bearingarms--2020-04-26--D.C. Homicide Numbers Haven't Dropped During COVID-19

Overall , it seems violent crime is down throughout most of the nation .
That ’ s not surprising , actually .
After all , most of us are locked down in our home , we ’ re not out and about to be victims of armed robberies .
While other crimes seem to be up , violent crime is down in many other places .
It ’ s not down everywhere , though .
For example , we know it ’ s not in Chicago .
We can ’ t be completely sure why it ’ s not there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s not .
It seems the District of Columbia is in the same boat .
D.C. has not gone a week without a homicide since Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a public health emergency over the coronavirus pandemic on March 11 .
There have been 17 murders in D.C. since the city saw its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on March 7 , and 46 murders since the start of 2020 , according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department .
Despite a pandemic and orders from the mayor to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match its homicide rate from last year , when the city saw the highest murder count in a decade , at 166 .
And like last year , the overwhelming majority of homicides involved a gun .
There are now two co-occurring public health crises killing residents : COVID-19 and gun violence .
The fear among some is that one could exacerbate the other .
With the pandemic forcing businesses to close and creating joblessness , advocates worry that mounting anxiety can aggravate violent crime .
While MPD has yet to see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pandemic and its rippling effects , those that work closely with offenders and victims believe it ’ s inevitable .
Domestic homicides , for example , could very well increase .
MPD Chief Peter Newsham says most murders continue to involve individuals who are known to one another and where violence is used to settle disputes .
A minor difference in recent shootings is that some of the victims were either selling or purchasing drugs .
“ Our violent offenders , particularly the ones who are inclined to use firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , ” Newsham tells City Paper .
“ They will pick up an illegal firearm and use it whenever it suits their purposes and I think for them it ’ s business as normal.
” Let ’ s note that last sentence for a moment .
That ’ s right .
They actually acknowledge that these are illegal firearms .
While D.C. got slapped down by the Supreme Court over their handgun ban , other laws remain in full effect , particularly federal ones .
What Newsham is saying is that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that they ’ re getting guns illegally and committing murder .
Look , violent crime is complicated .
Simplistic solutions to complicated problems will never work and gun control is just that , a simplistic attempt at a solution for a complex problem .
If people are willing to risk a virus to settle a dispute , they ’ re not going to care overly much about gun control laws in the first place .
Of course , I don ’ t expect this to sway anti-gunners .
They ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t change the reality , nor the complexity inherent in a subject like violence .

Overall, it seems violent crime is down throughout most of the nation. That’s not surprising, actually. After all, most of us are locked down in our home, we’re not out and about to be victims of armed robberies. While other crimes seem to be up, violent crime is down in many other places.
It’s not down everywhere, though. For example, we know it’s not in Chicago. We can’t be completely sure why it’s not there while it is in other places, but it’s not.
It seems the District of Columbia is in the same boat.
D.C. has not gone a week without a homicide since Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a public health emergency over the coronavirus pandemic on March 11. There have been 17 murders in D.C. since the city saw its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on March 7, and 46 murders since the start of 2020, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department. Despite a pandemic and orders from the mayor to stay inside, D.C. is on track to match its homicide rate from last year, when the city saw the highest murder count in a decade, at 166. And like last year, the overwhelming majority of homicides involved a gun. There are now two co-occurring public health crises killing residents: COVID-19 and gun violence. The fear among some is that one could exacerbate the other. With the pandemic forcing businesses to close and creating joblessness, advocates worry that mounting anxiety can aggravate violent crime. While MPD has yet to see a change in behavior that can be credited to the pandemic and its rippling effects, those that work closely with offenders and victims believe it’s inevitable. Domestic homicides, for example, could very well increase. MPD Chief Peter Newsham says most murders continue to involve individuals who are known to one another and where violence is used to settle disputes. A minor difference in recent shootings is that some of the victims were either selling or purchasing drugs. “Our violent offenders, particularly the ones who are inclined to use firearms, are not particularly moved by the COVID-19 pandemic,” Newsham tells City Paper. “They will pick up an illegal firearm and use it whenever it suits their purposes and I think for them it’s business as normal.”
Let’s note that last sentence for a moment.
That’s right. They actually acknowledge that these are illegal firearms. While D.C. got slapped down by the Supreme Court over their handgun ban, other laws remain in full effect, particularly federal ones. What Newsham is saying is that those laws aren’t stopping the criminals, that they’re getting guns illegally and committing murder.
Look, violent crime is complicated. Simplistic solutions to complicated problems will never work and gun control is just that, a simplistic attempt at a solution for a complex problem. If people are willing to risk a virus to settle a dispute, they’re not going to care overly much about gun control laws in the first place.
Of course, I don’t expect this to sway anti-gunners. They’re not likely to be swayed.
But that doesn’t change the reality, nor the complexity inherent in a subject like violence.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Court Rules Against Baltimore In Gun Task Force Cases

The city of Baltimore , Maryland has a serious problem with violent crime .
They ’ re not alone in that .
It seems most of our larger cities have a problem with it .
Like most other cities , Baltimore blamed guns for the problem rather than looking at the people who commit violent crimes .
In a misguided effort to combat that violent crime , the city created a Gun Trace Task Force .
The taskforce was intended to…well , I ’ m not sure exactly , but probably to try and keep guns out of the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was something else entirely .
The task force was accused of all kinds of horrible things .
At least two members of the taskforce now face racketeering charges , as a matter of fact , but the rest of the task force isn ’ t exactly covered in glory .
They were accused of violating the civil liberties of a number of people .
And now , the city has to pay for that .
In two cases , the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that Baltimore City is responsible for compensating plaintiffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trace Task Force investigation .
The court ruled Friday that the city is liable in two of the cases involving the now-disbanded Gun Trace Task Force , saying the former GTTF members “ acted within scope of employment.
” Attorneys for the city had argued that what the officers did was so outrageous and so illegal that the city should not have to pay out settlements with victims .
But the court determined the officers were acting inside the scope of their jobs , making the city responsible for the two settlements totaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might wonder just how the court found such a thing .
Here ’ s the relevant portion of the ruling : Before us , the City and the Department contend that the officers ’ actions were outside the scope of employment as their actions were outrageous , personally motivated , and willfully criminal .
Potts and James ’ s estate respond that the officers acted within the scope of employment as there is no evidence that the officers personally benefitted from their actions—i.e.
, the officers ’ actions were designed to further the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers .
We conclude that the stipulations in Potts and James establish that the officers ’ conduct in each case satisfies the test for conduct within the scope of employment that this Court set forth in Sawyer , 322 Md .
at 255-57 , 587 A.2d at 470-71 .
The officers ’ conduct in Potts and James is analogous to conduct in cases in which Maryland appellate courts have determined that government employees acted within the scope of employment .
As such , we hold that , in Potts and James , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , under CJ § 5-303 ( b ) ( 1 ) , the City is responsible for compensating Potts and James ’ s estate for the officers ’ actions by paying the settlements that Potts , James ’ s estate , and the officers reached .
Evaluating the first prong of the Sawyer test , we conclude that the officers ’ actions were in furtherance of the Department ’ s business as their actions were at least partially motivated by “ a purpose to serve the ” Department , and because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were “ acting to protect [ their ] own interests [ . ]
” Sawyer , 322 Md .
at 255-57 , 587 A.2d at 470-71 ( citations omitted ) .
Our conclusion is aupported by the wellestablished principle in Maryland case law that , generally , an officer ’ s arrest of a person is within the scope of employment .
See Sawyer , 322 Md .
at 260 , 587 A.2d at 473 .
Although it is despicable that the officers stopped Potts and James without reasonable articulable suspicion and arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances alone do not render it inconceivable that the officers were acting within the scope of their employment .
The stipulations in Potts and James contain no indication that the officers took or received anything of value from Potts or James , or were otherwise serving their own personal interests in making the arrests .
The officers ’ misconduct in Potts and James is distinguishable from their conduct in the conspiracy for which they were prosecuted in federal court .
In contrast to the circumstances here , in furtherance of the federal conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Potts or James , the officers seized money and drugs and kept the money and drugs for themselves and , as a result , were charged with racketeering .
The lack of evidence of any personal benefit that the officers received from their conduct in these cases leads to a determination that , in arresting Potts and James , the officers were acting at least in part in furtherance of the business of the Department .
In assessing the second prong of the Sawyer test , it is plain that the Department did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , expressly forbade ) the officers ’ misconduct involving Potts and James—which included disregarding a lack of reasonable articulable suspicion for the stops , planting handguns , beating Potts , making false statements in police reports , and testifying falsely at trial .
In Sawyer , id .
at 256 , 587 A.2d at 471 , though , this Court set forth ten factors for determining whether an employee ’ s actions were incidental to those that the employer authorized and thus within the employee ’ s scope of employment .
Here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sawyer leads to the conclusion that the officers ’ conduct was incidental to conduct that the Department authorized .
Although the Department clearly did not authorize the officers ’ misconduct , and indeed their conduct violated the Department ’ s “ express .
.
.
orders [ , ] ” under the factors set forth in Sawyer , the officers ’ actions were “ incident [ al ] to the performance of the duties ” that the Department entrusted to them , and those actions did not render the officers ’ overall conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
at 255 , 587 A.2d at 470 ( cleaned up ) .
In other words , because the officers in the task force didn ’ t try to gain personally from the arrests but were instead done to advance the goals of the department , it fell to the department to pay .
Honestly , my hope is that this serves as a lesson to law enforcement to stop treating guns as the problem , but I ’ m not holding my breath .
The amount of money we ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bucket that they ’ re unlikely to even miss .
Instead , they ’ ll chalk it up to bad cops and go back to doing what they ’ ve been doing , which is to treat guns like the cause of all their problems rather than do the hard work of actually addressing those problems .
Then again , what can you expect from a city like Baltimore ?

The city of Baltimore, Maryland has a serious problem with violent crime. They’re not alone in that. It seems most of our larger cities have a problem with it. Like most other cities, Baltimore blamed guns for the problem rather than looking at the people who commit violent crimes.
In a misguided effort to combat that violent crime, the city created a Gun Trace Task Force. The taskforce was intended to…well, I’m not sure exactly, but probably to try and keep guns out of the wrong hands.
What happened, though, was something else entirely. The task force was accused of all kinds of horrible things. At least two members of the taskforce now face racketeering charges, as a matter of fact, but the rest of the task force isn’t exactly covered in glory. They were accused of violating the civil liberties of a number of people.
And now, the city has to pay for that.
In two cases, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that Baltimore City is responsible for compensating plaintiffs who filed lawsuits connected to the Gun Trace Task Force investigation. The court ruled Friday that the city is liable in two of the cases involving the now-disbanded Gun Trace Task Force, saying the former GTTF members “acted within scope of employment.” Attorneys for the city had argued that what the officers did was so outrageous and so illegal that the city should not have to pay out settlements with victims. But the court determined the officers were acting inside the scope of their jobs, making the city responsible for the two settlements totaling $64,000.
Of course, some might wonder just how the court found such a thing.
Here’s the relevant portion of the ruling:
Before us, the City and the Department contend that the officers’ actions were outside the scope of employment as their actions were outrageous, personally motivated, and willfully criminal. Potts and James’s estate respond that the officers acted within the scope of employment as there is no evidence that the officers personally benefitted from their actions—i.e., the officers’ actions were designed to further the interests of the Department, not the officers. We conclude that the stipulations in Potts and James establish that the officers’ conduct in each case satisfies the test for conduct within the scope of employment that this Court set forth in Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-57, 587 A.2d at 470-71. The officers’ conduct in Potts and James is analogous to conduct in cases in which Maryland appellate courts have determined that government employees acted within the scope of employment. As such, we hold that, in Potts and James, the officers acted within the scope of employment, and, under CJ § 5-303(b)(1), the City is responsible for compensating Potts and James’s estate for the officers’ actions by paying the settlements that Potts, James’s estate, and the officers reached. Evaluating the first prong of the Sawyer test, we conclude that the officers’ actions were in furtherance of the Department’s business as their actions were at least partially motivated by “a purpose to serve the” Department, and because there is no indication that the officers were “acting to protect [their] own interests[.]” Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-57, 587 A.2d at 470-71 (citations omitted). Our conclusion is aupported by the wellestablished principle in Maryland case law that, generally, an officer’s arrest of a person is within the scope of employment. See Sawyer, 322 Md. at 260, 587 A.2d at 473. Although it is despicable that the officers stopped Potts and James without reasonable articulable suspicion and arrested them based on fabricated evidence, these circumstances alone do not render it inconceivable that the officers were acting within the scope of their employment. The stipulations in Potts and James contain no indication that the officers took or received anything of value from Potts or James, or were otherwise serving their own personal interests in making the arrests. The officers’ misconduct in Potts and James is distinguishable from their conduct in the conspiracy for which they were prosecuted in federal court. In contrast to the circumstances here, in furtherance of the federal conspiracy, in incidents that did not involve Potts or James, the officers seized money and drugs and kept the money and drugs for themselves and, as a result, were charged with racketeering. The lack of evidence of any personal benefit that the officers received from their conduct in these cases leads to a determination that, in arresting Potts and James, the officers were acting at least in part in furtherance of the business of the Department. In assessing the second prong of the Sawyer test, it is plain that the Department did not authorize (and, in fact, expressly forbade) the officers’ misconduct involving Potts and James—which included disregarding a lack of reasonable articulable suspicion for the stops, planting handguns, beating Potts, making false statements in police reports, and testifying falsely at trial. In Sawyer, id. at 256, 587 A.2d at 471, though, this Court set forth ten factors for determining whether an employee’s actions were incidental to those that the employer authorized and thus within the employee’s scope of employment. Here, weighing the ten factors set forth in Sawyer leads to the conclusion that the officers’ conduct was incidental to conduct that the Department authorized. Although the Department clearly did not authorize the officers’ misconduct, and indeed their conduct violated the Department’s “express . . . orders[,]” under the factors set forth in Sawyer, the officers’ actions were “incident[al] to the performance of the duties” that the Department entrusted to them, and those actions did not render the officers’ overall conduct outside the scope of employment. Id. at 255, 587 A.2d at 470 (cleaned up).
In other words, because the officers in the task force didn’t try to gain personally from the arrests but were instead done to advance the goals of the department, it fell to the department to pay.
Honestly, my hope is that this serves as a lesson to law enforcement to stop treating guns as the problem, but I’m not holding my breath. The amount of money we’re talking about here is a drop in the bucket that they’re unlikely to even miss. Instead, they’ll chalk it up to bad cops and go back to doing what they’ve been doing, which is to treat guns like the cause of all their problems rather than do the hard work of actually addressing those problems.
Then again, what can you expect from a city like Baltimore?


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Baltimore Officers Shoot Teen With Replica Firearm

We live in a very violent world .
For better or worse , violence is all around us .
While most of us may live the bulk of our lives without it directly impacting us , that ’ s not an option for millions of people .
It ’ s especially true for police officers in our most violent cities who may have to determine who lives and who dies in a split second .
It ’ s not an easy thing to live with in the least .
That ’ s especially true when you ’ re dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks real .
A Baltimore Police officer shot and wounded an armed teenager Saturday afternoon only to find out the boy ’ s weapon was a replica gun , the police commissioner said .
Commissioner Michael Harrison said two officers were patrolling Erdman Avenue in Northeast Baltimore shortly before 5 p.m. when they came upon the 16-year-old holding what appeared to be a gun .
Harrison said the boy was engaged “ in some type of incident.
” At least one of the officers fired and shot the boy in his arm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s age Sunday .
“ It appears the gun on the ground was some type of replica , ” Harrison said .
Now , I ’ m not going to second-guess the police officers in question .
I don ’ t know what happened , what they were responding to , what they saw , any of that .
What I will say , though , is that we parents need to do a better job of teaching our kids what to do if the police approach them and they ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not blaming this kid for what happened , mind you , but instead using this opportunity to talk about some real problems .
Baltimore has some odd rules about “ replica ” guns , of course , and can take them without a warrant ( though I don ’ t see how that can be constitutional ) , but I ’ m not talking about just Baltimore .
This happens all over the nation and it shouldn ’ t .
It shouldn ’ t be an issue .
You see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they have a gun-shaped object in their hands , police officers don ’ t have time to figure out if it ’ s real or not .
If it looks real , they ’ re going to treat it like it ’ s real .
If the officer says to drop it , you drop it .
You comply with their orders and all will generally turn out well enough , especially if they ’ ve done nothing wrong .
The last thing they want to do is to try to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially by pointing the barrel at them .
They ’ re going to interpret that as a hostile act .
That will generally not end well for anyone .
However , I ’ ve seen too many people not teach their kids how to act in a case like this .
Maybe it ’ s the result of being raised by a cop , but this was part of my life going up and my kids have gotten this as well .
It ’ s probably a good idea for parents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids how to not antagonize the police .
They have a tough enough job as it is .
Let ’ s not add to it .
Of course , there ’ s also an argument to be made about everyone not being twitchy at the sight of a gun , and we can get into that another time .
After all , it ’ s valid .

We live in a very violent world. For better or worse, violence is all around us. While most of us may live the bulk of our lives without it directly impacting us, that’s not an option for millions of people. It’s especially true for police officers in our most violent cities who may have to determine who lives and who dies in a split second.
It’s not an easy thing to live with in the least.
That’s especially true when you’re dealing with a kid with a gun that sure looks real.
A Baltimore Police officer shot and wounded an armed teenager Saturday afternoon only to find out the boy’s weapon was a replica gun, the police commissioner said. Commissioner Michael Harrison said two officers were patrolling Erdman Avenue in Northeast Baltimore shortly before 5 p.m. when they came upon the 16-year-old holding what appeared to be a gun. Harrison said the boy was engaged “in some type of incident.” At least one of the officers fired and shot the boy in his arm. The police department released the boy’s age Sunday. “It appears the gun on the ground was some type of replica,” Harrison said.
Now, I’m not going to second-guess the police officers in question. I don’t know what happened, what they were responding to, what they saw, any of that.
What I will say, though, is that we parents need to do a better job of teaching our kids what to do if the police approach them and they’ve got a toy gun in their hands. I’m not blaming this kid for what happened, mind you, but instead using this opportunity to talk about some real problems.
Baltimore has some odd rules about “replica” guns, of course, and can take them without a warrant (though I don’t see how that can be constitutional), but I’m not talking about just Baltimore. This happens all over the nation and it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t be an issue.
You see, our children need to understand that if they have a gun-shaped object in their hands, police officers don’t have time to figure out if it’s real or not. If it looks real, they’re going to treat it like it’s real. If the officer says to drop it, you drop it. You comply with their orders and all will generally turn out well enough, especially if they’ve done nothing wrong.
The last thing they want to do is to try to show the officer it’s not real, especially by pointing the barrel at them. They’re going to interpret that as a hostile act. That will generally not end well for anyone.
However, I’ve seen too many people not teach their kids how to act in a case like this. Maybe it’s the result of being raised by a cop, but this was part of my life going up and my kids have gotten this as well. It’s probably a good idea for parents, even non-gun folks, to teach their kids how to not antagonize the police.
They have a tough enough job as it is. Let’s not add to it.
Of course, there’s also an argument to be made about everyone not being twitchy at the sight of a gun, and we can get into that another time. After all, it’s valid.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Mississippi AG Warns Mayor's Open Carry Ban Is Unconstitutional

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch is among those weighing in on the mayor of Jackson ’ s unilateral usurping of the Second Amendment rights of Jackson residents by banning the open carrying of firearms during the state ’ s emergency declaration .
In a letter to Mayor Chokwe Lumumba , the AG says there ’ s nothing in state law that would allow a mayor to suspend the constitutional rights their constituents , even in an emergency .
“ The Governor ’ s Proclamation does not authorize you to suspend the right to open carry , or any other statute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the Order seeks to suspend the “ open carry of firearms , ” it does not identify any specific statute or statutes that it seeks to suspend .
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right , enshrined in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Mississippi .
In an effort to provide safeguards to the diminution of this right , the Mississippi Legislature has imposed strict limitations on a municipality ’ s authority to regulate “ the possession , carrying , transportation , sale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or their components .
” Further , in addition to the Attorney General ’ s broad authority to see that Mississippi ’ s laws are properly enforced , the Legislature has charged my office with ensuring local governing authorities do not exceed their statutory power to restrict certain firearm possession.
” Second Amendment advocates are also crying foul and raising the possibility of a lawsuit over Lumumba ’ s actions .
The mayor says he ’ s empowered to take that step under Mississippi ’ s emergency powers statute , but several attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Attorney General that Lumumba is exercising powers that he doesn ’ t possess .
“ The mayor may have the best of intentions , but the Mississippi Supreme Court has made it clear you can ’ t deprive a person of a constitutional right , ” said attorney Thomas Payne , who has successfully argued gun rights cases before the state high court .
Candice Cole , the city ’ s communication director , said the mayor ’ s order has been vetted by the city attorney , Tim Howard .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law , she said — but is expected to be reviewed , she added .
She said the civil emergency declaration allows the mayor to institute the open carry ban .
But Payne disagrees , saying the mayor ’ s order is illegal .
Payne said Lumumba ’ s order doesn ’ t comply with the letter of the law and it violates the 2nd Amendment as well as the Mississippi Constitution .
The Clarion-Ledger newspaper also spoke to Rick Ward , a retired police officer and longtime firearms instructor in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor is overstepping his authority .
Ward said it needs to be clarified there is no open carry law in Mississippi .
He said there was a line in a paragraph of the concealed carry law prior to 2013 that said “ do not construe that you may openly carry a weapon.
” The 2013 , the Legislature approved House Bill 2 , and it was signed into law by then-Gov .
Phil Bryant , clarifying the concealed carry law , removed the sentence about open carry .
Ward said he proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to forbid or regulate open carry since it was in the Constitution .
Ward said the state Legislature was given exclusive authority to regulate firearms .
If the state Legislature was not given authority to regulate open carry , it certainly would not have been given to a city legislative body ( councilmen ) and under no circumstances the executive branch ( mayor ) , he said .
“ The mayor is way off-base and I am confident there will be a quick legal fix to the circus he has created , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem .
Criminals are the problem and they couldn ’ t care less about his executive order.
” In her letter , AG Fitch asks Mayor Lumumba to immediately rescind his order .
If he doesn ’ t , it sounds like a lawsuit by residents of Jackson , Mississippi may be filed as early as Tuesday .
Given the fact that Lumumba isn ’ t exactly on solid legal ground here , he may decide to do as the Attorney General has asked , but I wouldn ’ t count on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political stunt on the mayor ’ s part than any real effort to increase public safety , so why would he cave when he could take his fight to a courtroom ?
Sure , he ’ ll most likely lose , but then he can blame a judge or those crazy gun nuts for preventing him from taking a “ common sense ” step to protect the public from violent crime .
In truth , violent criminals don ’ t give a damn about whether or not they ’ re breaking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either openly or concealed .
If Lumumba wants to get serious about fighting crime in Jackson , he needs to start by going after criminals instead of trying to infringe on the rights of Jackson ’ s law-abiding gun owners .

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch is among those weighing in on the mayor of Jackson’s unilateral usurping of the Second Amendment rights of Jackson residents by banning the open carrying of firearms during the state’s emergency declaration. In a letter to Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, the AG says there’s nothing in state law that would allow a mayor to suspend the constitutional rights their constituents, even in an emergency.
“The Governor’s Proclamation does not authorize you to suspend the right to open carry, or any other statute or constitutional provision governing firearm possession. While the Order seeks to suspend the “open carry of firearms,” it does not identify any specific statute or statutes that it seeks to suspend. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, enshrined in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Mississippi. In an effort to provide safeguards to the diminution of this right, the Mississippi Legislature has imposed strict limitations on a municipality’s authority to regulate “ the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, transfer or ownership of firearms or ammunition or their components. ” Further, in addition to the Attorney General’s broad authority to see that Mississippi’s laws are properly enforced, the Legislature has charged my office with ensuring local governing authorities do not exceed their statutory power to restrict certain firearm possession.”
Second Amendment advocates are also crying foul and raising the possibility of a lawsuit over Lumumba’s actions. The mayor says he’s empowered to take that step under Mississippi’s emergency powers statute, but several attorneys and firearms instructors in the state concur with the Attorney General that Lumumba is exercising powers that he doesn’t possess.
“The mayor may have the best of intentions, but the Mississippi Supreme Court has made it clear you can’t deprive a person of a constitutional right,” said attorney Thomas Payne, who has successfully argued gun rights cases before the state high court. Candice Cole, the city’s communication director, said the mayor’s order has been vetted by the city attorney, Tim Howard. It’s legally sufficient — given state law, she said — but is expected to be reviewed, she added. She said the civil emergency declaration allows the mayor to institute the open carry ban. But Payne disagrees, saying the mayor’s order is illegal. Payne said Lumumba’s order doesn’t comply with the letter of the law and it violates the 2nd Amendment as well as the Mississippi Constitution. “It’s a no-brainer, it’s unconstitutional and illegal,” Payne said.
The Clarion-Ledger newspaper also spoke to Rick Ward, a retired police officer and longtime firearms instructor in the state, who agreed with Payne that the mayor is overstepping his authority.
Ward said it needs to be clarified there is no open carry law in Mississippi. He said there was a line in a paragraph of the concealed carry law prior to 2013 that said “do not construe that you may openly carry a weapon.” The 2013, the Legislature approved House Bill 2, and it was signed into law by then-Gov. Phil Bryant, clarifying the concealed carry law, removed the sentence about open carry. Ward said he proposed the change because they had no authority to forbid or regulate open carry since it was in the Constitution. Ward said the state Legislature was given exclusive authority to regulate firearms. If the state Legislature was not given authority to regulate open carry, it certainly would not have been given to a city legislative body (councilmen) and under no circumstances the executive branch (mayor), he said. “The mayor is way off-base and I am confident there will be a quick legal fix to the circus he has created,” Ward said. “Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem and they couldn’t care less about his executive order.”
In her letter, AG Fitch asks Mayor Lumumba to immediately rescind his order. If he doesn’t, it sounds like a lawsuit by residents of Jackson, Mississippi may be filed as early as Tuesday.
Given the fact that Lumumba isn’t exactly on solid legal ground here, he may decide to do as the Attorney General has asked, but I wouldn’t count on it. This seems like more of a political stunt on the mayor’s part than any real effort to increase public safety, so why would he cave when he could take his fight to a courtroom? Sure, he’ll most likely lose, but then he can blame a judge or those crazy gun nuts for preventing him from taking a “common sense” step to protect the public from violent crime.
In truth, violent criminals don’t give a damn about whether or not they’re breaking the law by illegally carrying a firearm, either openly or concealed. If Lumumba wants to get serious about fighting crime in Jackson, he needs to start by going after criminals instead of trying to infringe on the rights of Jackson’s law-abiding gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Woman Opens Gun Store BECAUSE Of Whitmer's Orders

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has become something of a focus for a lot of people ’ s rage .
Her efforts to push her authority during this COVID-19 crisis has sparked outrage all throughout the nation .
To be fair , she ’ s gone way too far , even if you ’ re concerned about the spread of the disease .
Barring stores from selling certain products is beyond ridiculous .
However , Whitmer , who is most definitely an anti-gun politician , probably isn ’ t going to be thrilled to learn that there ’ s one more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Flashpoint Firearms has been a wonderful journey , an experience me , especially being a woman owning this business , ” Flashpoint Firearms owner Lisa Mayo said .
Mayo said that to her knowledge , she ’ s one of the only female gun retailers in the area .
She said she ’ s always had a passion for personal protection .
Because the gun shows Mayo normally sells at are canceled for the time being , she decided to open up her first storefront off of Alpine in Comstock Park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t attend the gun shows she normally sold at , she opened up a storefront so she could stay in business .
In short , she ’ s opened a store because of Whitmer .
You see , gun stores are considered essential businesses in Michigan , though I suspect Whitmer would love to list them as anything else .
Still , she didn ’ t .
That means if Mayo wants to sell guns , she needed to open a store .
So , she did .
Honestly , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was kept from doing business , so she found a way around it so she can go back to selling guns , which she seems to love .
Where there ’ s a will , there ’ s a way and all that jazz .
She could have just complained on Facebook but instead , she worked with what was available to her .
That ’ s smart .
Especially since guns are so in demand right now , I doubt she ’ ll have much trouble moving merchandise , but she couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storefront .
Millions of gun sold and she wasn ’ t able to take advantage of any of it…until now .
Of course , this now makes me wonder how many other stores are we going to see pop up now because of Mayo .
Think about it , there are a lot of dealers who just do the gun show circuit .
They can ’ t do anything right now , but if they do like Mayo did and open a store , they could .
Demand is still ridiculously high , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and start selling ?
Then again , no one else may follow suit .
They might not want the hassle or what have you .
It doesn ’ t matter , though .
Mayo found a way to sell guns , a product Whitmer isn ’ t a fan of , not just in spite of the governor , but because of her .
I can ’ t help but applaud it and I hope she ’ s very successful going forward .
It ’ s a feel-good story that I hope continues @ @ @ @

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has become something of a focus for a lot of people’s rage. Her efforts to push her authority during this COVID-19 crisis has sparked outrage all throughout the nation. To be fair, she’s gone way too far, even if you’re concerned about the spread of the disease. Barring stores from selling certain products is beyond ridiculous.
However, Whitmer, who is most definitely an anti-gun politician, probably isn’t going to be thrilled to learn that there’s one more gun store in Michigan because of her.
“Flashpoint Firearms has been a wonderful journey, an experience me, especially being a woman owning this business,” Flashpoint Firearms owner Lisa Mayo said. Mayo said that to her knowledge, she’s one of the only female gun retailers in the area. She said she’s always had a passion for personal protection. “Always loved guns, always enjoyed it,” Mayo said. Because the gun shows Mayo normally sells at are canceled for the time being, she decided to open up her first storefront off of Alpine in Comstock Park.
In other words, because Mayo couldn’t attend the gun shows she normally sold at, she opened up a storefront so she could stay in business. In short, she’s opened a store because of Whitmer.
You see, gun stores are considered essential businesses in Michigan, though I suspect Whitmer would love to list them as anything else. Still, she didn’t. That means if Mayo wants to sell guns, she needed to open a store.
So, she did.
Honestly, this is a pretty awesome story. Mayo was kept from doing business, so she found a way around it so she can go back to selling guns, which she seems to love. Where there’s a will, there’s a way and all that jazz. She could have just complained on Facebook but instead, she worked with what was available to her.
That’s smart. Especially since guns are so in demand right now, I doubt she’ll have much trouble moving merchandise, but she couldn’t move it without having a storefront. Millions of gun sold and she wasn’t able to take advantage of any of it…until now.
Mayo intends to comply with social distancing requirements.
Of course, this now makes me wonder how many other stores are we going to see pop up now because of Mayo. Think about it, there are a lot of dealers who just do the gun show circuit. They can’t do anything right now, but if they do like Mayo did and open a store, they could. Demand is still ridiculously high, so why not take advantage of it and start selling?
Then again, no one else may follow suit. They might not want the hassle or what have you. It doesn’t matter, though. Mayo found a way to sell guns, a product Whitmer isn’t a fan of, not just in spite of the governor, but because of her. I can’t help but applaud it and I hope she’s very successful going forward. It’s a feel-good story that I hope continues to feel good.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Supreme-ly Disappointed in SCOTUS NYC Gun Case Decision

Second Amendment advocates are reacting with disappointment , dismay , and a little cautious optimism to the Supreme Court decision that mooted a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun law regarding the transportation of lawfully owned pistols .
I had the chance to talk with the executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association about the case brought by the group against New York City for today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , and as you can imagine , he ’ s not happy .
Tom King says the decision by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal system , not a justice system , ” and even though the Supreme Court ruled that the case is moot because New York City changed the law in question and gave gun owners and the NYSPRA what they were asking for , King is not convinced .
He believes that the Court has now given the green light for other anti-gun jurisdictions to play the same legal game as New York City ; defending the law in court right up to the point that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid judicial scrutiny by the highest court in the land .
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation , on the other hand , is a little more optimistic .
On today ’ s program , he tells me that the Supreme Court is actively weighing four cases brought by the organization , and believes that it ’ s unlikely that the jurisdictions being sued are unlikely to change their laws to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny .
In all , there are close to a dozen Second Amendment cases that are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dealing with everything from carry laws in states like New Jersey and Maryland to California ’ s microstamping law .
Friday afternoon , the Supreme Court distributed all ten cases to justices to consider in conference on Friday .
That ’ s a good sign that Justice Kavanaugh may get the wish he expressed in his concurring opinion today ; that the Court take a Second Amendment case sooner rather than later to ensure that lower courts stop their flagrant misreading of the Heller and McDonald decisions .
It takes four justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and based on today ’ s dissenting opinion by Justices Alito , Thomas , and Gorsuch , along with Kavanaugh ’ s own opinion , we should have the votes on the Court to take one or more of the cases that will be considered on Friday .
Which case , or cases , the Court may take up is still an open question , but a likely candidate is Rogers v. Grewal .
That challenge to New Jersey ’ s “ good cause ” requirement for concealed carry licenses has been sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question raised in the case is one that lower courts have disagreed about ; whether or not the right to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home .
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey ’ s law doesn ’ t violate the Second Amendment , while the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a few years ago that a complete ban on the carrying of firearms in Illinois was an infringement of the Second Amendment .
Theoretically , New Jersey doesn ’ t have a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds of actually obtaining a concealed carry license are astronomically high .
If the average resident can ’ t lawfully carry a firearm , argues the plaintiffs in Rogers , then the right to bear arms isn ’ t just being regulated , it ’ s being infringed .
Be sure to check out the entire show above for more analysis from King , Gottlieb , and myself , and stay tuned .
We could learn as early as next Monday whether or not the Supreme Court will take up one of the @ @ @ @

Second Amendment advocates are reacting with disappointment, dismay, and a little cautious optimism to the Supreme Court decision that mooted a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun law regarding the transportation of lawfully owned pistols.
I had the chance to talk with the executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association about the case brought by the group against New York City for today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and as you can imagine, he’s not happy. Tom King says the decision by SCOTUS tells him we have a “legal system, not a justice system,” and even though the Supreme Court ruled that the case is moot because New York City changed the law in question and gave gun owners and the NYSPRA what they were asking for, King is not convinced. He believes that the Court has now given the green light for other anti-gun jurisdictions to play the same legal game as New York City; defending the law in court right up to the point that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, then changing the law just enough to avoid judicial scrutiny by the highest court in the land.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, on the other hand, is a little more optimistic. On today’s program, he tells me that the Supreme Court is actively weighing four cases brought by the organization, and believes that it’s unlikely that the jurisdictions being sued are unlikely to change their laws to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny.
In all, there are close to a dozen Second Amendment cases that are in a holding pattern at the Supreme Court, dealing with everything from carry laws in states like New Jersey and Maryland to California’s microstamping law. Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court distributed all ten cases to justices to consider in conference on Friday. That’s a good sign that Justice Kavanaugh may get the wish he expressed in his concurring opinion today; that the Court take a Second Amendment case sooner rather than later to ensure that lower courts stop their flagrant misreading of the Heller and McDonald decisions.
It takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and based on today’s dissenting opinion by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, along with Kavanaugh’s own opinion, we should have the votes on the Court to take one or more of the cases that will be considered on Friday. Which case, or cases, the Court may take up is still an open question, but a likely candidate is Rogers v. Grewal. That challenge to New Jersey’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry licenses has been sitting in conference for months now, and the question raised in the case is one that lower courts have disagreed about; whether or not the right to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey’s law doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, while the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a few years ago that a complete ban on the carrying of firearms in Illinois was an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Theoretically, New Jersey doesn’t have a total ban on carrying firearms, but the odds of actually obtaining a concealed carry license are astronomically high. If the average resident can’t lawfully carry a firearm, argues the plaintiffs in Rogers, then the right to bear arms isn’t just being regulated, it’s being infringed.
Be sure to check out the entire show above for more analysis from King, Gottlieb, and myself, and stay tuned. We could learn as early as next Monday whether or not the Supreme Court will take up one of the cases under consideration.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Virginia Judge Halts Northam's Order To Close Indoor Gun Ranges

**Update** This post has been updated to reflect the fact that the judge ’ s order applies only to SafeSide Lynchburg for the time being .
A circuit court judge in Lynchburg , Virginia has overturned a portion of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s executive order that declared indoor gun ranges “ places of amusement ” that are non-essential and must shut down during his state of emergency , at least at it applies to the Lynchburg range that brought the lawsuit .
Judge F. Patrick Yeatts declared in an order on Monday that Northam ’ s actions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and declared that the portion of the governor ’ s executive order on essential businesses that deals with indoor ranges not be enforced against SafeSide Lynchburg while the litigation continues .
Yeatts noted in his decision that the Virginia state constitution declares that “ the body of the people , trained to arms is the proper , natural safe defense of a free state.
” Since that is the case , clearly the right to bear arms includes the right to train with them .
Since gun ranges provide a place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are protected under the right to keep and bear arms .
The judge agreed with Gov .
Northam that he has great deference in times of emergency , but stated that a Virginia law passed in 2012 ( and supported by Northam , who was a state senator at the time ) prohibits the governor from taking any action , even in a state of emergency , that interferes with the right to keep and bear arms .
Northam had argued that under an intermediate scrutiny standard of review , his closures should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , noting that there under any standard of review the governor isn ’ t likely to prevail in his defense , but pointing out that if he had to decide on what level of judicial review to use , he would have gone with strict scrutiny , given that “ proper training and practice at a range… is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms , even necessary for the self-defense concern expressed by the governor.
” The governor also argued that economic concerns “ are not enough and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to indoor ranges.
” SafeSide Lynchburg , the indoor range that brought the lawsuit along with the Virginia Citizens Defense League , Gun Owners of America , and the Association of Virginia Gun Ranges argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if they were not allowed to re-open , and Judge Yeatts agreed .
The judge also noted , however , that it wouldn ’ t just be the range owners who would suffer .
There are no outdoor ranges located in Lynchburg , and in fact the city has an ordinance that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved gun ranges .
As Yeatts wrote , “ the Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to the outskirts of the city and of fundamental rights jurisprudence.
” Unfortunately , the judge ’ s order only applies to SafeSide Lynchburg , at least for the time being .
VCDL president Phillip Van Cleave says the group is weighing their legal options with the goal of getting every indoor range in the state re-opened for business .
The governor will almost certainly appeal Judge Yeatts decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be resuming operations in the near future , and I wouldn ’ t be suprised if other ranges follow suit despite Northam ’ s order remaining in effect throughout the rest of the state .
The judge made the right call .
Let ’ s hope that the state Supreme Court agrees .

**Update** This post has been updated to reflect the fact that the judge’s order applies only to SafeSide Lynchburg for the time being.
A circuit court judge in Lynchburg, Virginia has overturned a portion of Gov. Ralph Northam’s executive order that declared indoor gun ranges “places of amusement” that are non-essential and must shut down during his state of emergency, at least at it applies to the Lynchburg range that brought the lawsuit. Judge F. Patrick Yeatts declared in an order on Monday that Northam’s actions are likely to have exceeded his constitutional authority, and declared that the portion of the governor’s executive order on essential businesses that deals with indoor ranges not be enforced against SafeSide Lynchburg while the litigation continues.
Yeatts noted in his decision that the Virginia state constitution declares that “the body of the people, trained to arms is the proper, natural safe defense of a free state.” Since that is the case, clearly the right to bear arms includes the right to train with them. Since gun ranges provide a place where that training can take place, they are protected under the right to keep and bear arms.
The judge agreed with Gov. Northam that he has great deference in times of emergency, but stated that a Virginia law passed in 2012 (and supported by Northam, who was a state senator at the time) prohibits the governor from taking any action, even in a state of emergency, that interferes with the right to keep and bear arms.
Northam had argued that under an intermediate scrutiny standard of review, his closures should be upheld. Yeatts declined to do so, noting that there under any standard of review the governor isn’t likely to prevail in his defense, but pointing out that if he had to decide on what level of judicial review to use, he would have gone with strict scrutiny, given that “proper training and practice at a range… is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms, even necessary for the self-defense concern expressed by the governor.”
The governor also argued that economic concerns “are not enough and that outdoor gun ranges provide a sufficient alternative to indoor ranges.” SafeSide Lynchburg, the indoor range that brought the lawsuit along with the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, and the Association of Virginia Gun Ranges argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if they were not allowed to re-open, and Judge Yeatts agreed. The judge also noted, however, that it wouldn’t just be the range owners who would suffer. There are no outdoor ranges located in Lynchburg, and in fact the city has an ordinance that prohibits the firing of guns outside of approved gun ranges. As Yeatts wrote, “the Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to the outskirts of the city and of fundamental rights jurisprudence.”
Unfortunately, the judge’s order only applies to SafeSide Lynchburg, at least for the time being. VCDL president Phillip Van Cleave says the group is weighing their legal options with the goal of getting every indoor range in the state re-opened for business.
The governor will almost certainly appeal Judge Yeatts decision, but for the moment, SafeSide Lynchburg will be resuming operations in the near future, and I wouldn’t be suprised if other ranges follow suit despite Northam’s order remaining in effect throughout the rest of the state. The judge made the right call. Let’s hope that the state Supreme Court agrees.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--KY Town Sees Two Defensive Gun Uses In Less Than 24 Hours

Two cases out of Lexington , Kentucky over the weekend demonstrate the importance of being able to protect yourself and loved ones .
In both cases , armed citizens came to the aid of others , and in both cases the armed citizens were successful in stopping attacks and preventing a loss of life .
The first incident happened around 1 a.m. Friday morning , when police were called to a home on Dedman Lane .
Authorities say a man was strangling a woman when her son fired a round , striking the suspect in his leg .
The suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police a short time later .
He ’ s now in jail facing charges , and while the investigation continues , it looks like the son was within his rights to defend his mom .
That same evening , Lexington police were called out on another case involving a self-defense shooting .
In that incident , a 24-year old allegedly broke into the home of a woman he ’ d been dating and was shot by someone inside the home .
Police said they found the intruder , Jaymes Miller , dead inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office said he was pronounced dead at the scene at 11:40 p.m. Police are continuing to investigate but said they do not expect to file charges against the person who shot Miller .
Police said Miller “ had active warrants for domestic violence and the robbery of a Lexington motel earlier this month.
” One town , two defensive gun uses in less than 24 hours .
In both cases the armed citizens were able to stop crimes in progress and save the lives of the women who were being attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive any national media attention .
The fact is that if there wasn ’ t a legal gun owner able to protect these women , these stories would have likely had a far different outcome .
Perhaps the national media would have been more interested in covering two murders in Lexington , Kentucky over a 24-hour period .
More likely , these women would have simply become statistics ; their deaths worthy of local news coverage but quickly forgotten amidst the continuing coronavirus coverage .
I ’ m not happy that the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am glad that there were armed citizens willing and able to prevent these violent crimes from escalating to the point that the news media would have been forced to give them coverage .
Those armed citizens who acted in defense of others weren ’ t doing it for the press attention , after all .
They were acting to save lives , and it looks like that ’ s exactly what happened .
Gun control advocates can claim that there ’ s no reason for anyone to have a gun , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off disarmed , but I bet there are at least two women in Lexington , Kentucky who disagree .

Two cases out of Lexington, Kentucky over the weekend demonstrate the importance of being able to protect yourself and loved ones. In both cases, armed citizens came to the aid of others, and in both cases the armed citizens were successful in stopping attacks and preventing a loss of life.
The first incident happened around 1 a.m. Friday morning, when police were called to a home on Dedman Lane. Authorities say a man was strangling a woman when her son fired a round, striking the suspect in his leg. The suspect took off, but was found by police a short time later. He’s now in jail facing charges, and while the investigation continues, it looks like the son was within his rights to defend his mom.
That same evening, Lexington police were called out on another case involving a self-defense shooting. In that incident, a 24-year old allegedly broke into the home of a woman he’d been dating and was shot by someone inside the home.
Police said they found the intruder, Jaymes Miller, dead inside the house. The Fayette County coroner’s office said he was pronounced dead at the scene at 11:40 p.m. Police are continuing to investigate but said they do not expect to file charges against the person who shot Miller. Police said Miller “had active warrants for domestic violence and the robbery of a Lexington motel earlier this month.”
One town, two defensive gun uses in less than 24 hours. In both cases the armed citizens were able to stop crimes in progress and save the lives of the women who were being attacked, yet I doubt either story will receive any national media attention.
The fact is that if there wasn’t a legal gun owner able to protect these women, these stories would have likely had a far different outcome. Perhaps the national media would have been more interested in covering two murders in Lexington, Kentucky over a 24-hour period. More likely, these women would have simply become statistics; their deaths worthy of local news coverage but quickly forgotten amidst the continuing coronavirus coverage.
I’m not happy that the national media will ignore these stories, but I am glad that there were armed citizens willing and able to prevent these violent crimes from escalating to the point that the news media would have been forced to give them coverage. Those armed citizens who acted in defense of others weren’t doing it for the press attention, after all. They were acting to save lives, and it looks like that’s exactly what happened.
Gun control advocates can claim that there’s no reason for anyone to have a gun, and that we’d all be better off disarmed, but I bet there are at least two women in Lexington, Kentucky who disagree.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--BREAKING: Divided SCOTUS Moots NYC Gun Case

A divided Supreme Court declared on Monday that a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun law was made moot by the city and state ’ s last minute move to change the law in question .
The 6-3 ruling saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal wing of the court , while Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion , arguing that the decision “ permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.
” In an unsigned opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City had changed its law forbidding the transportation of legally owned pistols to any place other than a range in the city , the plaintiffs in essence won their case .
After we granted certiorari , the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute , and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city , which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint .
Petitioners ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect to the City ’ s old rule is therefore moot .
In a separate concurrence , Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the change by New York City and the state legislature mooted the case , but noted that he still has concerns that lower courts aren ’ t taking the Second Amendment seriously .
In the dissenting opinion , Justices Alito , Gorsuch , and Thomas argued that despite the fact that the law in question had been changed , the Court still needed to weigh in on the issue .
Regrettably , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moot .
If the Court were right on the law , I would of course approve that disposition .
Under the Constitution , our authority is limited to deciding actual cases or controversies , and if this were no longer a live controversy—that is , if it were now moot—we would be compelled to dismiss .
But if a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction , we have an obligation to decide it .
As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia , “ [ w @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given , than to usurp that which is not given.
” Thus , in this case , we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot , and under those standards , we still have a live case before us .
It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought , but that is not the test for mootness .
Instead , “ a case ‘ becomes moot only when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.
’ ‘ As long as the parties have a concrete interest , however small , in the outcome of the litigation , the case is not moot.
’ ” This is a disappointing decision , and one that will likely lead to more anti-gun jurisdictions playing the same legal games that New York City did ; defending the law in court right up to the point that the Supreme Court may strike it down .
Of course , as Justice Kavanaugh noted , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment-related cases in conference , and most of those deal with far bigger issues than New York City ’ s ban on transporting pistols outside the city limits .
There are challenges to New Jersey and Maryland ’ s concealed carry laws requiring applicants show “ good cause ” before they can be approved , for instance , and if the Court agreed to hear one of those cases , lawmakers might not be so willing to change the laws in order to avoid a Supreme Court ruling .
We ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Bearing Arms , including reaction from Second Amendment advocates , but in the meantime you can read the opinions here .

A divided Supreme Court declared on Monday that a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun law was made moot by the city and state’s last minute move to change the law in question. The 6-3 ruling saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal wing of the court, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion, arguing that the decision “permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.”
In an unsigned opinion, the majority opinion declared that once New York City had changed its law forbidding the transportation of legally owned pistols to any place other than a range in the city, the plaintiffs in essence won their case.
After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule is therefore moot.
In a separate concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the change by New York City and the state legislature mooted the case, but noted that he still has concerns that lower courts aren’t taking the Second Amendment seriously.
And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
In the dissenting opinion, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas argued that despite the fact that the law in question had been changed, the Court still needed to weigh in on the issue.
Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve that disposition. Under the Constitution, our authority is limited to deciding actual cases or controversies, and if this were no longer a live controversy—that is, if it were now moot—we would be compelled to dismiss. But if a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction, we have an obligation to decide it. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, “[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and under those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’ ‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’”
This is a disappointing decision, and one that will likely lead to more anti-gun jurisdictions playing the same legal games that New York City did; defending the law in court right up to the point that the Supreme Court may strike it down. Of course, as Justice Kavanaugh noted, the Court is currently considering several other Second Amendment-related cases in conference, and most of those deal with far bigger issues than New York City’s ban on transporting pistols outside the city limits. There are challenges to New Jersey and Maryland’s concealed carry laws requiring applicants show “good cause” before they can be approved, for instance, and if the Court agreed to hear one of those cases, lawmakers might not be so willing to change the laws in order to avoid a Supreme Court ruling.
We’ll have more on the decision later today here at Bearing Arms, including reaction from Second Amendment advocates, but in the meantime you can read the opinions here.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--"Duck Dynasty" Star Willie Robertson's Home Targeted In Drive-By

For a while there , Duck Dynasty was kind of the show to watch on television .
Some of us already knew the Robertsons from their Duck Commander show on the Outdoor Network , but a whole lot of people who weren ’ t really outdoor folks were introduced to the Lousiana family .
Since then , the Robertsons have become fairly famous and aren ’ t known for keeping their opinions to themselves .
The fact that they tend to fall on the right side of the political aisle has made a number of people upset that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come with some risks these days .
Then again , just being famous has its risks .
It seems someone decided to provide Willie Robertson with a reminder of those “ risks.
” The Louisiana estate of “ Duck Dynasty ” star Willie Robertson was fired at in a drive-by shooting Friday — with one bullet piercing a bedroom window , a report said .
Nobody was injured in the shooting , where up to 10 shots were fired at Robertson ’ s home from a suspected pickup truck on a road outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Monroe-News Star .
“ We were pretty shook up , ” Robertson , who had just left to go to the store before the 2:30 p.m. shooting , told the USA Today Network on Sunday .
“ It looks like they were just spraying bullets across my property .
Nobody was outside at the time , but everybody had been out about 5 minutes before , ” Robertson said .
Robertson said that while his family was all inside and unharmed , they ’ d just been outside a few minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been arrested–knew whose home they were shooting at .
No motive has been given for the shooting .
Of course , it ’ s unlikely this was just some random shooting .
It might be a case of a mistaken address , of course , but Robertson doesn ’ t think it was and I don ’ t see any reason to think he ’ s wrong .
That means we have one of two possibilities here .
One is that someone tried to take a shot at a celebrity , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens .
Mark David Chapman has a Wikipedia entry for a reason , after all , so there ’ s a very real possibility that ’ s the motivating factor .
However , let ’ s also remember that Robertson was a vocal Trump supporter during the 2016 election .
He campaigned for the president .
We currently live in a world where politics is a bloodsport for many people .
Robertson made his stand and it ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that it was why his home was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s pure speculation .
What we know for a fact is that someone took shots at Robertson ’ s home with his family there and has been arrested .
While the motivation matters , it ’ s not the most important aspect of this .
The most important is that everyone is fine .
I ’ m very thankful for that as I ’ m sure Robertson is .
Second most important is that the shooter was arrested .
We can worry about the other stuff later .

For a while there, Duck Dynasty was kind of the show to watch on television. Some of us already knew the Robertsons from their Duck Commander show on the Outdoor Network, but a whole lot of people who weren’t really outdoor folks were introduced to the Lousiana family. Since then, the Robertsons have become fairly famous and aren’t known for keeping their opinions to themselves.
The fact that they tend to fall on the right side of the political aisle has made a number of people upset that they’re voicing an opinion. That can come with some risks these days.
Then again, just being famous has its risks.
It seems someone decided to provide Willie Robertson with a reminder of those “risks.”
The Louisiana estate of “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson was fired at in a drive-by shooting Friday — with one bullet piercing a bedroom window, a report said. Nobody was injured in the shooting, where up to 10 shots were fired at Robertson’s home from a suspected pickup truck on a road outside of the West Monroe property, according to the Monroe-News Star. “We were pretty shook up,” Robertson, who had just left to go to the store before the 2:30 p.m. shooting, told the USA Today Network on Sunday. “It looks like they were just spraying bullets across my property. Nobody was outside at the time, but everybody had been out about 5 minutes before,” Robertson said.
Robertson said that while his family was all inside and unharmed, they’d just been outside a few minutes earlier. He also believes the shooter–who has been arrested–knew whose home they were shooting at.
The Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office in Monroe, Louisiana, charged Daniel King Jr., 38, with one count of aggravated assault by drive by shooting and one count of criminal neglect of family and booked into OCC. Bond was set at $150,000.
No motive has been given for the shooting.
Of course, it’s unlikely this was just some random shooting. It might be a case of a mistaken address, of course, but Robertson doesn’t think it was and I don’t see any reason to think he’s wrong.
That means we have one of two possibilities here. One is that someone tried to take a shot at a celebrity, probably hoping to make themselves famous. It happens. Mark David Chapman has a Wikipedia entry for a reason, after all, so there’s a very real possibility that’s the motivating factor.
However, let’s also remember that Robertson was a vocal Trump supporter during the 2016 election. He campaigned for the president.
We currently live in a world where politics is a bloodsport for many people. Robertson made his stand and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that it was why his home was targeted.
At this point, though, that’s pure speculation. What we know for a fact is that someone took shots at Robertson’s home with his family there and has been arrested. While the motivation matters, it’s not the most important aspect of this. The most important is that everyone is fine. I’m very thankful for that as I’m sure Robertson is. Second most important is that the shooter was arrested.
We can worry about the other stuff later.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--New Mexico Town Re-Opens For Business, Defying Governor's Order

Cibola County , New Mexico was one of the first Second Amendment sanctuaries in the state , and Sheriff Tony Mace has been a frequent guest on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co thanks to his support for the Second Amendment .
In fact , the last time he was on the show he spoke about a couple of gun stores in the county that had remained open , despite being declared non-essential businesses by Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham .
Now the mayor of the largest town in Cibola County is declaring his community an economic sanctuary , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grisham ’ s emergency order .
Mayor Martin Hicks says businesses in Grants , New Mexico can operate safely by adhering to CDC social distancing guidelines , and it ’ s time to re-open the economy .
He said the city ’ s police department won ’ t be enforcing the governor ’ s orders .
Neither will the Cibola County Sheriff ’ s Office .
Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace – like Hicks – is a frequent critic of the governor .
Hicks asserted that Lujan Grisham ’ s orders “ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to roll up the sidewalks.
” He said more than 80 businesses in town have been closed .
Hicks also said he doesn ’ t fear action from the Governor ’ s Office .
“ What ’ s she going to try to do to me ?
” he asked .
“ If she tries to do something , I ’ ll sue her , and we ’ ll let the courts sort it out.
” As the Albuquerque Journal reported , Cibola County only has 39 reported cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighboring counties .
Grisham says she ’ s concerned that if Grants re-opens , it would be like “ opening up a peeing section in a pool , ” and she says her order will be enforced .
Some local business owners say they ’ ll remain closed this week because they ’ re afraid that the governor ’ s enforcement could result in thousands of dollars in fines , though they believe that they can safely re-open .
“ We think we know how to prevent a health emergency without the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We don ’ t want the coronavirus .
We ’ re putting tape on our floors for social distancing .
We ’ re putting up sneeze guards.
” He also joined Rowe in collecting the signatures of 81 business owners requesting the mayor and city council approve a resolution allowing local businesses that wished to do so be allowed to resume operations as of Monday .
But Ronnie Pynes had hoped the governor would also sign off on the plan .
He voiced concerns about the governor ’ s plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 .
“ Three weeks is an eternity for a business owner , ” Pynes said , adding that petition signers were willing and hopeful about reopening .
“ We wanted to send a message that we ’ re hurting , ” Pynes said .
Nearly 20 mayors from across the state sent a letter to Grisham last week pleading with her to allow non-essential businesses to re-open , and the mayor of Farmington , New Mexico has declared an “ economic emergency ” in his community .
Other counties are following suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised if more counties and towns in the rural parts of the state follow Grants lead in the days to come .
Just like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that swept across New Mexico in 2018 in response to Grisham ’ s push for gun control , the recent moves by localities to re-open their economies in violation of a statewide order reveals a stark divide between the population centers of Albuquerque and Santa Fe and the rural red counties that make up most of the geographic area of the state .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it sounds like Mayor Hicks is ready for a court fight .
We ’ ll see what happens in the coming days , but in the meantime , if you want to play a round of golf or purchase a gun in Grants , the municipal golf course and at least one gun store/pawn shop is re-open for business .

Cibola County, New Mexico was one of the first Second Amendment sanctuaries in the state, and Sheriff Tony Mace has been a frequent guest on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co thanks to his support for the Second Amendment. In fact, the last time he was on the show he spoke about a couple of gun stores in the county that had remained open, despite being declared non-essential businesses by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. Now the mayor of the largest town in Cibola County is declaring his community an economic sanctuary, allowing all businesses to re-open in defiance of Grisham’s emergency order.
Mayor Martin Hicks says businesses in Grants, New Mexico can operate safely by adhering to CDC social distancing guidelines, and it’s time to re-open the economy.
He said the city’s police department won’t be enforcing the governor’s orders. Neither will the Cibola County Sheriff’s Office. Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace – like Hicks – is a frequent critic of the governor. Hicks asserted that Lujan Grisham’s orders “are killing my town. We are ready to roll up the sidewalks.” He said more than 80 businesses in town have been closed. Hicks also said he doesn’t fear action from the Governor’s Office. “What’s she going to try to do to me?” he asked. “If she tries to do something, I’ll sue her, and we’ll let the courts sort it out.”
As the Albuquerque Journal reported, Cibola County only has 39 reported cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus, far below the numbers reported in neighboring counties. Grisham says she’s concerned that if Grants re-opens, it would be like “opening up a peeing section in a pool,” and she says her order will be enforced.
State Police planned to enforce the public health emergency order, Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Nora Meyers Sackett said in a statement, “to ensure that New Mexicans are not conducting themselves in ways that endanger their health or the health of their community, and they will continue to do that work statewide.”
Some local business owners say they’ll remain closed this week because they’re afraid that the governor’s enforcement could result in thousands of dollars in fines, though they believe that they can safely re-open.
“We think we know how to prevent a health emergency without the governor holding our hands,” Ronnie Pynes said. “We don’t want the coronavirus. We’re putting tape on our floors for social distancing. We’re putting up sneeze guards.” He also joined Rowe in collecting the signatures of 81 business owners requesting the mayor and city council approve a resolution allowing local businesses that wished to do so be allowed to resume operations as of Monday. But Ronnie Pynes had hoped the governor would also sign off on the plan. He voiced concerns about the governor’s plan to extend her emergency order to May 15. “Three weeks is an eternity for a business owner,” Pynes said, adding that petition signers were willing and hopeful about reopening. “We wanted to send a message that we’re hurting,” Pynes said.
Nearly 20 mayors from across the state sent a letter to Grisham last week pleading with her to allow non-essential businesses to re-open, and the mayor of Farmington, New Mexico has declared an “economic emergency” in his community. Other counties are following suit, and I wouldn’t be surprised if more counties and towns in the rural parts of the state follow Grants lead in the days to come.
Just like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that swept across New Mexico in 2018 in response to Grisham’s push for gun control, the recent moves by localities to re-open their economies in violation of a statewide order reveals a stark divide between the population centers of Albuquerque and Santa Fe and the rural red counties that make up most of the geographic area of the state. I doubt Grisham is going to back down, and it sounds like Mayor Hicks is ready for a court fight. We’ll see what happens in the coming days, but in the meantime, if you want to play a round of golf or purchase a gun in Grants, the municipal golf course and at least one gun store/pawn shop is re-open for business.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--MS Mayor Uses State Of Emergency To Ban Open Carrying Of Guns

Jackson , Mississippi Mayor Chokwe A. Lumumba announced a temporary ban on the open carrying of firearms in the city over the weekend , and he ’ s already feeling the heat from some of the state ’ s top officials in response .
Lumumba says that continued crime in Jackson led him to take the stand , though this appears to be driven by publicity rather than public safety .
The Democrat mayor proclaimed that his order will only last for a week , and used his announcement to call for a permanent end to open carry in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If we are sincere in our hope for better outcomes and a brighter future for our youth , we must be moved to action .
It is this call to action that has led to my decision to issue an Executive Order suspending Open Carry law during the Covid-19 civil emergency .
Under State Statutes 45-17-7 ( e ) , I am given the discretion in the interest of public safety and welfare to issue such orders that are necessary for the protection of life and property .
In this moment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important that we eliminate the ability for illegal weapons to inflict irreparable harm on our City .
I want to make it clear that I have no principal disagreement with the Second Amendment right to bear arms , but all rights must be balanced by reasonable regulations .
A right that protects illegal guns and puts more people in fear , a right that escalates conflict beyond a point of resolution , and a right that interferes with another person ’ s right to live is not a legitimate right to be maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my nose .
While this order will only be in effect for a short period of time , I am calling on all Jackson residents , and all state and local leaders to act in the interest of our innocent children .
Repeal the Open Carry law which makes it impossible for law enforcement to root out illegal firearms on our streets .
It sounds to me like Lumumba is trying to use the state of emergency to make a political point rather than trying to save lives , and he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mississippi ’ s Attorney General has already objected to the mayor ’ s actions on Twitter , and we may see a lawsuit filed over the open carry ban in the next couple of days .
Lumumba is basing his decision on the state ’ s emergency powers laws , which say nothing about banning the carrying of firearms .
Oddly enough , it appears Lumumba could have ordered gun stores closed under Mississippi law , but banning the carrying of firearms , either openly or concealed , would appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims that the portion of the statute allowing him to issue orders “ necessary for the protection of life and property ” gives him the authority to ban the open carrying of firearms , but if he ’ s sued he would have to show in court that the order is necessary , not just a politically motivated act designed to generate headlines .
I suspect that those responsible for the shootings in Jackson over the past week weren ’ t legal gun owners , and therefore weren ’ t lawfully carrying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also suspect that criminals who are wantonly shooting on city streets don ’ t care about the mayor ’ s ban on open carry , since they ’ ve also ignored the laws about not shooting people except in self-defense .
Lumumba ’ s actions are likely to be challenged in court , though if his ban really does expire in a week the residents of Jackson may be back to openly carrying firearms long before any lawsuit is decided by a judge .
In the meantime , the people of Jackson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mayor is putting politics ahead of their constitutional rights and their personal safety .

Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Chokwe A. Lumumba announced a temporary ban on the open carrying of firearms in the city over the weekend, and he’s already feeling the heat from some of the state’s top officials in response.
Lumumba says that continued crime in Jackson led him to take the stand, though this appears to be driven by publicity rather than public safety. The Democrat mayor proclaimed that his order will only last for a week, and used his announcement to call for a permanent end to open carry in the state. From Y’all Politics:
If we are sincere in our hope for better outcomes and a brighter future for our youth, we must be moved to action. It is this call to action that has led to my decision to issue an Executive Order suspending Open Carry law during the Covid-19 civil emergency. Under State Statutes 45-17-7(e), I am given the discretion in the interest of public safety and welfare to issue such orders that are necessary for the protection of life and property. In this moment of great distress and economic tension it is important that we eliminate the ability for illegal weapons to inflict irreparable harm on our City. I want to make it clear that I have no principal disagreement with the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but all rights must be balanced by reasonable regulations. A right that protects illegal guns and puts more people in fear, a right that escalates conflict beyond a point of resolution, and a right that interferes with another person’s right to live is not a legitimate right to be maintained. Your right to swing ends at my nose. While this order will only be in effect for a short period of time, I am calling on all Jackson residents, and all state and local leaders to act in the interest of our innocent children. Repeal the Open Carry law which makes it impossible for law enforcement to root out illegal firearms on our streets.
It sounds to me like Lumumba is trying to use the state of emergency to make a political point rather than trying to save lives, and he’s on dubious legal ground in doing so. Mississippi’s Attorney General has already objected to the mayor’s actions on Twitter, and we may see a lawsuit filed over the open carry ban in the next couple of days.
Cities can’t usurp the authority of the State’s elected Legislature and violate the Constitutional rights of the people. I support the 2nd Amendment and will enforce the laws of this State. — Lynn Fitch (@LynnFitch) April 26, 2020
Lumumba is basing his decision on the state’s emergency powers laws, which say nothing about banning the carrying of firearms.
After proclamation of a civil emergency, the chief administrative officer may at his discretion, in the interest of public safety and welfare: (a) Order the closing of all retail liquor stores.
(b) Order the discontinuance of the sale of intoxicating liquor and/or beer.
(c) Order the discontinuance of the manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of a Molotov cocktail or any other device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion.
(d) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of any firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever.
(e) Issue such other orders as are necessary for the protection of life and property.
Oddly enough, it appears Lumumba could have ordered gun stores closed under Mississippi law, but banning the carrying of firearms, either openly or concealed, would appear to be a bridge too far. The mayor claims that the portion of the statute allowing him to issue orders “necessary for the protection of life and property” gives him the authority to ban the open carrying of firearms, but if he’s sued he would have to show in court that the order is necessary, not just a politically motivated act designed to generate headlines.
I suspect that those responsible for the shootings in Jackson over the past week weren’t legal gun owners, and therefore weren’t lawfully carrying the firearms used to commit violent crimes. I also suspect that criminals who are wantonly shooting on city streets don’t care about the mayor’s ban on open carry, since they’ve also ignored the laws about not shooting people except in self-defense.
Lumumba’s actions are likely to be challenged in court, though if his ban really does expire in a week the residents of Jackson may be back to openly carrying firearms long before any lawsuit is decided by a judge. In the meantime, the people of Jackson, Mississippi can rest uneasy, knowing their mayor is putting politics ahead of their constitutional rights and their personal safety.


bearingarms--2020-04-27--Gun Range Pleads Case Against Northam's Range Closures

Right now , we have millions upon millions of new gun owners in this country .
As COVID-19 concerns started sprouting up , many people picked up a firearm for self-defense .
It was a major shot in the arm for an ailing firearm industry .
However , that means you also have a significantly large number of new , untrained gun owners .
You also have some who have undergone some form of training years previously but haven ’ t touched a gun in ages .
Shooting is a perishable skill , after all , so while they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily able to hit the broad side of a barn .
The situation may be even more dire in Virginia .
After all , with Northam ’ s push for more gun control , there ’ s been a surge in gun sales since well before the ‘ Rona was an issue .
Yet Northam ’ s ordered indoor gun ranges to be closed , which has one range taking the issue to court .
On Friday , David Browne , an attorney representing SafeSide Tactical Lynchburg , several indoor gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates like the Virginia Citizens Defense League pleaded before a Lynchburg judge through a virtual hearing .
The gun right advocates say Governor Ralph Northam crossed the line when his executive order shut down indoor gun ranges last month .
The group wants to overturn a part of Executive Order 53 that prohibits people from using indoor gun ranges .
Browne said the order violates the Second Amendment and indoor ranges should be allowed to stay open and operate during the state of emergency .
Toby Heytens represents Northam .
He said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still open and people can still buy a firearm if they want to .
The problem is that indoor ranges are often more convenient to where people live and work .
It doesn ’ t require an all-day excursion just to squeeze in a bit of practice .
Especially since , as Heyten points out , gun stores are still open .
So are a lot of other stores , to be sure .
There ’ s really no reason to keep gun ranges closed , especially since the ventilation systems in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from breathing in lead , which means it ’ ll probably make it less likely anyone will catch COVID-19 at an indoor range assuming proper social distancing is observed .
Hell , it ’ ll probably do it even if people aren ’ t a full six feet apart .
At the end of the day , this isn ’ t about public health .
It ’ s not about COVID-19 or trying to prevent people from getting sick .
It ’ s simply a matter of Governor Ralph Northam hating guns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , if he thought he could get away with shutting all ranges down permanently , he would .
He can ’ t and he knows it and likely thought leaving outdoor ranges open would be enough to placate judges .
As it is , people need to be able to practice with their weapons , to become proficient with them so that can be safe while using them .
The Four Rules are fantastic , but they only go so far .
You need to know what you ’ re doing if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defensive situation and that means range time .
Northam is getting in the way of people ’ s right to bear arms anyway .
Let ’ s hope the judge sees reason .

Right now, we have millions upon millions of new gun owners in this country. As COVID-19 concerns started sprouting up, many people picked up a firearm for self-defense. It was a major shot in the arm for an ailing firearm industry.
However, that means you also have a significantly large number of new, untrained gun owners. You also have some who have undergone some form of training years previously but haven’t touched a gun in ages. Shooting is a perishable skill, after all, so while they might be safe enough, they still aren’t necessarily able to hit the broad side of a barn.
They need practice.
The situation may be even more dire in Virginia. After all, with Northam’s push for more gun control, there’s been a surge in gun sales since well before the ‘Rona was an issue.
Yet Northam’s ordered indoor gun ranges to be closed, which has one range taking the issue to court.
On Friday, David Browne, an attorney representing SafeSide Tactical Lynchburg, several indoor gun ranges across Virginia, and gun right advocates like the Virginia Citizens Defense League pleaded before a Lynchburg judge through a virtual hearing. The gun right advocates say Governor Ralph Northam crossed the line when his executive order shut down indoor gun ranges last month. The group wants to overturn a part of Executive Order 53 that prohibits people from using indoor gun ranges. Browne said the order violates the Second Amendment and indoor ranges should be allowed to stay open and operate during the state of emergency. Toby Heytens represents Northam. He said the ban is temporary, outdoor gun ranges are still open and people can still buy a firearm if they want to.
The problem is that indoor ranges are often more convenient to where people live and work. It doesn’t require an all-day excursion just to squeeze in a bit of practice.
Especially since, as Heyten points out, gun stores are still open. So are a lot of other stores, to be sure. There’s really no reason to keep gun ranges closed, especially since the ventilation systems in such ranges are meant to keep people from breathing in lead, which means it’ll probably make it less likely anyone will catch COVID-19 at an indoor range assuming proper social distancing is observed.
Hell, it’ll probably do it even if people aren’t a full six feet apart.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about public health. It’s not about COVID-19 or trying to prevent people from getting sick. It’s simply a matter of Governor Ralph Northam hating guns and the people who use them. Believe me, if he thought he could get away with shutting all ranges down permanently, he would. He can’t and he knows it and likely thought leaving outdoor ranges open would be enough to placate judges.
I sincerely hope he thought wrong.
As it is, people need to be able to practice with their weapons, to become proficient with them so that can be safe while using them. The Four Rules are fantastic, but they only go so far. You need to know what you’re doing if you need to deploy a firearm in a defensive situation and that means range time.
Northam is getting in the way of people’s right to bear arms anyway. Let’s hope the judge sees reason.