bearingarms--2020-08-28--Court Docs Provide More Questions Than Answers In Kenosha Shootings

17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse is set to make his first court appearance in Lake County , Wisconsin today on two counts of murder , one count of attempted murder , and several other charges , including illegal possession of the AR-15 that the teen brought with him to Kenosha from his home in Antioch , Illinois on Tuesday of this week .
I ’ ve tried very hard to keep an open mind about the charges that Rittenhouse is facing since they ’ ve been announced .
Yes , the videos that have been released appear to show Rittenhouse as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the initial aggressor , but given the charges , I assumed that prosecutors and police were sitting on some details or evidence that wasn ’ t caught on camera in the moments before the first shots were fired .
Having read the probable cause statement filed by Lake County Assistant D.A .
Carli McNeill , I ’ m left with even more questions about why Rittenhouse is facing first degree murder charges , because the prosecutor ’ s own report would seem to indicate that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language appears below ) .
In the course of investigating this incident , law enforcement reviewed and shared with your complainant multiple videos that appeared to be recorded on cell phones .
In the first video , a male who was later identified to be Kyle H. Rittenhouse.. is running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot .
The defendant is a resident of Antioch , IL .
The defendant can clearly be seen holding a long gun , which was later recovered by law enforcement and identified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifle .
The recovered magazine for this rifle holds 30 rounds of ammunition .
Following the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis , a reporter .
The video shows that as they cross the parking lot , Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant .
The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows , based on where the object landed , that it was a plastic bag .
Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot .
A loud bang is heard on the video , then a male shouts , “ Fuck you !
” , then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard .
Rosenbaum then falls to the ground .
The plastic bag that was thrown at Rittenhouse appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown , and the videos that have been released sure look like there was something in that plastic bag .
Was it a Molotov cocktail that failed to ignite as some have suggested ?
The probable cause statement doesn ’ t say , but it also leaves out the fact that at least one shot was fired from another demonstrator as Rittenhouse was running across the parking lot pursued by Rosenbaum , as the New York Times pointed out in their timeline of the shootings .
The probable cause statement quotes Richard McGinnis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told authorities it looked like Rosenbaum was going for Rittenhouse ’ s rifle when he was shot .
Before the shooting , McGinnis was interviewing the defendant .
The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained medic .
McGinnis stated that he ( McGinnis ) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well .
McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant .
McGinnis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parking lot and ran across it , the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male ( Rosenbaum ) initially try to engage the defendant .
McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant .
When Rosenbaum advanced , the defendant did a “ juke ” move and started running .
McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly .
McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals .
McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car .
McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position .
Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward .
The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder .
McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up .
McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off , he thought it hit the pavement .
McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot .
McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum , in the line of fire , when the defendant shot .
McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off , the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum .
McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words .
McGinnis said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the defendant ’ s gun .
McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant ’ s gun .
Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot .
McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun .
McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , the defendant fired .
McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot , he had leaned in ( towards the defendant ) .
So , according to prosecutors themselves , Rittenhouse was trying to get away from Rosenbaum , who had started to come after the teenager .
Other demonstrators then joined in the pursuit of Rittenhouse , who fired after Rosenbaum reached for the barrel of the gun .
That sounds more like a description of someone acting in self-defense than 1st-degree murder to me .
After Rosenbaum was shot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to someone saying that he had killed someone , and then began running from the scene as others pursued him .
A person can be heard yelling what sounds like , “ Beat him up !
” Another person can be heard yelling what sounds like , “ Hey , he shot him !
” Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound .
In this video a person can be heard yelling , “ Get him !
Get that dude !
” Then a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm .
This swing makes contact with the defendant , knocking his hat off .
The defendant continues to run northbound .
On the video a male can be heard saying something to the effect of , “ What ’ d he do ?
” Another male can be heard responding something to the effect of , “ Just shot someone.
” Then a male can be heard yelling , “ Get his ass !
” The defendant then trips and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell to the ground , he was approached by several individuals .
As the defendant is on the ground , an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light colored pants jumps at and over the defendant .
Based on the sounds of gunshots on the video and the positioning of the defendant ’ s gun , it appears that he fires two shots in quick succession at this person .
It appears that that person was not hit as he then runs away from the defendant .
A second person who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendant who is still on the ground , on his back .
Huber has a skateboard in his right hand .
When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant ’ s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant ’ s left shoulder .
Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant .
The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires one round which can be heard on the video .
Huber staggers away , taking several steps , then collapses to the ground .
Huber subsequently died from this gunshot wound .
After shooting Huber , the defendant moves to a seated position and points his gun at a third male , later identified as Gaige Grosskreutz , who had begun to approach the defendant .
When the defendant shot Huber , Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back .
Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air .
Grosskreutz then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him , firing 1 shot .
Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm .
Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot .
Grosskreutz then runs southbound away from the defendant screaming for a medic and the defendant gets up and starts walking northbound .
The defendant turns around facing southbound while walking backwards northbound with his firearm in a ready position , pointed towards the people in the roadway .
I ’ m not an attorney , but none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressor , and in fact it appears that he was trying to flee from his pursuers before the first shots were fired .
We ’ ll see what the D.A.
’ s office says today in Rittenhouse ’ s first court hearing , but I suspect that their case is going to revolve around the argument that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha intent on murdering demonstrators or vandals , and therefore the fact that he was being chased is irrelevant .
Even if Rittenhouse broke the law in bringing his rifle to Kenosha , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act in self-defense .
It doesn ’ t get him off the hook for any firearm violations , but it also doesn ’ t remove his legal right to protect himself .
I was hoping that the prosecutor ’ s statement of probable cause would provide more answers about the charges that Rittenhouse is facing , but for me anyway the statement raised more questions than answers .
I still believe that Rittenhouse made a mistake by traveling to Kenosha that night , but based on the evidence that prosecutors have released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused about the charges of first-degree murder filed against the teenager .
If there are any criminal defense attorneys or former prosecutors out there who want to provide their perspective , feel free to reach out to me on Twitter .
I ’ d love to hear what others have to say .

17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse is set to make his first court appearance in Lake County, Wisconsin today on two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and several other charges, including illegal possession of the AR-15 that the teen brought with him to Kenosha from his home in Antioch, Illinois on Tuesday of this week.
I’ve tried very hard to keep an open mind about the charges that Rittenhouse is facing since they’ve been announced. Yes, the videos that have been released appear to show Rittenhouse as the victim of an attempted assault, not the initial aggressor, but given the charges, I assumed that prosecutors and police were sitting on some details or evidence that wasn’t caught on camera in the moments before the first shots were fired.
Having read the probable cause statement filed by Lake County Assistant D.A. Carli McNeill, I’m left with even more questions about why Rittenhouse is facing first degree murder charges, because the prosecutor’s own report would seem to indicate that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense as his attorney claims (Note: some NSFW language appears below).
In the course of investigating this incident, law enforcement reviewed and shared with your complainant multiple videos that appeared to be recorded on cell phones. In the first video, a male who was later identified to be Kyle H. Rittenhouse.. is running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot. The defendant is a resident of Antioch, IL. The defendant can clearly be seen holding a long gun, which was later recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle. The recovered magazine for this rifle holds 30 rounds of ammunition. Following the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis, a reporter. The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “Fuck you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.
The plastic bag that was thrown at Rittenhouse appeared to be on fire when it was thrown, and the videos that have been released sure look like there was something in that plastic bag. Was it a Molotov cocktail that failed to ignite as some have suggested? The probable cause statement doesn’t say, but it also leaves out the fact that at least one shot was fired from another demonstrator as Rittenhouse was running across the parking lot pursued by Rosenbaum, as the New York Times pointed out in their timeline of the shootings.
The probable cause statement quotes Richard McGinnis, a Daily Caller reporter, who told authorities it looked like Rosenbaum was going for Rittenhouse’s rifle when he was shot.
Before the shooting, McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained medic. McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well. McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant. McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals. McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder. McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession. McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot. McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun. Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
So, according to prosecutors themselves, Rittenhouse was trying to get away from Rosenbaum, who had started to come after the teenager. Other demonstrators then joined in the pursuit of Rittenhouse, who fired after Rosenbaum reached for the barrel of the gun. That sounds more like a description of someone acting in self-defense than 1st-degree murder to me.
After Rosenbaum was shot, prosecutors say Rittenhouse made a phone call to someone saying that he had killed someone, and then began running from the scene as others pursued him.
A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Beat him up!” Another person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Hey, he shot him!” Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound. In this video a person can be heard yelling, “Get him! Get that dude!” Then a male in a light-colored top runs towards the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm. This swing makes contact with the defendant, knocking his hat off. The defendant continues to run northbound. On the video a male can be heard saying something to the effect of, “What’d he do?” Another male can be heard responding something to the effect of, “Just shot someone.” Then a male can be heard yelling, “Get his ass!” The defendant then trips and falls to the ground.
Once Rittenhouse fell to the ground, he was approached by several individuals.
As the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light colored pants jumps at and over the defendant. Based on the sounds of gunshots on the video and the positioning of the defendant’s gun, it appears that he fires two shots in quick succession at this person. It appears that that person was not hit as he then runs away from the defendant. A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant who is still on the ground, on his back. Huber has a skateboard in his right hand. When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant’s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant’s left shoulder. Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant. The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground. Huber subsequently died from this gunshot wound. After shooting Huber, the defendant moves to a seated position and points his gun at a third male, later identified as Gaige Grosskreutz, who had begun to approach the defendant. When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot. Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm. Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot. Grosskreutz then runs southbound away from the defendant screaming for a medic and the defendant gets up and starts walking northbound. The defendant turns around facing southbound while walking backwards northbound with his firearm in a ready position, pointed towards the people in the roadway.
I’m not an attorney, but none of that sounds like Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor, and in fact it appears that he was trying to flee from his pursuers before the first shots were fired. We’ll see what the D.A.’s office says today in Rittenhouse’s first court hearing, but I suspect that their case is going to revolve around the argument that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha intent on murdering demonstrators or vandals, and therefore the fact that he was being chased is irrelevant.
Even if Rittenhouse broke the law in bringing his rifle to Kenosha, that doesn’t negate his right to act in self-defense. It doesn’t get him off the hook for any firearm violations, but it also doesn’t remove his legal right to protect himself. I was hoping that the prosecutor’s statement of probable cause would provide more answers about the charges that Rittenhouse is facing, but for me anyway the statement raised more questions than answers.
I still believe that Rittenhouse made a mistake by traveling to Kenosha that night, but based on the evidence that prosecutors have released so far, I’m still confused about the charges of first-degree murder filed against the teenager. If there are any criminal defense attorneys or former prosecutors out there who want to provide their perspective, feel free to reach out to me on Twitter. I’d love to hear what others have to say.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Long-Time Anti-Gunner Now Running As Pro-Gun

Democrats like to tell us that the United States is decidedly pro-gun control , that they ’ re thirsting for it as never before .
They ’ ll claim it ’ s because Americans have realized we have an epidemic of violence that doesn ’ t exist .
We , on the other hand , claim that those polls are the result of an American public that ’ s been lied to and doesn ’ t realize what laws are actually on the books already .
However , if gun control is the future , why is a long-time anti-gunner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana Democratic Senate nominee Steve Bullock is campaigning as a fighter for gun rights despite his past support for strict new gun-control laws—a record that earned him an “ F ” rating from the National Rifle Association .
“ I believe in our individual right to bear arms , ” Bullock said in a recent ad , which featured pictures of him hunting .
“ I took on Democrats in Washington to defend it.
” Bullock , a two-term governor , expressed support for universal background checks in the ad .
He failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of other gun-control proposals—including a ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons .
Bullock has flip-flopped on gun issues over the years .
Though he previously opposed new gun-control measures like universal background checks during his 2016 gubernatorial reelection campaign , he embraced restrictions when he launched his failed presidential campaign .
The Bullock campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the ad or the candidate ’ s shift on the issue .
Either Bullock has had a real conversion or he ’ s an opportunistic candidate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get him the most votes .
Now , universal background checks–which , as noted above , he supported in the ad–are supported by some on the right .
Often , it ’ s because they ’ re not up on Second Amendment issues and don ’ t realize what kind of a clusterflop universal background checks actually are .
Yet because of that limited support , Bullock figured he could embrace it safely .
That ’ s not particularly pro-gun , though , now is it ?
I suspect Bullock doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He only cares about what can get him elected to another office .
After his presidential bid went completely off the rails–I ’ d forgotten he even ran , he made that little impression on anyone–he had to look somewhere else .
While gun control would play well with the liberal base for a presidential election , it wouldn ’ t do well with the good people of Montana .
So , he decided to flip flop yet again and pretend to be pro-gun .
That ’ s my guess , anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with anyone who will defend our right to keep and bear arms .
I don ’ t care what their political ideology is otherwise , if they support the right to keep and bear arms , I ’ ll back them .
However , I have to actually believe them , and with Bullock , he ’ s flipped back and forth so much , I don ’ t see how anyone can believe him about anything at all .
If you want to back Bullock , be my guest , but don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington and ends up voting with the rest of his party .

Democrats like to tell us that the United States is decidedly pro-gun control, that they’re thirsting for it as never before. They’ll claim it’s because Americans have realized we have an epidemic of violence that doesn’t exist. We, on the other hand, claim that those polls are the result of an American public that’s been lied to and doesn’t realize what laws are actually on the books already.
However, if gun control is the future, why is a long-time anti-gunner now trying to run as pro-gun?
Montana Democratic Senate nominee Steve Bullock is campaigning as a fighter for gun rights despite his past support for strict new gun-control laws—a record that earned him an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association. “I believe in our individual right to bear arms,” Bullock said in a recent ad, which featured pictures of him hunting. “I took on Democrats in Washington to defend it.” Bullock, a two-term governor, expressed support for universal background checks in the ad. He failed to mention his past support for a range of other gun-control proposals—including a ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons. Bullock has flip-flopped on gun issues over the years. Though he previously opposed new gun-control measures like universal background checks during his 2016 gubernatorial reelection campaign, he embraced restrictions when he launched his failed presidential campaign. … The Bullock campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the ad or the candidate’s shift on the issue.
Either Bullock has had a real conversion or he’s an opportunistic candidate who will shift to whatever he believes will get him the most votes. Now, universal background checks–which, as noted above, he supported in the ad–are supported by some on the right. Often, it’s because they’re not up on Second Amendment issues and don’t realize what kind of a clusterflop universal background checks actually are. Yet because of that limited support, Bullock figured he could embrace it safely.
That’s not particularly pro-gun, though, now is it?
I suspect Bullock doesn’t actually care about anyone’s rights. He only cares about what can get him elected to another office. After his presidential bid went completely off the rails–I’d forgotten he even ran, he made that little impression on anyone–he had to look somewhere else. While gun control would play well with the liberal base for a presidential election, it wouldn’t do well with the good people of Montana.
So, he decided to flip flop yet again and pretend to be pro-gun. That’s my guess, anyway.
Personally, I’ll side with anyone who will defend our right to keep and bear arms. I don’t care what their political ideology is otherwise, if they support the right to keep and bear arms, I’ll back them. However, I have to actually believe them, and with Bullock, he’s flipped back and forth so much, I don’t see how anyone can believe him about anything at all.
If you want to back Bullock, be my guest, but don’t be surprised if he gets to Washington and ends up voting with the rest of his party.


bearingarms--2020-08-29--Santa Clara Sheriff Took The Fifth In Grand Jury Probe Over Carry Permits

So far five people have been charged in a bribery scheme centered around the issuance of concealed carry licenses by the Santa Clara County , California sheriff ’ s department , but for now Sheriff Laurie Smith herself has not been formally accused of any crime .
Just how much did the sheriff know about the scheme , which involved applicants making hefty donations to a campaign committee for the sheriff ’ s re-election ?
Neither Smith nor her second-in-command , Undersheriff Rick Sung have made any public statements about the case , but on Friday , local news site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaked to local press .
It turns out that Smith and Sung didn ’ t exactly offer up a strong defense when they testified in the probe .
Instead of providing answers , the pair invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with every question asked by the proscutor .
When Deputy District Attorney John Chase asked her what she does for a living , Smith told him she ’ s worked for the Sheriff ’ s Office for 47 years .
Before he could even get to asking about the gun permits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career .
“ Sir , under Article 1 of the California Constitution , Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me , ” she said , cutting herself off abruptly .
Though absent from the transcript , witnesses to the proceeding say that ’ s when Smith , visibly overcome with emotion , paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes .
“ That ’ s fine , ” Chase assured , allowing her a moment to regain composure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no rush here .
We are not in a rush.
” Smith picked up where she left off “ … and Evidence Code 940 , ” she continued .
“ I assert my privilege against self-incrimination .
Therefore , I ’ m declining to answer your questions.
” When Sung took the witness stand , he too declined to answer any of the inquiries by Chase .
According to the San Jose Mercury News , attorneys for the sheriff and her second-in-command have suggested that their clients shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her attorney , Allen Ruby , emphasized that Smith has not been charged with any wrongdoing and said the opaque nature of the grand jury process should invite skepticism .
“ If there was a so-called investigation for a year or more , why wasn ’ t there something yielded that was more appropriate for a public forum ?
” Ruby said .
“ The sheriff has not been even accused of anything .
I think there is a particular need to be cautious of drawing conclusions from a proceeding that is conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights based upon my advice , based upon my understanding of the case .
It was the wisest course for him to take , ” Chuck Smith said Friday .
He also defended Sung against being implicated by association with the case .
“ He was subpoenaed as a witness .
Not as a suspect , not as a target of the grand jury , ” Chuck Smith said .
“ Based upon that , I don ’ t believe he ’ s culpable of any wrongdoing.
” If Sung was subpoenaed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination ?
What might he have said that could have incriminated himself in the case ?
As for Smith herself , it ’ s true that she ’ s not been charged with any wrongdoing… yet .
The purpose of the grand jury probe is to investigate the allegations that campaign donations would result in approvals of concealed carry licenses in the county , and the D.A .
has said that the case remains active , which means that charges could still be forthcoming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment right is not an admission of guilt , but let ’ s look at the facts here , as reported by the Mercury News .
To date , conspiracy and bribery-related indictments were leveled against sheriff ’ s Capt .
James Jensen ; Christopher Schumb , a South Bay litigator and assistant treasurer of the Santa Clara County Public Safety Alliance that backed Laurie Smith ’ s re-election in 2018 ; attorney Harpaul Nahal ; and Milpitas gun maker Michael Nichols .
Similar charges were filed last week against Christian West , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solution .
Prosecutors allege that Schumb , Nahal , Nichols , West and uncharged co-conspirator Martin Nielsen schemed to get $ 90,000 in third-party donations to the Public Safety Alliance and another group supporting Smith ’ s re-election two years ago so that AS Solution , which was run by West and had Nielsen managing executive protection for Facebook , could acquire up to a dozen concealed-carry weapons permits from the sheriff ’ s office .
Sheriff Smith is ultimately the sole person with the authority to approve concealed carry applications in Santa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unreasonable for the average person to wonder if Sheriff Smith had any involvement in the pay-to-carry scheme , given that third party committees supporting her re-election campaign were the primary beneficiaries of the bribes .
Invoking the Fifth Amendment may have been sound legal advice in a court of law , but in the court of public opinion , it ’ s sure to raise even more questions than the ones she ’ s so far refused to answer .

So far five people have been charged in a bribery scheme centered around the issuance of concealed carry licenses by the Santa Clara County, California sheriff’s department, but for now Sheriff Laurie Smith herself has not been formally accused of any crime. Just how much did the sheriff know about the scheme, which involved applicants making hefty donations to a campaign committee for the sheriff’s re-election?
Neither Smith nor her second-in-command, Undersheriff Rick Sung have made any public statements about the case, but on Friday, local news site San Jose Inside published grand jury testimony leaked to local press. It turns out that Smith and Sung didn’t exactly offer up a strong defense when they testified in the probe. Instead of providing answers, the pair invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with every question asked by the proscutor.
When Deputy District Attorney John Chase asked her what she does for a living, Smith told him she’s worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 47 years. Before he could even get to asking about the gun permits, known as CCWs, she invoked her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career. “Sir, under Article 1 of the California Constitution, Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me,” she said, cutting herself off abruptly. Though absent from the transcript, witnesses to the proceeding say that’s when Smith, visibly overcome with emotion, paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes. “That’s fine,” Chase assured, allowing her a moment to regain composure. “Take your time, sheriff. There is no rush here. We are not in a rush.” Smith picked up where she left off “… and Evidence Code 940,” she continued. “I assert my privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, I’m declining to answer your questions.”
When Sung took the witness stand, he too declined to answer any of the inquiries by Chase. According to the San Jose Mercury News, attorneys for the sheriff and her second-in-command have suggested that their clients shouldn’t be considered suspects in the probe.
Her attorney, Allen Ruby, emphasized that Smith has not been charged with any wrongdoing and said the opaque nature of the grand jury process should invite skepticism. “If there was a so-called investigation for a year or more, why wasn’t there something yielded that was more appropriate for a public forum?” Ruby said. “The sheriff has not been even accused of anything. I think there is a particular need to be cautious of drawing conclusions from a proceeding that is conducted in secret.” Sung’s attorney, Chuck Smith, offered similar comments. “He asserted his rights based upon my advice, based upon my understanding of the case. It was the wisest course for him to take,” Chuck Smith said Friday. He also defended Sung against being implicated by association with the case. “He was subpoenaed as a witness. Not as a suspect, not as a target of the grand jury,” Chuck Smith said. “Based upon that, I don’t believe he’s culpable of any wrongdoing.”
If Sung was subpoenaed as a witness, then why did he need to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? What might he have said that could have incriminated himself in the case?
As for Smith herself, it’s true that she’s not been charged with any wrongdoing… yet. The purpose of the grand jury probe is to investigate the allegations that campaign donations would result in approvals of concealed carry licenses in the county, and the D.A. has said that the case remains active, which means that charges could still be forthcoming.
I do understand that invoking your Fifth Amendment right is not an admission of guilt, but let’s look at the facts here, as reported by the Mercury News.
To date, conspiracy and bribery-related indictments were leveled against sheriff’s Capt. James Jensen; Christopher Schumb, a South Bay litigator and assistant treasurer of the Santa Clara County Public Safety Alliance that backed Laurie Smith’s re-election in 2018; attorney Harpaul Nahal; and Milpitas gun maker Michael Nichols. Similar charges were filed last week against Christian West, former CEO of executive security firm AS Solution. Prosecutors allege that Schumb, Nahal, Nichols, West and uncharged co-conspirator Martin Nielsen schemed to get $90,000 in third-party donations to the Public Safety Alliance and another group supporting Smith’s re-election two years ago so that AS Solution, which was run by West and had Nielsen managing executive protection for Facebook, could acquire up to a dozen concealed-carry weapons permits from the sheriff’s office.
Sheriff Smith is ultimately the sole person with the authority to approve concealed carry applications in Santa Clara County. It’s not unreasonable for the average person to wonder if Sheriff Smith had any involvement in the pay-to-carry scheme, given that third party committees supporting her re-election campaign were the primary beneficiaries of the bribes. Invoking the Fifth Amendment may have been sound legal advice in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, it’s sure to raise even more questions than the ones she’s so far refused to answer.


bearingarms--2020-08-29--Portland Police, Experts Disagree On Addressing Violence

Portland is an odd place , even in the best of times .
These ain ’ t the best of times .
Instead , on top of regular riots surrounding the federal courthouse , you ’ ve got a surge in violent crime like in many other large cities across the country .
While protestors are demanding the city defund the police , officers are pointing out that defunding them is having an adverse effect on the public .
In particular , the disbanding of the Gun Violence Reduction Team Unsurprisingly , a number of supposed “ experts ” are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say [ people are ] more emboldened , maybe , to be out with guns , ” PPB Chief Chuck Lovell said at a press conference earlier this month .
“ They know there ’ s not someone watching .
There ’ s no real deterrent there .
And I think that ’ s part of the issue that ’ s causing us to see the spike we have in July.
” But local experts who study gun violence through the lenses of criminology , criminal justice , and public health say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliberate politicization at worst .
They say July ’ s homicide and shooting numbers likely were caused by a confluence of different factors—and that it ’ s far too soon to draw any hard conclusions from them .
Mark Leymon , an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Portland State University ( PSU ) , told the Mercury that there ’ s “ absolutely no evidence ” that the recent disbanding of GVRT contributed to July ’ s numbers .
When asked what the likely cause was , Leymon cautioned it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” whether July ’ s numbers qualify as a sustained spike in violent crime.But , he said , “ The single most predictive measure of criminal activity is the economy.
” The COVID-19 pandemic has caused record unemployment numbers in Oregon—and as Brian Renauer , the director of PSU ’ s Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute , pointed out , economic anxiety was “ already there ” for Portlanders who never recovered from the 2008 Great Recession .
“ It was already impacting certain areas and geographies of the city for a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There are places and families that have never recovered from a prior economic crisis.
” I wouldn ’ t say there ’ s no evidence that it contributed .
I ’ d agree that the evidence isn ’ t particularly strong , but much of that is because academics like Leymon haven ’ t actually studied what ’ s taking place .
Now , I ’ ll concede that economics tends to have an impact on gun violence , but Portland is also just one city .
Violence is increasing all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities have recovered from 2008 , at least to some extent , and they ’ re seeing an influx in violence as well .
That tells me there ’ s more to it than the academics are saying .
Then again , colleges and universities tend to prefer to hire people with certain biases .
Put frankly , they want leftist yes men to fill every slot they can , which means you have to look at anything coming out of these “ experts ” with a certain degree of skepticism .
Between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground , I ’ m inclined to listen to the cops on something like this .
They ’ re in the field and see what ’ s going on .
It ’ s not an abstract idea to them , so they ’ re damn sure worth listening to .
For academics , though , they ’ re just bits of data that can be manipulated or ignored , kind of like what ’ s happening here .

Portland is an odd place, even in the best of times. These ain’t the best of times.
Instead, on top of regular riots surrounding the federal courthouse, you’ve got a surge in violent crime like in many other large cities across the country. While protestors are demanding the city defund the police, officers are pointing out that defunding them is having an adverse effect on the public.
In particular, the disbanding of the Gun Violence Reduction Team
Unsurprisingly, a number of supposed “experts” are claiming otherwise.
“I’d say [people are] more emboldened, maybe, to be out with guns,” PPB Chief Chuck Lovell said at a press conference earlier this month. “They know there’s not someone watching. There’s no real deterrent there. And I think that’s part of the issue that’s causing us to see the spike we have in July.” … But local experts who study gun violence through the lenses of criminology, criminal justice, and public health say that argument is exaggerated at best, and deliberate politicization at worst. They say July’s homicide and shooting numbers likely were caused by a confluence of different factors—and that it’s far too soon to draw any hard conclusions from them. Mark Leymon, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Portland State University (PSU), told the Mercury that there’s “absolutely no evidence” that the recent disbanding of GVRT contributed to July’s numbers. When asked what the likely cause was, Leymon cautioned it’s “too early to tell” whether July’s numbers qualify as a sustained spike in violent crime.But, he said, “The single most predictive measure of criminal activity is the economy.” The COVID-19 pandemic has caused record unemployment numbers in Oregon—and as Brian Renauer, the director of PSU’s Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute, pointed out, economic anxiety was “already there” for Portlanders who never recovered from the 2008 Great Recession. “It was already impacting certain areas and geographies of the city for a number of years,” Renauer said. “There are places and families that have never recovered from a prior economic crisis.”
I wouldn’t say there’s no evidence that it contributed. I’d agree that the evidence isn’t particularly strong, but much of that is because academics like Leymon haven’t actually studied what’s taking place.
Now, I’ll concede that economics tends to have an impact on gun violence, but Portland is also just one city. Violence is increasing all over the place and a lot of other cities have recovered from 2008, at least to some extent, and they’re seeing an influx in violence as well.
That tells me there’s more to it than the academics are saying.
Then again, colleges and universities tend to prefer to hire people with certain biases. Put frankly, they want leftist yes men to fill every slot they can, which means you have to look at anything coming out of these “experts” with a certain degree of skepticism.
Between academics and the people whose boots are on the ground, I’m inclined to listen to the cops on something like this. They’re in the field and see what’s going on. It’s not an abstract idea to them, so they’re damn sure worth listening to.
For academics, though, they’re just bits of data that can be manipulated or ignored, kind of like what’s happening here.


bearingarms--2020-08-30--West Philly Anti-Gun Violence March Nice In Thought, But Lacks Impact

The headline started with “ West Philadelphia ” and my mind immediately filled in with “ …born and raised .
On the playground is where I spent most of my days.
” Then again , I ’ m also telling my age on that one .
The rest of it talks about an anti-violence march , though .
This one was mostly kids .
The shootings in Philadelphia don ’ t seem to be slowing down and neither are the marches against gun violence .
Now , children are joining the movement .
Philadelphia police confirm the number of shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,300 this year .
As the nation reacts to the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Wisconsin , Philadelphia residents are hitting the streets to also say enough is enough to rising violence here in the city .
On Wednesday alone , there were 12 shootings across the city .
The number of children affected continues to rise .
“ We need kids .
Kids make the world a better place , ” one child said .
Praying for peace as they march through West Philadelphia , these children understand the implications of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not about to bag on kids .
Not when they ’ re legitimately calling for an end to something pretty much everyone thinks should come to an end .
Well , everyone except the dipsticks carrying on with the violence , anyway .
But I do have a mild issue with these kinds of protests .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong , people have a right to freedom of speech .
They can express themselves however they want and I ’ ll support their right to do it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have to say .
The problem is that for too many people , these marches are the totality of their efforts .
They honestly think these demonstrations are going to make a difference .
Worse , they ’ re telling kids that this can put a stop to it .
Folks , there ’ s not a single person on Earth who will change their actions based on an anti-gun violence protest says .
Not a single gang-banger or mafia enforcer is going to stop on the way to murder someone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change of heart .
Not a one .
Instead , much of the energy devoted to this would be better served getting down into the nitty-gritty of what causes people to seek out lifestyles that lead to violence .
Make no mistake , most of this is lifestyle-based .
It ’ s cultural in many ways .
Working to change that would create more good than all of the marches out there .
What marches do , however , is allow people to virtue signal about how anti-violence they are without them actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can be “ good citizens ” while routinely ignoring the poverty around them or the cultural markers of violence that they either ignore or even profit off of .
You want to end violence ?
Great , so does everyone else , but if you really mean it , it ’ s time to stop rallying children and to start actually getting your hands dirty by undermining the structures that have led to that violence in the first place .

The headline started with “West Philadelphia” and my mind immediately filled in with “…born and raised. On the playground is where I spent most of my days.” Then again, I’m also telling my age on that one.
The rest of it talks about an anti-violence march, though. This one was mostly kids.
The shootings in Philadelphia don’t seem to be slowing down and neither are the marches against gun violence. Now, children are joining the movement. Philadelphia police confirm the number of shooting victims in the city is fast approaching 1,300 this year. As the nation reacts to the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Wisconsin, Philadelphia residents are hitting the streets to also say enough is enough to rising violence here in the city. On Wednesday alone, there were 12 shootings across the city. The number of children affected continues to rise. “We need kids. Kids make the world a better place,” one child said. Praying for peace as they march through West Philadelphia, these children understand the implications of gun violence.
Look, I’m not about to bag on kids. Not when they’re legitimately calling for an end to something pretty much everyone thinks should come to an end. Well, everyone except the dipsticks carrying on with the violence, anyway.
But I do have a mild issue with these kinds of protests.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, people have a right to freedom of speech. They can express themselves however they want and I’ll support their right to do it, even if I disagree with virtually everything they have to say.
The problem is that for too many people, these marches are the totality of their efforts. They honestly think these demonstrations are going to make a difference. Worse, they’re telling kids that this can put a stop to it.
Folks, there’s not a single person on Earth who will change their actions based on an anti-gun violence protest says. Not a single gang-banger or mafia enforcer is going to stop on the way to murder someone, see a protest, and have a change of heart. Not a one.
Instead, much of the energy devoted to this would be better served getting down into the nitty-gritty of what causes people to seek out lifestyles that lead to violence. Make no mistake, most of this is lifestyle-based. It’s cultural in many ways. Working to change that would create more good than all of the marches out there.
What marches do, however, is allow people to virtue signal about how anti-violence they are without them actually having to do much of anything substantial. They can be “good citizens” while routinely ignoring the poverty around them or the cultural markers of violence that they either ignore or even profit off of.
You want to end violence? Great, so does everyone else, but if you really mean it, it’s time to stop rallying children and to start actually getting your hands dirty by undermining the structures that have led to that violence in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--CA Man Found "Factually Innocent" Of Violating Mag Ban

For a very tiny window of time in recent history , larger-capacity magazines were perfectly legal in California .
It wasn ’ t long , unfortunately , but it was there .
While I expect that time to come again , until it does , it was a beautiful time for Californians who could take advantage of the situation .
However , with a window that tiny , it seemed inevitable that someone would either screw up just slightly–ordering it a day or even an hour too late–or else someone would get prosecuted for a lawful purchase .
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice prevailed .
The Tulare County District Attorney ’ s Office filed a felony charge against 27-year-old Pheng Yang in March after sheriff ’ s deputies found a 15-round magazine in his bedroom .
But Yang ’ s attorney claimed that Yang bought the magazine legally during a period of time in 2019 that has come to be known as Freedom Week .
At that time , a U.S. District Court judge ruled that California ’ s high-capacity magazine ban was unconstitutional and shouldn ’ t be enforced .
A buying spree ensued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided the ban should continue to be enforced while the case was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals .
The Freedom Week argument worked for Yang , because in June , a Tulare County judge dismissed the case against him .
This prosecution shouldn ’ t have happened , of course , but it did .
Luckily , Yang is free to go about his life rather than facing a felony conviction , but I can ’ t help but wonder what happens in a couple of years if someone else has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a perfect world , it won ’ t matter because the ban was fully overturned and the Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional , thus ending this stupidity once and for all .
Unfortunately , we don ’ t live in a perfect world .
We live in this one .
As things stand , it ’ s still illegal to buy such a magazine in California .
Those who bought one or more may well find themselves having to justify their ownership in a court of law .
This does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on opportunities like Freedom Week .
I ’ m not saying don ’ t take advantage of it .
Not by a longshot .
I ’ m simply saying that it might be a good idea to step up your recordkeeping efforts .
Hold onto credit card receipts , emails from when you ordered the magazines , shipping invoices , any piece of documentation you can think of to prove when those magazines were ordered .
After all , it ’ s clear that the police in an anti-gun state like California aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so make the prosecution ’ s case as impossible as you can .
Meanwhile , those law-abiding people are stuck with the relatively few magazines they could buy during that time period while criminals are buying them left and right without any regard to the law whatsoever .
Funny how that shakes out , but such is life .
But all this can go away .
All we need to do is overturn a very bad law and put an end to this kind of thing even being remotely possible .

For a very tiny window of time in recent history, larger-capacity magazines were perfectly legal in California. It wasn’t long, unfortunately, but it was there. While I expect that time to come again, until it does, it was a beautiful time for Californians who could take advantage of the situation.
However, with a window that tiny, it seemed inevitable that someone would either screw up just slightly–ordering it a day or even an hour too late–or else someone would get prosecuted for a lawful purchase.
Well, it seems someone did. Luckily, justice prevailed.
A South Valley judge has declared a man factually innocent of illegally buying a high capacity ammunition magazine. The Tulare County District Attorney’s Office filed a felony charge against 27-year-old Pheng Yang in March after sheriff’s deputies found a 15-round magazine in his bedroom. But Yang’s attorney claimed that Yang bought the magazine legally during a period of time in 2019 that has come to be known as Freedom Week. At that time, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that California’s high-capacity magazine ban was unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. A buying spree ensued across the state, until the judge decided the ban should continue to be enforced while the case was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Freedom Week argument worked for Yang, because in June, a Tulare County judge dismissed the case against him.
This prosecution shouldn’t have happened, of course, but it did. Luckily, Yang is free to go about his life rather than facing a felony conviction, but I can’t help but wonder what happens in a couple of years if someone else has been found with a larger-capacity magazine.
In a perfect world, it won’t matter because the ban was fully overturned and the Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional, thus ending this stupidity once and for all.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in this one.
As things stand, it’s still illegal to buy such a magazine in California. Those who bought one or more may well find themselves having to justify their ownership in a court of law.
This does remind us to be careful when jumping on opportunities like Freedom Week. I’m not saying don’t take advantage of it. Not by a longshot. I’m simply saying that it might be a good idea to step up your recordkeeping efforts. Hold onto credit card receipts, emails from when you ordered the magazines, shipping invoices, any piece of documentation you can think of to prove when those magazines were ordered.
After all, it’s clear that the police in an anti-gun state like California aren’t going to believe you, so make the prosecution’s case as impossible as you can.
Meanwhile, those law-abiding people are stuck with the relatively few magazines they could buy during that time period while criminals are buying them left and right without any regard to the law whatsoever. Funny how that shakes out, but such is life.
But all this can go away. All we need to do is overturn a very bad law and put an end to this kind of thing even being remotely possible.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--TN State Senate Candidate Blames Opponent For Guns In Parks

It ’ s not unusual for candidates for public office to blame their opponents for every manner of evil in their communities .
This is how the game has been played for centuries .
In fact , if you want to get blamed for stuff you didn ’ t do , simply run for office .
But those attempts to blame someone ring awfully hollow when you know damn good and well that it ’ s from someone who should know better .
A prime example of that is a Tennessee state senatorial candidate in Chattanooga .
Democratic state Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police chief , says it was irresponsible for incumbent Republican Sen. Todd Gardenhire to vote in support of a 2015 law allowing Tennesseans with state-issued handgun permits to go armed in parks .
In a video on his Twitter feed , Scruggs refers to a rally last weekend in Chattanooga ’ s Coolidge Park where , he said , “ folks were walking around with rifles out and pistols exposed .
“ Coolidge Park — the same park where I take my son Jalen to play .
The same park where you take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , ” Scruggs said .
“ The imagery of that , the thought of me playing football and playing around with Jalen and looking over my shoulder and seeing armed people walk down the sidewalks with rifles and pistols out , I know it upset my family because we talked about it .
I know many of you were upset as well .
“ Someone thought that was a great idea .
And they passed it through the General Assembly and a bunch of senators up there voted for it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Haslam signed the measure into law .
“ One of those senators who helped that become a law was our current senator , Todd Gardenhire .
Todd voted to allow folks the ability to walk through public parks with rifles out .
Who thought that was a great idea ?
It was irresponsible then , it is irresponsible now , ” Scruggs said .
Now , Gardenhire told the Times Free Press in an interview , “ I can ’ t believe that an assistant chief of police would do anything to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights .
That ’ s unconscionable .
I mean , the law-abiding citizens aren ’ t the problem .
The criminals aren ’ t going to show their guns.
” Scruggs should know damn good and well that those walking around with firearms openly displayed are rarely the issue .
They ’ re ordinary , law-abiding citizens with nothing to fear from police because they ’ re ordinary , law-abiding citizens .
They represent zero problems .
In fact , Scruggs mentions seeing people , but you know what he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there being any crimes or bad behavior by those openly carrying firearms in that park .
Why , it ’ s almost like those who comply with the law aren ’ t really the problem .
The truth of the matter is that criminals will carry guns wherever they want regardless of the law .
Allowing the carry of firearms in parks and such doesn ’ t empower them , it empowers those ordinary , law-abiding citizens who can now carry a firearm to meet those threats .
Scruggs , a police officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , clearly , he doesn ’ t .

It’s not unusual for candidates for public office to blame their opponents for every manner of evil in their communities. This is how the game has been played for centuries. In fact, if you want to get blamed for stuff you didn’t do, simply run for office.
But those attempts to blame someone ring awfully hollow when you know damn good and well that it’s from someone who should know better.
A prime example of that is a Tennessee state senatorial candidate in Chattanooga.
Democratic state Senate candidate Glenn Scruggs, an assistant Chattanooga police chief, says it was irresponsible for incumbent Republican Sen. Todd Gardenhire to vote in support of a 2015 law allowing Tennesseans with state-issued handgun permits to go armed in parks. In a video on his Twitter feed, Scruggs refers to a rally last weekend in Chattanooga’s Coolidge Park where, he said, “folks were walking around with rifles out and pistols exposed. “Coolidge Park — the same park where I take my son Jalen to play. The same park where you take your families to play and enjoy themselves as well,” Scruggs said. “The imagery of that, the thought of me playing football and playing around with Jalen and looking over my shoulder and seeing armed people walk down the sidewalks with rifles and pistols out, I know it upset my family because we talked about it. I know many of you were upset as well. “Someone thought that was a great idea. And they passed it through the General Assembly and a bunch of senators up there voted for it,” Scruggs said, noting then-Gov. Bill Haslam signed the measure into law. “One of those senators who helped that become a law was our current senator, Todd Gardenhire. Todd voted to allow folks the ability to walk through public parks with rifles out. Who thought that was a great idea? It was irresponsible then, it is irresponsible now,” Scruggs said.
Now, Gardenhire told the Times Free Press in an interview, “I can’t believe that an assistant chief of police would do anything to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. That’s unconscionable. I mean, the law-abiding citizens aren’t the problem. The criminals aren’t going to show their guns.”
Honestly, Gardenhire is right.
Scruggs should know damn good and well that those walking around with firearms openly displayed are rarely the issue. They’re ordinary, law-abiding citizens with nothing to fear from police because they’re ordinary, law-abiding citizens. They represent zero problems.
In fact, Scruggs mentions seeing people, but you know what he doesn’t mention? He says nothing of there being any crimes or bad behavior by those openly carrying firearms in that park.
Why, it’s almost like those who comply with the law aren’t really the problem.
The truth of the matter is that criminals will carry guns wherever they want regardless of the law. Allowing the carry of firearms in parks and such doesn’t empower them, it empowers those ordinary, law-abiding citizens who can now carry a firearm to meet those threats. Scruggs, a police officer, should already understand that.
But, clearly, he doesn’t.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--Amid A Deepening Divide, Diversity Shoot Aims For Common Ground

I ’ ve long held that the Second Amendment has perhaps the biggest tent in U.S. politics , with gun owners of all backgrounds and ideology supporting their right to keep and bear arms .
Is that still the case these days , though ?
Sure , you can still find growing numbers of gun owners across the political spectrum , but are we able to come together to defend our Second Amendment rights , or has the deepening cultural and political divide in the United States driven gun owners apart as well ?
DiversityShoot.com founder Tony Simon joins me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cam & Co. to talk his efforts to ensure that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters of all walks of life can still come together in these days of growing conflict .
Ordinarily , Simon ’ s Diversity Shoots take place at the Gun 4 Hire range in Woodland Park , New Jersey , just a few miles from the NYC skyline .
The events , which typically are held every other month , are an opportunity for gun owners and those interested in purchasing a firearm to get together regardless of race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology .
Since the coronavirus hit New Jersey with a vengeance earlier this year , however , it ’ s been virtually impossible for Simon to put on the shoots , since Gov .
Phil Murphy first ordered all ranges closed , and even now is limiting indoor ranges to just 25 % of their capacity .
Rather than simply fold up the big tent , Tony Simon decided instead to move the Diversity Shoots to a new location for the rest of the year , and last week the first Diversity Shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took place at the Heritage Guild in Easton , PA. Simon says there was a great crowd on hand , including a couple of women who drove all the way from Brooklyn in order to attend and shoot a gun for the first time in their lives .
While there were plenty of folks on the Left , Right , and in the middle , Simon explained that there are no politics during the Diversity Shoot itself .
The goal instead is to dispel the myth promulgated by anti-gun activists like Shannon Watts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full of angry old white guys who hate the sight of anyone who doesn ’ t look like them at the range , gun show , or firearm retailer .
Simon wants the Diversity Shoots to help demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms is for all law-abiding Americans , and while the events themselves aren ’ t political , Simon hopes that new gun owners will also eventually get involved politically to ensure that their rights are protected .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Tony Simon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing divide between the Left and the Right , and why he believes it ’ s still possible to find some common ground .
Plus , stick around afterwards for more news , including a homeowner in Iowa forced to shoot an intruder early Monday morning , a convicted child sex offender who ’ s now facing murder charges when he should have been behind bars , and an Arkansas police officer in the right place at the right time to help out a child in need .

I’ve long held that the Second Amendment has perhaps the biggest tent in U.S. politics, with gun owners of all backgrounds and ideology supporting their right to keep and bear arms. Is that still the case these days, though? Sure, you can still find growing numbers of gun owners across the political spectrum, but are we able to come together to defend our Second Amendment rights, or has the deepening cultural and political divide in the United States driven gun owners apart as well?
DiversityShoot.com founder Tony Simon joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk his efforts to ensure that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters of all walks of life can still come together in these days of growing conflict.
Ordinarily, Simon’s Diversity Shoots take place at the Gun 4 Hire range in Woodland Park, New Jersey, just a few miles from the NYC skyline. The events, which typically are held every other month, are an opportunity for gun owners and those interested in purchasing a firearm to get together regardless of race, color, creed, or political ideology. Since the coronavirus hit New Jersey with a vengeance earlier this year, however, it’s been virtually impossible for Simon to put on the shoots, since Gov. Phil Murphy first ordered all ranges closed, and even now is limiting indoor ranges to just 25% of their capacity.
Rather than simply fold up the big tent, Tony Simon decided instead to move the Diversity Shoots to a new location for the rest of the year, and last week the first Diversity Shoot outside of the state of New Jersey took place at the Heritage Guild in Easton, PA.
Simon says there was a great crowd on hand, including a couple of women who drove all the way from Brooklyn in order to attend and shoot a gun for the first time in their lives. While there were plenty of folks on the Left, Right, and in the middle, Simon explained that there are no politics during the Diversity Shoot itself. The goal instead is to dispel the myth promulgated by anti-gun activists like Shannon Watts that the Second Amendment community is chock full of angry old white guys who hate the sight of anyone who doesn’t look like them at the range, gun show, or firearm retailer.
Simon wants the Diversity Shoots to help demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms is for all law-abiding Americans, and while the events themselves aren’t political, Simon hopes that new gun owners will also eventually get involved politically to ensure that their rights are protected.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Tony Simon above, including his take on the growing divide between the Left and the Right, and why he believes it’s still possible to find some common ground. Plus, stick around afterwards for more news, including a homeowner in Iowa forced to shoot an intruder early Monday morning, a convicted child sex offender who’s now facing murder charges when he should have been behind bars, and an Arkansas police officer in the right place at the right time to help out a child in need.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--Biden Blames Everyone But The Left For The Violence In Our Cities

After ignoring the unrest and political violence that ’ s erupted in many Democratic-controlled cities for the past three months , Joe Biden finally acknowledged the chaos in a speech in Pittsburgh on Monday , but pinned the blame on Donald Trump , going all in on the idea that the only way to stop riots and looting in American cities is to vote Democrat come November .
Biden ’ s speech offered a half-hearted condemnation of the unrest by far-Left agitators , acknowledging that “ Rioting is not protesting .
Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out Antifa or Black Lives Matter by name .
Instead , he reserved his vitriol for law enforcement , the Trump administration , and American gun owners .
The Democratic presidential nominee accused President Trump of fanning the flames instead of fighting them .
He also accused the president of long ago forfeiting “ any moral leadership in this country .
He can ’ t stop the violence — because for years he has fomented it.
” Biden said the violence now isn ’ t what America would look like under him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump .
“ He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong , but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is , ” Biden said .
Joe Biden may not want to acknowledge it , but it wasn ’ t a Trump supporter or militia member who ’ s under investigation for the fatal shooting in Portland on Saturday night .
It wasn ’ t Trump supporters who were responsible for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the short-lived CHOP takeover in Seattle back in June .
And in Kenosha , Wisconsin , it ’ s clear that demonstrators on both sides were armed in Kenosha .
It ’ s not Trump supporters calling for revolution in the streets of Washington , D.C. , setting up guillotines outside of political speeches , and mobbing people eating at restaurants in our nation ’ s capital , demanding they raise a fist in solidarity or else risk the anger and rage of the mob .
Biden can ’ t mention any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that if Trump ’ s re-elected , then the violence will only continue , but not once during his speech did he actually explain why he believes that ’ s the case .
The answer appears to be obvious ; it will end because those violent actors on the Left will have gotten their way if the Biden/Harris campaign wins in November .
They won ’ t feel the need to burn down buildings , because the Democratic Party will begin burning down institutions for them .
Of course , Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heaping helping of new gun control laws that would criminalize the possession of commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines , new gun licensing laws for existing gun owners , and a host of other restrictions on our Second Amendment rights .
Perhaps Biden believes that he can ban his way to safety , but attempting to ensure peace through civilian disarmament isn ’ t going to end well .
Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats haven ’ t uttered a peep of criticism about the violence in Portland , Seattle , Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities over the past few months .
Only when the polls began reflecting increased support for Donald Trump in battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin did the Democrats decide they had to start talking tough , while placing all of the blame on the president and his supporters .
The mainstream media is sure to praise Biden ’ s speech as one for the ages , but in truth it was nothing more than an exercise in blamecasting and scapegoating .
In Biden ’ s view , the only way to return peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the White House ; not because he ’ ll offer a stronger response to the rioters and looters , but because then they ’ ll be satisfied and satiated .
If that sounds more like a form of political blackmail than real leadership to you , at least you ’ re not alone .

After ignoring the unrest and political violence that’s erupted in many Democratic-controlled cities for the past three months, Joe Biden finally acknowledged the chaos in a speech in Pittsburgh on Monday, but pinned the blame on Donald Trump, going all in on the idea that the only way to stop riots and looting in American cities is to vote Democrat come November.
Biden’s speech offered a half-hearted condemnation of the unrest by far-Left agitators, acknowledging that “Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting,” but refusing to call out Antifa or Black Lives Matter by name. Instead, he reserved his vitriol for law enforcement, the Trump administration, and American gun owners.
The Democratic presidential nominee accused President Trump of fanning the flames instead of fighting them. He also accused the president of long ago forfeiting “any moral leadership in this country. He can’t stop the violence — because for years he has fomented it.” Biden said the violence now isn’t what America would look like under him, but what America already looks like under President Trump. “He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong, but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is,” Biden said.
Joe Biden may not want to acknowledge it, but it wasn’t a Trump supporter or militia member who’s under investigation for the fatal shooting in Portland on Saturday night. It wasn’t Trump supporters who were responsible for the shootings of at least three people during the short-lived CHOP takeover in Seattle back in June. And in Kenosha, Wisconsin, it’s clear that demonstrators on both sides were armed in Kenosha.
It’s not Trump supporters calling for revolution in the streets of Washington, D.C., setting up guillotines outside of political speeches, and mobbing people eating at restaurants in our nation’s capital, demanding they raise a fist in solidarity or else risk the anger and rage of the mob.
Biden can’t mention any of this, of course. His argument is that if Trump’s re-elected, then the violence will only continue, but not once during his speech did he actually explain why he believes that’s the case. The answer appears to be obvious; it will end because those violent actors on the Left will have gotten their way if the Biden/Harris campaign wins in November. They won’t feel the need to burn down buildings, because the Democratic Party will begin burning down institutions for them.
Of course, Biden’s vision of the future also contains a heaping helping of new gun control laws that would criminalize the possession of commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines, new gun licensing laws for existing gun owners, and a host of other restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Perhaps Biden believes that he can ban his way to safety, but attempting to ensure peace through civilian disarmament isn’t going to end well.
Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats haven’t uttered a peep of criticism about the violence in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, and other deep-blue cities over the past few months. Only when the polls began reflecting increased support for Donald Trump in battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin did the Democrats decide they had to start talking tough, while placing all of the blame on the president and his supporters.
The mainstream media is sure to praise Biden’s speech as one for the ages, but in truth it was nothing more than an exercise in blamecasting and scapegoating. In Biden’s view, the only way to return peace to the streets is to return him to the White House; not because he’ll offer a stronger response to the rioters and looters, but because then they’ll be satisfied and satiated. If that sounds more like a form of political blackmail than real leadership to you, at least you’re not alone.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--Another Anti-Gun Myth Destroyed By Reality

Back in 2013 , the Kansas state legislature approved a campus carry bill that would allow legal concealed carry holders to lawfully carry on college campuses across the state , but delayed enactment of the law until 2017 .
In the weeks before the new campus carry law kicked in , anti-gun activists and academics warned that scenes from the Wild West would soon be playing out as drunken frat boys engaged in shootouts , disgruntled students would pull guns on their professors , and accidental shootings would become a new regular feature in the student union .
Some professors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a campus where firearms might be present , like these educators at Kansas State .
It ’ s been three years now since the state ’ s campus carry law took effect , and the fears of the gun control advocates haven ’ t come to pass .
Campus carry hasn ’ t turned Kansas into the Wild West .
In fact , it ’ s really been a non-issue , as the Kansas State Collegian reports : The allowance for concealed carry of handguns at Kansas State and other Kansas Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2017 .
In accordance with state law , KBOR approved this new weapons policy , and since then , there have been no direct incidents on campus involving a concealed carrier… “ Kansas State University police have no reports of policy violations or open carry incidents on campus last year , ” Bradli Millington , lieutenant with the K-State Police Department , said in an email .
Additionally , since the introduction of the campus carry policy , no traditionally alcohol-heavy events likeFake Patty ’ s Day have seen any weapon-related incidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not a plethora .
Not a flood .
According to gun control activists , this wasn ’ t supposed to happen .
We were supposed to see the streets of Manhattan , Kansas look like a scene out of Mad Max .
Instead , things have been quiet .
Those students and faculty who are legally carrying concealed on campus haven ’ t created any problems at all .
Do you think any of these professors who decided to flee the state over the supposed dangerousness of the state ’ s campus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wish , perhaps , that they had applied some of the critical thinking skills that they ’ re supposed to be teaching to students to their own situation ?
If they had , they would have quickly realized that campus carry has never been an issue in states where it ’ s legal .
Instead they bought into the lies and fear-mongering on the part of gun control groups who convinced them that anarchy was imminent with the passage of campus carry in Kansas .
They decided they simply couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so they ran away to places they believed were safer .
It turns out they should have ignored the scare tactics by Shannon Watts and her gun control-loving allies and stuck around .
The anti-gun hype over Kansas ’ campus carry law turns out to have been much ado about nothing .
Nothing , that is , except objecting to law-abiding Americans exercising their constitutional rights .

Back in 2013, the Kansas state legislature approved a campus carry bill that would allow legal concealed carry holders to lawfully carry on college campuses across the state, but delayed enactment of the law until 2017. In the weeks before the new campus carry law kicked in, anti-gun activists and academics warned that scenes from the Wild West would soon be playing out as drunken frat boys engaged in shootouts, disgruntled students would pull guns on their professors, and accidental shootings would become a new regular feature in the student union.
Some professors even retired or relocated rather than teach on a campus where firearms might be present, like these educators at Kansas State.
It’s been three years now since the state’s campus carry law took effect, and the fears of the gun control advocates haven’t come to pass. Campus carry hasn’t turned Kansas into the Wild West. In fact, it’s really been a non-issue, as the Kansas State Collegian reports:
The allowance for concealed carry of handguns at Kansas State and other Kansas Board of Regents schools began on July 1, 2017. In accordance with state law, KBOR approved this new weapons policy, and since then, there have been no direct incidents on campus involving a concealed carrier… “Kansas State University police have no reports of policy violations or open carry incidents on campus last year,” Bradli Millington, lieutenant with the K-State Police Department, said in an email. Additionally, since the introduction of the campus carry policy, no traditionally alcohol-heavy events likeFake Patty’s Day have seen any weapon-related incidents.
Zero incidents. Not a handful. Not a plethora. Not a flood.
Zero.
According to gun control activists, this wasn’t supposed to happen. We were supposed to see the streets of Manhattan, Kansas look like a scene out of Mad Max. Instead, things have been quiet. Those students and faculty who are legally carrying concealed on campus haven’t created any problems at all.
Do you think any of these professors who decided to flee the state over the supposed dangerousness of the state’s campus carry law have any regrets? Do they wish, perhaps, that they had applied some of the critical thinking skills that they’re supposed to be teaching to students to their own situation? If they had, they would have quickly realized that campus carry has never been an issue in states where it’s legal.
Instead they bought into the lies and fear-mongering on the part of gun control groups who convinced them that anarchy was imminent with the passage of campus carry in Kansas. They decided they simply couldn’t trust their colleagues or their students, so they ran away to places they believed were safer.
It turns out they should have ignored the scare tactics by Shannon Watts and her gun control-loving allies and stuck around. The anti-gun hype over Kansas’ campus carry law turns out to have been much ado about nothing. Nothing, that is, except objecting to law-abiding Americans exercising their constitutional rights.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--How Many Felons Were In That Kenosha Crowd, Anyway?

Right now , I ’ m not interested in looking at what transpired with Kyle Rittenhouse and giving it any kind of analysis as to whether he was justified or not .
Sure , he looks like he acted in self-defense , but there are potential complications that will likely be sorted out by the courts .
He ’ s got a good legal team , apparently , so we ’ ll see how that goes .
However , there are a few facts that aren ’ t really up for debate .
They ’ re hard and fast facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
In particular , that Rittenhouse shot precisely three people during the riot last week , killing two and injuring a third and that all three turned out to be convicted felons .
What are the odds of that ?
We could break down the math , but I suck at math and I don ’ t think anyone else wants to do that either .
However , the folks at Law Enforcement Today did , and they made some interesting arguments .
Right ?
I mean , if there were 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were felons , the odds of hitting just those three felons are pretty slim .
In fact , the analysis found that after the second shot , the odds dropped to 1 in 48 .
That ’ s a smidge over a two percent chance of the third person shot being a felon .
That suggests there were a whole lot more felons in that crowd .
Now , in fairness , there are a couple of factors that need to be understood here .
For one , a lot of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take part in chasing Rittenhouse down were likely non-felons but were , instead , activists who were there for the purpose of protesting or maybe even more mundane forms of rioting , if such a thing .
But the particularly violent behavior–namely chasing down an armed individual , ostensibly to take his firearm–will likely draw more felons that more garden-variety behavior .
As such , more felons are likely to be represented in this set than among rioters as a whole .
Of course , felons only make about eight percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting to see just what percentage of rioters are felons .
Regardless , though , many have called the rioters thugs , and the number of felons present in a mob chasing down an armed kid certain suggests that nomenclature to be quite correct .

Right now, I’m not interested in looking at what transpired with Kyle Rittenhouse and giving it any kind of analysis as to whether he was justified or not. Sure, he looks like he acted in self-defense, but there are potential complications that will likely be sorted out by the courts. He’s got a good legal team, apparently, so we’ll see how that goes.
However, there are a few facts that aren’t really up for debate. They’re hard and fast facts that can’t be disputed, either.
In particular, that Rittenhouse shot precisely three people during the riot last week, killing two and injuring a third and that all three turned out to be convicted felons.
What are the odds of that?
We could break down the math, but I suck at math and I don’t think anyone else wants to do that either. However, the folks at Law Enforcement Today did, and they made some interesting arguments.
While Kyle’s future is dealt with in the courts, it is interesting to look at the number of felons he shot in the context of the crowd size at the scene. It is difficult to count them because the video is too dark to easily identify when a person appears more than once because they have run into camera range, out, and then back in again. That said, the number of rioters near Rittenhouse at the two shooting locations, a parking lot and a nearby street, appear to number at least 50. Earlier video showed what appeared to be no less than 100 Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa rioters. From a statistical point of view, it is interesting that Rittenhouse fired on three people and all three happened to be felons convicted of violent offenses. Which is more likely, Rittenhouse hit all three felons in the crowd, or three of a larger number of felons? For anyone who has ever done any research that involved statistics, it is highly improbable that the three felons Rittenhouse shot were the only felons in the crowd. If they were, it is extremely unlikely he could have purposely shot all three of them while running away from a mob of around 50 people in pursuit if the remainder of the mob were non-felons. It is also highly unlikely that Rittenhouse could have fired so many bullets into a crowd without hitting a single non-felon, if significant numbers of non-felons had been present.
Right? I mean, if there were 50 people chasing Rittenhouse, and only three were felons, the odds of hitting just those three felons are pretty slim. In fact, the analysis found that after the second shot, the odds dropped to 1 in 48. That’s a smidge over a two percent chance of the third person shot being a felon.
That suggests there were a whole lot more felons in that crowd.
Now, in fairness, there are a couple of factors that need to be understood here. For one, a lot of people who might have been there but didn’t take part in chasing Rittenhouse down were likely non-felons but were, instead, activists who were there for the purpose of protesting or maybe even more mundane forms of rioting, if such a thing.
But the particularly violent behavior–namely chasing down an armed individual, ostensibly to take his firearm–will likely draw more felons that more garden-variety behavior. As such, more felons are likely to be represented in this set than among rioters as a whole.
Of course, felons only make about eight percent of the American population. It would be interesting to see just what percentage of rioters are felons.
Regardless, though, many have called the rioters thugs, and the number of felons present in a mob chasing down an armed kid certain suggests that nomenclature to be quite correct.


bearingarms--2020-08-31--Man Under Investigation For Portland Shooting Faced Earlier Gun Charge

Police haven ’ t announced any official suspects in the shooting of a member of the Patriot Prayer group in Portland , Oregon on Saturday night , but unofficially sources have told the Oregonian newspaper that they ’ re investigating a 48-year old veteran of the U.S. Army after a family member helped identify him as the person seen leaving the area in downtown Portland immediately after Aaron Danielson was shot .
48-year old Michael Forest Reinoehl describes himself on social media as “ 100 % Antifa ” and portrayed himself as a wannabe revolutionary in posts going back several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are willing and ready to fight , ” he wrote in June , comparing it to his time in the Army .
“ I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way !
I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters !
” he said , insisting he would not “ run ” from violence .
“ It will be a war and like all wars there will be casualties , ” he wrote , calling protesters and ANTIFA “ my brothers in arms.
” He also claims to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ security ” at protests , and most recently posted video of a flag being burned by a mob chanting “ F–k Trump .
Back in early July , Reinoehl was arrested at a protest in downtown Portland for illegally carrying a firearm , resisting arrest , and interfering with police , but like the vast majority of those arrested in the city ’ s protests , the charges were dropped by the Multnomah County D.A.
’ s office .
He was given a date to appear in court later that month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 with a “ no complaint , ” according to court records .
The documents don ’ t indicate why prosecutors decided not to pursue the accusations .
Reinoehl spent no time behind bars .
Brent Weisberg , a spokesman for Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt , said the office is still reviewing that July case involving Reinoehl .
Schmidt earlier Sunday decried the deadly violence .
He took office on Aug. 1 and quickly announced that he wouldn ’ t pursue low-level charges against demonstrators , such as interfering with police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t district attorney when the office handled Reinoehl ’ s gun case .
Reinoehl also has a warrant out for his arrest in connection to with an incident in eastern Oregon back in early June , after he was pulled over for racing his 17-year old son on a highway at speeds that reached more than 100 mph .
When Reinoehl was stopped , police found “ marijuana , ‘ unidentified prescription pills ’ and a loaded Glock pistol for which Reinoehl didn ’ t have a concealed handgun license , ” according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with DUI , recklessly endangering another , unlawful possession of a gun and driving while suspended and uninsured , but skipped out on his court date .
In an interview with the Oregonian , Reinoehl ’ s sister described how her brother ’ s become estranged from her family over the past few years .
“ On the one hand , this whole thing surprises the daylights out of us , because we always thought he is a lot of bark , not a lot of bite , ” she said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impulsive and irrational.
” Reinoehl has stolen their mother ’ s seizure medication and owes a lot of debt , often giving his relatives ’ addresses as his own to avoid responsibility , she said .
He has a son and daughter and is split from their mother , she said .
“ I have friends , family and loved ones on both sides of the conflict , ” Reinoehl ’ s sister said .
“ Violence begets violence and hatred begets hatred .
This is not the solution .
My heart goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has , before I even knew my brother was involved.
” Let ’ s be clear : at this point police haven ’ t officially said that Reinoehl is a suspect in Aaron Danielson ’ s murder , and even if he is charged , in the eyes of the criminal justice system he ’ s still innocent until proven guilty.. just like Kyle Rittenhouse in the shooting in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
A court of law is far different than the court of public opinion , however , and we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criticize and shame those who ’ ve tried to raise money for Rittenhouse ’ s defense .
Something tells me we ’ re about to witness a new double standard , where any statement in support of Rittenhouse is taken as support for a murderer , while support for Reinoehl will be seen as just standing up for anti-fascism .
In fact , in Portland , Antifa agitators cheered Danielson ’ s death just hours after it happened , though the media has largely ignored their response to the homicide .
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same if the ideologies of the victim and possible perpetrator were reversed ?

Police haven’t announced any official suspects in the shooting of a member of the Patriot Prayer group in Portland, Oregon on Saturday night, but unofficially sources have told the Oregonian newspaper that they’re investigating a 48-year old veteran of the U.S. Army after a family member helped identify him as the person seen leaving the area in downtown Portland immediately after Aaron Danielson was shot.
48-year old Michael Forest Reinoehl describes himself on social media as “100% Antifa” and portrayed himself as a wannabe revolutionary in posts going back several months.
“Every Revolution needs people that are willing and ready to fight,” he wrote in June, comparing it to his time in the Army. “I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters!” he said, insisting he would not “run” from violence. “It will be a war and like all wars there will be casualties,” he wrote, calling protesters and ANTIFA “my brothers in arms.” He also claims to have been hit by a rubber bullet while working “security” at protests, and most recently posted video of a flag being burned by a mob chanting “F–k Trump.
Back in early July, Reinoehl was arrested at a protest in downtown Portland for illegally carrying a firearm, resisting arrest, and interfering with police, but like the vast majority of those arrested in the city’s protests, the charges were dropped by the Multnomah County D.A.’s office.
He was given a date to appear in court later that month, but the allegations were dropped on July 30 with a “no complaint,” according to court records. The documents don’t indicate why prosecutors decided not to pursue the accusations. Reinoehl spent no time behind bars. Brent Weisberg, a spokesman for Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt, said the office is still reviewing that July case involving Reinoehl. Schmidt earlier Sunday decried the deadly violence. He took office on Aug. 1 and quickly announced that he wouldn’t pursue low-level charges against demonstrators, such as interfering with police or resisting arrest. He wasn’t district attorney when the office handled Reinoehl’s gun case.
Reinoehl also has a warrant out for his arrest in connection to with an incident in eastern Oregon back in early June, after he was pulled over for racing his 17-year old son on a highway at speeds that reached more than 100 mph. When Reinoehl was stopped, police found “marijuana, ‘unidentified prescription pills’ and a loaded Glock pistol for which Reinoehl didn’t have a concealed handgun license,” according to the Oregonian. He was charged with DUI, recklessly endangering another, unlawful possession of a gun and driving while suspended and uninsured, but skipped out on his court date.
In an interview with the Oregonian, Reinoehl’s sister described how her brother’s become estranged from her family over the past few years.
“On the one hand, this whole thing surprises the daylights out of us, because we always thought he is a lot of bark, not a lot of bite,” she said. “But he’s also been very impulsive and irrational.” Reinoehl has stolen their mother’s seizure medication and owes a lot of debt, often giving his relatives’ addresses as his own to avoid responsibility, she said. He has a son and daughter and is split from their mother, she said. “I have friends, family and loved ones on both sides of the conflict,” Reinoehl’s sister said. “Violence begets violence and hatred begets hatred. This is not the solution. My heart goes out to the victim. It always has, before I even knew my brother was involved.”
Let’s be clear: at this point police haven’t officially said that Reinoehl is a suspect in Aaron Danielson’s murder, and even if he is charged, in the eyes of the criminal justice system he’s still innocent until proven guilty.. just like Kyle Rittenhouse in the shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
A court of law is far different than the court of public opinion, however, and we’ve already seen heavy-handed attempts from the Let to criticize and shame those who’ve tried to raise money for Rittenhouse’s defense. Something tells me we’re about to witness a new double standard, where any statement in support of Rittenhouse is taken as support for a murderer, while support for Reinoehl will be seen as just standing up for anti-fascism.
In fact, in Portland, Antifa agitators cheered Danielson’s death just hours after it happened, though the media has largely ignored their response to the homicide. Do you think they’d do the same if the ideologies of the victim and possible perpetrator were reversed?