not be a bad idea for someone to provide him with a primary opponent to potentially help speed up the process at this point .

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is proof that being a Republican doesn’t mean you’re not willing to push for gun control if you think it’s politically expedient.
After all, in the wake of a mass shooting in Dayton, DeWine stepped into the gun control battle with his own plan that, while not as comprehensive as anti-gunners would prefer, also isn’t something pro-gunners could tolerate. In fact, DeWine managed to create a plan that damn near no one actually liked.
It’s kind of impressive, really.
Now, he’s DeWhining about how the legislature isn’t moving on his proposals.
As Gov. Mike DeWine uses his twice-weekly bully pulpit to detail Ohio’s fight against the coronavirus, the Republican chief executive has also continued his so-far unsuccessful crusade against gun violence. After laying out pandemic stats and and warnings about masks and social distancing safety measures, the governor typically also pleads with fellow Republican lawmakers to act on his legislation addressing gun violence in the state, although he skipped that routine this Tuesday. He proposed the measure last year in the wake of the Dayton mass shooting that killed nine people and injured more than two dozen. “We should all be sick and tired of picking up the newspaper and seeing the things that we see literally every single day — our fellow Ohioans injured or killed through senseless violence,” DeWine said on Oct. 6, noting at least 42 people had been shot in the past week and more than half died. He’s made similar points week after week, usually on Tuesdays, though this Tuesday was an exception as he cut his normally 90-minute briefing to an hour to begin brainstorming calls with leaders of three Ohio counties seeing high rates of coronavirus spread. The governor wanted to leave plenty of time for reporters’ questions, said spokesman Dan Tierney. As far as the governor’s gun violence message, “he’s done it on different days each week,” Tierney said. So far, Republican leaders remain cool to DeWine’s pleas. House Speaker Bob Cupp, a Lima Republican, said last week there are concerns the legislation would impinge on gunowners’ constitutional rights. He said he doesn’t think there’s enough time left this session to give the issue the “great deal of study and balance” that it requires.
What DeWine doesn’t seem to get is that many of those legislators represent people who understand that as awful as Dayton was, gun control laws on the books actually failed to prevent that attack. As such, backing DeWine’s plan would mean they’re not listening to their constituents. Do that enough and it’s a good way to become an ex-legislator.
Violence is plaguing every city, but let’s put things in perspective. If 42 people are shot in an entire state over a week, that sounds like a lot…if you don’t live in Chicago, anyway. Then, it’s just a weekend.
Regardless, though, DeWine is going to keep beating this particular drum until he’s out of office. It might not be a bad idea for someone to provide him with a primary opponent to potentially help speed up the process at this point.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--A Malarkey-Filled "Fact Check" Of Biden And His Gun Ban Plan

Of all of the developments in social media this election cycle , the emergence of supposedly neutral “ fact checkers ” has been the one that annoys me the most .
In many cases the fact check is anything but neutral , and the fact checkers themselves are regularly substituting their own opinion to try to explain away truths that are inconvenient to the Biden/Harris campaign .
The latest example of this comes from a USA Today fact check entitled “ Biden did tell a Detroit worker ‘ Im not working for you ’ during gun rights argument.
” Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s exactly what happened back in March when Biden got into an argument with Detroit auto worker Jerry Wayne about Biden ’ s plan for a gun ban .
The problem lies in the fact-check itself .
“ Yes Biden said that , ” writes Ella Lee , “ but context is missing.
” In March , Biden got into a heated exchange over gun rights with a factory worker at an auto plant in Detroit , USA TODAY previously reported .
“ You ’ re working for me , man , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not working for you , ” Biden said .
“ Give me a break , man .
Don ’ t be such a horse ’ s a–.
” But the conversation between the two before those words were exchanged provides additional context to the quote in the meme .
As Biden was making his way through a crowd of workers at the Fiat Chrysler plant , one person stopped him and accused him of “ actively trying to end our Second Amendment right ” and “ take away our guns.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker that he wasn ’ t accurately describing his stance on gun control , calling him “ full of s—.
” An aide seemingly attempted to curb the conversation , at which point Biden appeared to shush him , as seen in a video of the encounter recorded by CBS News .
Biden explained his stance on the Second Amendment , comparing its limits to those on the First Amendment right of free speech .
He also said he owned shotguns and that his sons hunt .
Amazingly , while Lee says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Jerry Wayne needs additional context , she provides no context at all for Wayne ’ s claims that Biden would take people ’ s guns .
Lee quotes Biden as saying he ’ s not interested in gun confiscation , but Lee ’ s fact check never once refers to or details Biden ’ s plan for a ban on so-called assault weapons , under which legal gun owners would be required to hand over their banned firearms to the federal government in exchange for some sort of cash stipend or pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with the government under the National Firearms Act .
I ’ m sure that Lee doesn ’ t consider that to be gun confiscation , but millions of legal gun owners would disagree .
I ’ d say that detailing Biden ’ s gun control policies provide pretty important context for both Biden ’ s comments and Wayne ’ s assertions , but that ’ s nowhere to be found in the USA Today piece .
Instead of providing all of the pertinent facts to readers , Lee ’ s piece chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by dodging a real discussion about what his gun ban entails .

Of all of the developments in social media this election cycle, the emergence of supposedly neutral “fact checkers” has been the one that annoys me the most. In many cases the fact check is anything but neutral, and the fact checkers themselves are regularly substituting their own opinion to try to explain away truths that are inconvenient to the Biden/Harris campaign.
The latest example of this comes from a USA Today fact check entitled “Biden did tell a Detroit worker ‘Im not working for you’ during gun rights argument.”
Nothing wrong with the headline, as that’s exactly what happened back in March when Biden got into an argument with Detroit auto worker Jerry Wayne about Biden’s plan for a gun ban. The problem lies in the fact-check itself. “Yes Biden said that,” writes Ella Lee, “but context is missing.”
In March, Biden got into a heated exchange over gun rights with a factory worker at an auto plant in Detroit, USA TODAY previously reported. “You’re working for me, man,” the worker told Biden. “I’m not working for you,” Biden said. “Give me a break, man. Don’t be such a horse’s a–.” But the conversation between the two before those words were exchanged provides additional context to the quote in the meme. As Biden was making his way through a crowd of workers at the Fiat Chrysler plant, one person stopped him and accused him of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right” and “take away our guns.” The former vice president told the worker that he wasn’t accurately describing his stance on gun control, calling him “full of s—.” An aide seemingly attempted to curb the conversation, at which point Biden appeared to shush him, as seen in a video of the encounter recorded by CBS News. Biden explained his stance on the Second Amendment, comparing its limits to those on the First Amendment right of free speech. He also said he owned shotguns and that his sons hunt.
Amazingly, while Lee says that Biden’s statement about not working for Jerry Wayne needs additional context, she provides no context at all for Wayne’s claims that Biden would take people’s guns.
Lee quotes Biden as saying he’s not interested in gun confiscation, but Lee’s fact check never once refers to or details Biden’s plan for a ban on so-called assault weapons, under which legal gun owners would be required to hand over their banned firearms to the federal government in exchange for some sort of cash stipend or pay a tax on each firearm and register them with the government under the National Firearms Act.
I’m sure that Lee doesn’t consider that to be gun confiscation, but millions of legal gun owners would disagree.
I’d say that detailing Biden’s gun control policies provide pretty important context for both Biden’s comments and Wayne’s assertions, but that’s nowhere to be found in the USA Today piece. Instead of providing all of the pertinent facts to readers, Lee’s piece chose to provide cover to the Democratic candidate by dodging a real discussion about what his gun ban entails.