bearingarms--2020-01-11--Even Journalists Are Forced To Admit Buybacks Don't Work

Gun buybacks are common things that we ’ ve seen over and over as a way to take guns off our streets .
Proponents of the idea argue that they ’ re a good way to take guns off the streets since they ’ re “ no questions asked.
” Opponents , however , point out that criminals aren ’ t likely to sell their guns at a buyback because they tend to hold onto their guns .
Instead , the people who make use of the buybacks are the very people no one really has to worry about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ side with the proponents in their reporting .
Shocking , I know .
However , Journalists Resourcehas taken a look at buybacks and what they found probably should change the conversation .
Philadelphia was one of the first U.S. cities to try gun buybacks with several programs in the early 1970s .
Baltimore offered $ 50 per gun in 1974 — roughly $ 275 in today ’ s dollars — netting more than 13,000 firearms over three months .
By the late 1990s , municipalities in the U.S. had conducted more than 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyback program in fall 1992 was among the first to be evaluated via peer-reviewed research .
Gun owners turned over 1,172 firearms , almost all of which were working handguns , according to a 1994 evaluation published in Public Health Reports .
Participants received a bank voucher worth $ 50 , no matter how many firearms they turned over to the Seattle Police Department .
About three-fourths of participants were men .
The evaluation didn ’ t find statistical evidence that the program had an effect on gun violence .
“ Gun buyback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decrease voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community , but their effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown , ” the authors write .
Finally , a meta-analysis from August 2008 in Crime & Delinquency found no research showing “ significant changes in gun-related crimes due to these programs.
” For the record , meta-analysis is considered the highest order of research since it looks at a broad number of studies and compiles them into a single study .
In other words , even the resource for journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really do anything .
Only , they ’ re not quite ready to go that far .
You see , they argue that recent studies suggest something different .
A meta-analysis from December 2019 in Current Trauma Reports suggests that gun buybacks should be included in broader violence reduction strategies .
“ Buybacks in conjunction with other methods have been shown to be successful in reducing the number of firearms that could lead to injury and death , ” the authors write .
They note that non-Hispanic black men are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while gun buyback participants tend to be older white men .
A September 2014 evaluation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that gun buyback programs in Worcester , Massachusetts , New Haven , Connecticut and Phoenix , Arizona were structured differently from programs in the 1990s .
Programs in those cities provided gift cards only to people who brought in working firearms , a notable change from earlier programs that offered trades for non-operational guns .
In Worcester and New Haven , people turning over assault weapons and sawed-off shotguns got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyback program is solely one prong of a multipronged approach in reducing firearm-based interpersonal violence , ” the authors conclude .
However , they couldn ’ t really say definitively that buybacks actually work .
You see , there are questions about these multi-pronged approaches .
Most importantly , whether it was the buyback or all the other stuff that made the difference .
Had there been no buyback conducted , would the rest of the “ multipronged approach ” have yielded similar results ?
Finally , though , we have probably the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
A 2013 evaluation of a multiyear gun buyback program in Buffalo , New York , found no effect on violent gun crime , including homicides .
The authors also note that different parties , like law enforcement officers and politicians , may measure the success of gun buybacks in different ways .
“ Given the empirical evidence , police agencies may use gun buyback programs not with the expectation of reducing violent crime , but to satisfy the public ’ s expectations , ” the authors write .
“ When serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chiefs are under pressure from their constituents to ‘ do something dramatic and effective ’ about the violence.
” In other words , buybacks are kabuki theater for the masses .
However , that ’ s a bad way to go about things .
All they ’ re doing is wasting money to feed into people ’ s fears rather than addressing the real problems .
Those aren ’ t guns , either .
They ’ re issues that go far deeper than that .
That said , it ’ s good to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field acknowledge that buybacks , as they ’ re conducted in the United States , is less than useless .
Even if it ’ s clear they didn ’ t want to admit to it .

Gun buybacks are common things that we’ve seen over and over as a way to take guns off our streets. Proponents of the idea argue that they’re a good way to take guns off the streets since they’re “no questions asked.”
Opponents, however, point out that criminals aren’t likely to sell their guns at a buyback because they tend to hold onto their guns. Instead, the people who make use of the buybacks are the very people no one really has to worry about.
The media, however, tends to side with the proponents in their reporting. Shocking, I know. However, Journalists Resourcehas taken a look at buybacks and what they found probably should change the conversation.
Philadelphia was one of the first U.S. cities to try gun buybacks with several programs in the early 1970s. Baltimore offered $50 per gun in 1974 — roughly $275 in today’s dollars — netting more than 13,000 firearms over three months. By the late 1990s, municipalities in the U.S. had conducted more than 100 buyback programs. Seattle’s gun buyback program in fall 1992 was among the first to be evaluated via peer-reviewed research. Gun owners turned over 1,172 firearms, almost all of which were working handguns, according to a 1994 evaluation published in Public Health Reports. Participants received a bank voucher worth $50, no matter how many firearms they turned over to the Seattle Police Department. About three-fourths of participants were men. The evaluation didn’t find statistical evidence that the program had an effect on gun violence. “Gun buyback programs are a broadly supported means to decrease voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community, but their effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown,” the authors write. … Finally, a meta-analysis from August 2008 in Crime & Delinquency found no research showing “significant changes in gun-related crimes due to these programs.”
For the record, meta-analysis is considered the highest order of research since it looks at a broad number of studies and compiles them into a single study. In other words, even the resource for journalists is forced to admit that buybacks don’t really do anything.
Only, they’re not quite ready to go that far.
You see, they argue that recent studies suggest something different.
A meta-analysis from December 2019 in Current Trauma Reports suggests that gun buybacks should be included in broader violence reduction strategies. “Buybacks in conjunction with other methods have been shown to be successful in reducing the number of firearms that could lead to injury and death,” the authors write. They note that non-Hispanic black men are the most common victims of fatal firearm injury, while gun buyback participants tend to be older white men. A September 2014 evaluation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that gun buyback programs in Worcester, Massachusetts, New Haven, Connecticut and Phoenix, Arizona were structured differently from programs in the 1990s. Programs in those cities provided gift cards only to people who brought in working firearms, a notable change from earlier programs that offered trades for non-operational guns. In Worcester and New Haven, people turning over assault weapons and sawed-off shotguns got higher-value gift cards. “The gun buyback program is solely one prong of a multipronged approach in reducing firearm-based interpersonal violence,” the authors conclude.
However, they couldn’t really say definitively that buybacks actually work.
You see, there are questions about these multi-pronged approaches. Most importantly, whether it was the buyback or all the other stuff that made the difference. Had there been no buyback conducted, would the rest of the “multipronged approach” have yielded similar results?
Finally, though, we have probably the most honest assessment of what buybacks really are.
A 2013 evaluation of a multiyear gun buyback program in Buffalo, New York, found no effect on violent gun crime, including homicides. The authors also note that different parties, like law enforcement officers and politicians, may measure the success of gun buybacks in different ways. “Given the empirical evidence, police agencies may use gun buyback programs not with the expectation of reducing violent crime, but to satisfy the public’s expectations,” the authors write. “When serious crime problems occur, mayors and police chiefs are under pressure from their constituents to ‘do something dramatic and effective’ about the violence.”
In other words, buybacks are kabuki theater for the masses.
However, that’s a bad way to go about things. All they’re doing is wasting money to feed into people’s fears rather than addressing the real problems. Those aren’t guns, either. They’re issues that go far deeper than that.
That said, it’s good to see at least someone in the journalism field acknowledge that buybacks, as they’re conducted in the United States, is less than useless. Even if it’s clear they didn’t want to admit to it.


bearingarms--2020-01-12--Minnesota Criminal An Example Of Catch And Release Criminal Justice

As anti-gun lawmakers across the country introduce bills to turn legal gun owners into felons via gun and magazine bans , ammunition restrictions and more , a case out of Minnesota is highlighting the real issue ; a catch and release criminal justice system that puts real criminals back on the street with little consequence for their crimes .
The St. Paul Pioneer Press uncovered the recent criminal history of 25-year old Stephen Michael Lincoln , a convicted felon who ’ s been caught with guns and ammunition four different times since September of 2019 .
Each arrest has led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none of them have led to him remaining behind bars for long , despite violating his parole .
He was charged Monday in Ramsey County District Court with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after police spotted two people “ slumped over ” in a pickup truck Saturday , according to the criminal complaint .
Officers recognized Lincoln as one of the occupants from his previous arrests .
They found the gun , vest , magazines and ammunition when they searched the vehicle , according to the criminal complaint .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TP9 handgun , was beneath the driver ’ s seat , according to the complaint .
The ballistic vest , three Glock 9-millimeter magazines , two Tec magazines and the loose rounds of ammunition were in a suitcase in the back seat .
Lincoln was arrested at the scene and declined to make a statement to investigators .
The female passenger with him said she didn ’ t know anything about guns in the vehicle .
The Pioneer Press says Lincoln has two other outstanding cases in Ramsey County , including a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant .
Democrats in control of Minnesota ’ s House and governor ’ s office have been demanding passage of several gun control laws , including a universal background check bill and a red flag law , but Republicans , who still control the state Senate , have been calling for better enforcement of existing laws .
In fact , the Duluth News-Tribune covered a Senate hearing in Hibbing , Minnesota where Republicans and Democrats were interested in two very different approaches to fighting crime .
Members of the panel Thursday got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm laws as well as other laws around violence prevention .
Democrats on the panel sought to highlight holes in existing laws , while Republicans pointed to concerns about lax enforcement that allows those unauthorized to possess firearms to obtain and use them .
“ We need that support for law enforcement , the laws that are currently on the books , how are we enforcing those ?
We really need to take a look at that , ” Sen. Mark Johnson , R-East Grand Forks , said .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be problematic to the folks out here.
” Gun control advocates and gun rights supporters packed the hearing room , wearing T-shirts representing their respective groups .
Outside the hearing room , gun control advocates said senators were acting too slowly on an issue that is critical to the state .
“ Limiting the scope of the hearing to the review of current laws is like checking the batteries in the smoke alarms when your house is on fire .
It ’ s a very good thing to do on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will save the most lives now , during a crisis , ” Nancy Nord Bence , with Protect Minnesota , said .
“ We have a crisis of gun violence going on in Minnesota right now.
” Adding more gun control laws to a broken criminal justice system is like putting in a new smoke alarm while your house is on fire .
As for the crisis of gun violence that Bence talks about , the FBI reported that violent crime actually declined by almost 10 % in the state in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the safest in the nation .
None of that really matters to gun control activists , because their goal is to reduce the number of legal gun owners and to restrict their rights .
Of course it ’ s done in the name of public safety , but it doesn ’ t really matter to them if their proposals actually work .
In fact , if crime goes up after new gun control laws are put on the books , anti-gun activists just use that as an excuse to push even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals like Mr. Lincoln keep getting slaps on the wrist and are quickly returned to the streets .
If there is a crisis of gun violence in the state of Minnesota , it ’ s not going to be addressed by turning the state ’ s law-abiding gun owners into criminals with unconstitutional gun control laws .
Instead , you have to deal with the few individuals who are actually driving the violence .
Sadly , that seems to be a step too far for Minnesota ’ s gun control activists and anti-gun @ @

As anti-gun lawmakers across the country introduce bills to turn legal gun owners into felons via gun and magazine bans, ammunition restrictions and more, a case out of Minnesota is highlighting the real issue; a catch and release criminal justice system that puts real criminals back on the street with little consequence for their crimes.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press uncovered the recent criminal history of 25-year old Stephen Michael Lincoln, a convicted felon who’s been caught with guns and ammunition four different times since September of 2019. Each arrest has led to more charges for Lincoln, but none of them have led to him remaining behind bars for long, despite violating his parole.
He was charged Monday in Ramsey County District Court with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after police spotted two people “slumped over” in a pickup truck Saturday, according to the criminal complaint. Officers recognized Lincoln as one of the occupants from his previous arrests. They found the gun, vest, magazines and ammunition when they searched the vehicle, according to the criminal complaint. The firearm, a loaded Brugger & Thomet TP9 handgun, was beneath the driver’s seat, according to the complaint. The ballistic vest, three Glock 9-millimeter magazines, two Tec magazines and the loose rounds of ammunition were in a suitcase in the back seat. Lincoln was arrested at the scene and declined to make a statement to investigators. The female passenger with him said she didn’t know anything about guns in the vehicle.
The Pioneer Press says Lincoln has two other outstanding cases in Ramsey County, including a case stemming from an October arrest on a warrant.
While searching him, police discovered a small bag of methamphetamine in his pocket and a handgun on his waist, court documents say. A loaded handgun also was reportedly found in his vehicle. Lincoln, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, posted bond in October and was released from custody.
Democrats in control of Minnesota’s House and governor’s office have been demanding passage of several gun control laws, including a universal background check bill and a red flag law, but Republicans, who still control the state Senate, have been calling for better enforcement of existing laws. In fact, the Duluth News-Tribune covered a Senate hearing in Hibbing, Minnesota where Republicans and Democrats were interested in two very different approaches to fighting crime.
Members of the panel Thursday got a thorough presentation on Minnesota’s existing firearm laws as well as other laws around violence prevention. Democrats on the panel sought to highlight holes in existing laws, while Republicans pointed to concerns about lax enforcement that allows those unauthorized to possess firearms to obtain and use them. “We need that support for law enforcement, the laws that are currently on the books, how are we enforcing those? We really need to take a look at that,” Sen. Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, said. “It’s a cycle that is problematic to me and should be problematic to the folks out here.” Gun control advocates and gun rights supporters packed the hearing room, wearing T-shirts representing their respective groups. Outside the hearing room, gun control advocates said senators were acting too slowly on an issue that is critical to the state. “Limiting the scope of the hearing to the review of current laws is like checking the batteries in the smoke alarms when your house is on fire. It’s a very good thing to do on a regular basis but not the thing that will save the most lives now, during a crisis,” Nancy Nord Bence, with Protect Minnesota, said. “We have a crisis of gun violence going on in Minnesota right now.”
Adding more gun control laws to a broken criminal justice system is like putting in a new smoke alarm while your house is on fire. As for the crisis of gun violence that Bence talks about, the FBI reported that violent crime actually declined by almost 10% in the state in 2018, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is one of the safest in the nation.
None of that really matters to gun control activists, because their goal is to reduce the number of legal gun owners and to restrict their rights. Of course it’s done in the name of public safety, but it doesn’t really matter to them if their proposals actually work. In fact, if crime goes up after new gun control laws are put on the books, anti-gun activists just use that as an excuse to push even more restrictive laws.
Meanwhile, career criminals like Mr. Lincoln keep getting slaps on the wrist and are quickly returned to the streets. If there is a crisis of gun violence in the state of Minnesota, it’s not going to be addressed by turning the state’s law-abiding gun owners into criminals with unconstitutional gun control laws. Instead, you have to deal with the few individuals who are actually driving the violence. Sadly, that seems to be a step too far for Minnesota’s gun control activists and anti-gun politicians.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Baltimore's Bleeding, And Gun Control Isn't Helping

After the city ’ s homicide rate reached a near record high in 2019 , many Baltimore residents have been praying that 2020 would be a different story .
Unfortunately , so the new year has been just as rough as the last one .
NBC News reports that last Saturday , twelve people were shot in the city , five of them fatally .
The city recorded 348 homicides last year , its fifth consecutive year with more than 300 murders and the most violent year ever on a per-capita basis .
“ A day that should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again flooded with violence and loss , ” Scott wrote , an apparent reference to an NFL divisional playoff game hosted by the Baltimore Ravens on Saturday night .
“ This violence is heartbreaking and must stop now , ” added Scott , who said he plans to question Baltimore ’ s police commissioner and other agency heads about what they were doing in the affected communities before and after the shootings .
The violence in Baltimore is heartbreaking , but impotent talk from politicians like Scott won ’ t do a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suffering from a number of issues , including a lack of political leadership and turmoil and turnover in the police department .
As the crime rate rises , too many politicians are proclaiming that the answer to Baltimore ’ s troubles is to put more gun control laws on the books , including more restrictions on shotguns .
Seven years ago , in 2013 , Maryland lawmakers approved the Firearms Safety Act , which imposed a slew of restrictions on gun owners in the state , including a ban on so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition .
The laws have done nothing to bring down violent crime in Baltimore .
In fact , since the law went into effect , homicides in Baltimore have soared , while good people in bad neighborhoods are still denied their right to bear arms in self-defense , thanks to the state ’ s restrictive “ may issue ” concealed carry laws .
Allowing folks to exercise their constitutional rights wouldn ’ t solve every problem plaguing Baltimore , but it ’ s still the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the state can ’ t keep residents safe , and legally have no responsibility to protect every individual citizen in the first place .
While the city ’ s leaders try to fix a broken City Hall and damaged police department , they should take a truly bold step and start respecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves and their families .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

After the city’s homicide rate reached a near record high in 2019, many Baltimore residents have been praying that 2020 would be a different story. Unfortunately, so the new year has been just as rough as the last one. NBC News reports that last Saturday, twelve people were shot in the city, five of them fatally.
The city recorded 348 homicides last year, its fifth consecutive year with more than 300 murders and the most violent year ever on a per-capita basis. City council president Brandon Scott, a Democrat running for mayor, issued a statement Sunday condemning the violence. “A day that should have been met with pride and community was once again flooded with violence and loss,” Scott wrote, an apparent reference to an NFL divisional playoff game hosted by the Baltimore Ravens on Saturday night. “This violence is heartbreaking and must stop now,” added Scott, who said he plans to question Baltimore’s police commissioner and other agency heads about what they were doing in the affected communities before and after the shootings.
The violence in Baltimore is heartbreaking, but impotent talk from politicians like Scott won’t do a single thing to change that. The city’s suffering from a number of issues, including a lack of political leadership and turmoil and turnover in the police department. As the crime rate rises, too many politicians are proclaiming that the answer to Baltimore’s troubles is to put more gun control laws on the books, including more restrictions on shotguns.
Seven years ago, in 2013, Maryland lawmakers approved the Firearms Safety Act, which imposed a slew of restrictions on gun owners in the state, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The laws have done nothing to bring down violent crime in Baltimore. In fact, since the law went into effect, homicides in Baltimore have soared, while good people in bad neighborhoods are still denied their right to bear arms in self-defense, thanks to the state’s restrictive “may issue” concealed carry laws.
Allowing folks to exercise their constitutional rights wouldn’t solve every problem plaguing Baltimore, but it’s still the right thing to do. Clearly the city and the state can’t keep residents safe, and legally have no responsibility to protect every individual citizen in the first place. While the city’s leaders try to fix a broken City Hall and damaged police department, they should take a truly bold step and start respecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves and their families.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Study Finds 40 Percent Of Gun Owners Don't Lock Up Guns, But Doesn't Ask Why

I ’ ve said time and time again that I think people need to secure their guns .
A lot of people believe that if you buy a gun , you need to buy a gun safe at the same time or , at a minimum , a gun lock .
There are a lot of reasons why , of course , but they include theft prevention and keeping guns out of the hands of children .
However , a recent study took a look at how many gun owners keep their guns locked up and found something that looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers from the University of Washington found that nearly half of all gun owners are keeping their guns unlocked at home .
The survey focused on Washington residents , all of whom had attended gun safety events where they received free devices to lock up their guns .
However , 40 percent of survey respondents reported not locking their guns at home .
Unfortunately , having kids around didn ’ t improve this behavior .
“ Even in this population , which had some interest in or awareness of firearm safety , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said researcher Aisha King .
These results emphasize the importance of following gun safety , especially when kids are in the house , as leaving guns unlocked and loaded can increase the risk of any number of injuries or accidents .
“ A lot of times , the kids do know , ” said King .
“ Also , guardians might think that training adolescent or older children is enough to keep them safe , that training means they don ’ t have to lock their guns .
Unfortunately , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of suicide , and unlocked guns add to that risk — regardless of training.
” The problem , however , appears to be that the study didn ’ t bother to ask anyone why they didn ’ t lock up their guns .
For example , I ’ m a homebody .
I don ’ t go to a whole lot of places , and my daughter is never left at home alone .
My son , who is 18 , is trustworthy and , if he did want to commit suicide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun on his own ( assuming he didn ’ t want to use one of the guns he already owns ) .
My Glock 19 is never locked up , but that ’ s because it ’ s on my person if I leave the house .
Would I have said I have unsecured firearms in the house ?
Absolutely .
Does that mean my daughter is in grave peril because of that ?
Of course not .
You see , a study like this looks very troubling , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are actively trying to be safe , so why would so many have guns unlocked ?
Probably because they ’ re unsecured for easy access in the event they ’ re needed .
The last thing you want to do when you hear glass breaking at 3:00 in the morning is fumble with a set of keys or a combination .
Yet that , in and of itself , doesn ’ t mean they ’ re being unsafe .
Further , there have been cases when a kid was able to defend their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they had access to a firearm .
The truth is that nothing is that cut and dried , yet studies like this try to present it that way .
And people wonder why so many pro-gun folks roll their eyes at studies .

I’ve said time and time again that I think people need to secure their guns. A lot of people believe that if you buy a gun, you need to buy a gun safe at the same time or, at a minimum, a gun lock. There are a lot of reasons why, of course, but they include theft prevention and keeping guns out of the hands of children.
However, a recent study took a look at how many gun owners keep their guns locked up and found something that looks troubling.
A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Washington found that nearly half of all gun owners are keeping their guns unlocked at home. The survey focused on Washington residents, all of whom had attended gun safety events where they received free devices to lock up their guns. However, 40 percent of survey respondents reported not locking their guns at home. Unfortunately, having kids around didn’t improve this behavior. “Even in this population, which had some interest in or awareness of firearm safety, there was a high prevalence of unlocked firearms,” said researcher Aisha King. … These results emphasize the importance of following gun safety, especially when kids are in the house, as leaving guns unlocked and loaded can increase the risk of any number of injuries or accidents. “A lot of times, the kids do know,” said King. “Also, guardians might think that training adolescent or older children is enough to keep them safe, that training means they don’t have to lock their guns. Unfortunately, a lot of adolescents are at high risk of suicide, and unlocked guns add to that risk — regardless of training.”
The problem, however, appears to be that the study didn’t bother to ask anyone why they didn’t lock up their guns.
For example, I’m a homebody. I don’t go to a whole lot of places, and my daughter is never left at home alone. My son, who is 18, is trustworthy and, if he did want to commit suicide, he’s old enough to buy a gun on his own (assuming he didn’t want to use one of the guns he already owns). My Glock 19 is never locked up, but that’s because it’s on my person if I leave the house.
Would I have said I have unsecured firearms in the house? Absolutely. Does that mean my daughter is in grave peril because of that? Of course not.
You see, a study like this looks very troubling, but it’s incomplete. These are people who are actively trying to be safe, so why would so many have guns unlocked? Probably because they’re unsecured for easy access in the event they’re needed. The last thing you want to do when you hear glass breaking at 3:00 in the morning is fumble with a set of keys or a combination.
Yet that, in and of itself, doesn’t mean they’re being unsafe.
Further, there have been cases when a kid was able to defend their life or the life of someone else because they had access to a firearm.
The truth is that nothing is that cut and dried, yet studies like this try to present it that way. And people wonder why so many pro-gun folks roll their eyes at studies.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--OH County Adopts 2A Sanctuary Resolution

Commissioners in the southern Ohio ’ s Clermont County unanimously approved a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary on Monday , making it the second county in the state to do so .
The Cincinnati Inquirer reports that Second Amendment supporters at the county commission meeting cheered the passage of the resolution , though some felt like the measure didn ’ t go far enough , and others called it an act of “ political theater.
” The resolution was added to the agenda Friday , giving the public little time to comment before Monday ’ s meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s challenging [ Board of Commissioners President David ] Painter in the Republican Primary March 17 .
He called it a “ baloney resolution to make it look like Clermont County is embracing gun rights and protecting people ’ s gun rights.
” “ It ’ s nothing but political fluff and pablum , ” Hicks said .
Some in Clermont County opposed any resolution making Clermont County a Second Amendment sanctuary .
Steve Neago , Jr. believes banning guns with magazines , such as AR-15 rifles and semi-automatic pistols , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commissioners sent the wrong message with their resolution .
“ It misrepresents Clermont County of being solely of one mind in favor of this Second Amendment protection , ” Neago said .
I ’ m not an expect on Clermont County , but I ’ m willing to bet that there aren ’ t a lot of people there , at least beyond Neago , who believe that “ guns with magazines ” should be banned or would be reasonable .
After all , that would include the vast majority of firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio county to adopt a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution to date is Meigs County , which approved a resolution in December .
The Inquirer spoke to Buckeye Firearms Association executive director Dean Rieck , who says the movement hasn ’ t really caught fire in the state .
Many Ohio municipalities and counties don ’ t see it as necessary , at least for now , he said .
The Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly has already put in place strong protections against restricting gun ownership and prevent local municipalities from enacting harsher gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know if there ’ s a need for it in Ohio , ” Rieck said .
“ I ’ m not hearing a lot of interest.
” There are really two reasons why communities declare themselves to be Second Amendment Sanctuaries ; as a reactive move in the face of gun control legislation or as a proactive move to head off gun control legislation .
In Virginia , the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is definitely a defensive reaction to the slew of anti-gun legislation introduced in the state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more proactive .
While Gov .
Mike DeWine has called for a number of changes to the state ’ s gun laws , at the moment Republican lawmakers in Columbus haven ’ t expressed any interest in passing the governor ’ s proposals .
That may be one reason why the movement is growing slowly in Ohio , but I still wouldn ’ t be surprised to see a surge in interest as we get deeper into the election cycle .
Ohio is a bellwether state , and a large number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment and opposition to the Democrats ’ gun control agenda would send a message that the national media might find difficult to ignore .

Commissioners in the southern Ohio’s Clermont County unanimously approved a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary on Monday, making it the second county in the state to do so.
The Cincinnati Inquirer reports that Second Amendment supporters at the county commission meeting cheered the passage of the resolution, though some felt like the measure didn’t go far enough, and others called it an act of “political theater.”
The resolution was added to the agenda Friday, giving the public little time to comment before Monday’s meeting, said Republican Chris Hicks, who’s challenging [Board of Commissioners President David] Painter in the Republican Primary March 17. He called it a “baloney resolution to make it look like Clermont County is embracing gun rights and protecting people’s gun rights.” “It’s nothing but political fluff and pablum,” Hicks said. Some in Clermont County opposed any resolution making Clermont County a Second Amendment sanctuary. Steve Neago, Jr. believes banning guns with magazines, such as AR-15 rifles and semi-automatic pistols, is reasonable. The 61-year-old Milford resident thinks the commissioners sent the wrong message with their resolution. “It misrepresents Clermont County of being solely of one mind in favor of this Second Amendment protection,” Neago said.
I’m not an expect on Clermont County, but I’m willing to bet that there aren’t a lot of people there, at least beyond Neago, who believe that “guns with magazines” should be banned or would be reasonable. After all, that would include the vast majority of firearms in this country.
The only other Ohio county to adopt a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution to date is Meigs County, which approved a resolution in December. The Inquirer spoke to Buckeye Firearms Association executive director Dean Rieck, who says the movement hasn’t really caught fire in the state.
Many Ohio municipalities and counties don’t see it as necessary, at least for now, he said. The Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly has already put in place strong protections against restricting gun ownership and prevent local municipalities from enacting harsher gun ownership restrictions, he said. “I don’t know if there’s a need for it in Ohio,” Rieck said. “I’m not hearing a lot of interest.”
There are really two reasons why communities declare themselves to be Second Amendment Sanctuaries; as a reactive move in the face of gun control legislation or as a proactive move to head off gun control legislation. In Virginia, the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is definitely a defensive reaction to the slew of anti-gun legislation introduced in the state. In Ohio, the votes appear to be more proactive.
While Gov. Mike DeWine has called for a number of changes to the state’s gun laws, at the moment Republican lawmakers in Columbus haven’t expressed any interest in passing the governor’s proposals. That may be one reason why the movement is growing slowly in Ohio, but I still wouldn’t be surprised to see a surge in interest as we get deeper into the election cycle. Ohio is a bellwether state, and a large number of counties displaying their support for the Second Amendment and opposition to the Democrats’ gun control agenda would send a message that the national media might find difficult to ignore.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Cities' War With Preemption Garnering Biased Media Attention

Preemption is a pretty important piece of legislation in any state .
It prevents an unruly patchwork of gun control laws that would be virtually impossible for anyone to navigate .
It makes it so someone in compliance with the law when they step out of their home doesn ’ t end up arrested when they cross the city limits .
Considering the insanity of gun control laws some people want , that ’ s not a bad thing .
However , for a little while now , cities have been declaring war on their state ’ s preemption laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved .
The tactic of preemption , which essentially co-opts the power of American legal hierarchy , was first broadly utilized by tobacco corporations , who lobbied for the laws in the 1960s and ’ 70s as a way to avoid local regulations and protect profits .
But more recently the National Rifle Association picked up where Big Tobacco left off , embracing the laws as a central survival strategy .
“ These laws are vital , ” from the organization ’ s lobbying arm declared , “ as they prevent localities from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The laws vary by language and degree : In five states , Florida , Iowa , Kentucky , Minnesota and Mississippi , local officials found to be in violation can be personally sued ; in Kentucky they can also face criminal penalties .
Gun control advocates point out that the five states without preemption laws – Connecticut , Hawaii , Massachusetts , New Jersey and New York – also have .
“ Gun activists will tell you it ’ s about having a statewide system and making sure that individuals aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Allison Anderman , a senior counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence .
“ But that ’ s just smoke and mirrors .
It ’ s just another effort by the gun lobby to prevent gun reform , and in particular it prevents communities from being able to legislate in ways that they think are the most impactful.
” In other words , Anderman knows what I think better than I do .
Which I doubt , because Anderman probably lacks the ability to think .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrasing in that first quoted paragraph .
The journalist links gun rights with the tobacco industry–perhaps the only industry as hated as the firearm industry– and uses particular phrasing to elicit a response .
By saying it “ co-opts the power , ” it makes it sound like someone has usurped authority rather than the state creating a particular rule .
Especially once that can be presented in a logical way .
People like Anderman can ’ t argue directly against what we say , so she props up a strawman of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet there ’ s also a hypocrisy in their claims of local solutions to problems .
You see , for we gun rights activists , we want guns to be free for everyone .
We see it as a basic human right and so preemption is consistent with that thinking .
For the gun control crowd , though , they are talking about local solutions to their gun violence problems , but the only allowable “ solution ” in their eyes is more gun control .
Don ’ t believe me ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment sanctuary counties .
They don ’ t give a damn about local control .
They just want control and , since they can ’ t get it in a number of states , they want to make it so states can ’ t bar local communities from infringing on our basic civil liberties .
Luckily , U.S. News and World Report is a legitimate news agency and they got a counterpoint , someone to provide the pro-gun side other than someone from Giffords .
Oh , wait .
No they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those things .
He didn ’ t reach out to the NRA , Gun Owners of America , or the Second Amendment Foundation to talk to someone there about this important topic .
He didn ’ t talk to state or local gun rights groups to get their take on these laws and why they ’ re necessary .
Hell , he could have reached out to Cam or me , but so far as I can tell , he didn ’ t .
No , Bach went to Giffords , wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and called it a day .
Journalistic malpractice masquerading as reporting on a supposedly vital issue .
This is what we ’ re up against , and why it ’ s so important to rally together and dig in for the fight .

Preemption is a pretty important piece of legislation in any state. It prevents an unruly patchwork of gun control laws that would be virtually impossible for anyone to navigate. It makes it so someone in compliance with the law when they step out of their home doesn’t end up arrested when they cross the city limits.
Considering the insanity of gun control laws some people want, that’s not a bad thing.
However, for a little while now, cities have been declaring war on their state’s preemption laws. Now, the media is getting involved.
The tactic of preemption, which essentially co-opts the power of American legal hierarchy, was first broadly utilized by tobacco corporations, who lobbied for the laws in the 1960s and ’70s as a way to avoid local regulations and protect profits. But more recently the National Rifle Association picked up where Big Tobacco left off, embracing the laws as a central survival strategy. “These laws are vital,” a recent post from the organization’s lobbying arm declared, “as they prevent localities from enacting an incomprehensible patchwork of local ordinances.” The laws vary by language and degree: In five states, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota and Mississippi, local officials found to be in violation can be personally sued; in Kentucky they can also face criminal penalties. Gun control advocates point out that the five states without preemption laws – Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York – also have the country’s lowest rates of gun death . “Gun activists will tell you it’s about having a statewide system and making sure that individuals aren’t subject to a patchwork of laws,” says Allison Anderman, a senior counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “But that’s just smoke and mirrors. It’s just another effort by the gun lobby to prevent gun reform, and in particular it prevents communities from being able to legislate in ways that they think are the most impactful.”
In other words, Anderman knows what I think better than I do.
Which I doubt, because Anderman probably lacks the ability to think.
Yet I invite you to look at the phrasing in that first quoted paragraph. The journalist links gun rights with the tobacco industry–perhaps the only industry as hated as the firearm industry– and uses particular phrasing to elicit a response. By saying it “co-opts the power,” it makes it sound like someone has usurped authority rather than the state creating a particular rule.
Especially once that can be presented in a logical way.
People like Anderman can’t argue directly against what we say, so she props up a strawman of what we really mean and attacks that instead.
Yet there’s also a hypocrisy in their claims of local solutions to problems. You see, for we gun rights activists, we want guns to be free for everyone. We see it as a basic human right and so preemption is consistent with that thinking.
For the gun control crowd, though, they are talking about local solutions to their gun violence problems, but the only allowable “solution” in their eyes is more gun control. Don’t believe me? Look at their response to the Second Amendment sanctuary counties.
They don’t give a damn about local control. They just want control and, since they can’t get it in a number of states, they want to make it so states can’t bar local communities from infringing on our basic civil liberties.
Luckily, U.S. News and World Report is a legitimate news agency and they got a counterpoint, someone to provide the pro-gun side other than someone from Giffords.
Oh, wait. No they didn’t. Writer Trevor Bach did none of those things. He didn’t reach out to the NRA, Gun Owners of America, or the Second Amendment Foundation to talk to someone there about this important topic. He didn’t talk to state or local gun rights groups to get their take on these laws and why they’re necessary.
Hell, he could have reached out to Cam or me, but so far as I can tell, he didn’t.
No, Bach went to Giffords, wrote what they told him to write, and called it a day. Journalistic malpractice masquerading as reporting on a supposedly vital issue.
This is what we’re up against, and why it’s so important to rally together and dig in for the fight.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--TX Governor Honors Church Hero Jack Wilson

Texas Governor Greg Abbott awarded the Governor ’ s Medal of Courage on Monday to Jack Wilson , the 71-year old former firearms instructor and deacon of security at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement who shot and killed an attacker in the church ’ s sanctuary on December 29th , of 2019 .
In his remarks , Governor Abbott praised the armed citizen for saving the lives of hundreds of congregants .
“ When faced with an evil that few of us will ever comprehend , Jack Wilson responded with strength , bravery , and with love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Governor Abbott .
“ The courage in his actions can not be understated , and Jack is not only a hero to West Freeway Church of Christ — he is a hero to the entire state of Texas.
” The Governor ’ s Medal of Courage is given to civilians who display great acts of heroism by risking their own safety to save another ’ s life .
It is the highest award given to civilians by the Governor .
Not only did Wilson receive the governor ’ s medal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pet the governor ’ s dog .
Of course , if Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun pals had their way , Jack Wilson wouldn ’ t have been honored today .
Instead , he would have been memorialized along with many others who would have died in the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ .
Instead , thanks to the heroic efforts of Jack Wilson and the church ’ s security team , the killer ’ s rampage was stopped within seconds , though tragically not before 67-year old Richard White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace lost their lives .
Bloomberg and others declared that Wilson shouldn ’ t have been allowed to have his firearm inside that church , but declaring churches off-limits to lawful gun owners , wouldn ’ t have prevented the attack .
It just would have added to the carnage by preventing good guys from fighting back .
Bloomberg has spent more than $ 16-million in Texas pushing his presidential campaign , even while proclaiming that “ average Americans ” like Jack Wilson shouldn ’ t be allowed to exercise their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt Bloomberg will win the Texas Democratic primary , but the state ’ s gun owners and Second Amendment supporters need to know that he and his anti-gun cohorts will also be trying to use the same playbook they used to flip Virginia ’ s legislature in 2019 to try and turn Texas blue in 2020 .
It may sound crazy , but a lot of gun owners in Virginia thought the idea that Bloomberg could buy an anti-gun majority in their state was silly too.. right up until they saw the sweeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s newly elected lawmakers .
They want to disarm Jack Wilson and every other law-abiding gun owner in the state , and Texans can ’ t afford to ignore the risk to their rights that this year ’ s elections entail .

Texas Governor Greg Abbott awarded the Governor’s Medal of Courage on Monday to Jack Wilson, the 71-year old former firearms instructor and deacon of security at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement who shot and killed an attacker in the church’s sanctuary on December 29th, of 2019.
Honored to present the Governor’s Medal of Courage to Jack Wilson today. Jack is not only a hero to West Freeway Church of Christ – he is a hero to the entire state of Texas. https://t.co/zkVdFztQNo pic.twitter.com/pyNB7yQDNq — Gov. Greg Abbott (@GovAbbott) January 13, 2020
In his remarks, Governor Abbott praised the armed citizen for saving the lives of hundreds of congregants.
“When faced with an evil that few of us will ever comprehend, Jack Wilson responded with strength, bravery, and with love for those in the church that day,” said Governor Abbott. “The courage in his actions cannot be understated, and Jack is not only a hero to West Freeway Church of Christ — he is a hero to the entire state of Texas.” The Governor’s Medal of Courage is given to civilians who display great acts of heroism by risking their own safety to save another’s life. It is the highest award given to civilians by the Governor.
Not only did Wilson receive the governor’s medal of courage, he also got to pet the governor’s dog.
This is all that matters today: Texas church shooting hero Jack Wilson pets Gov. @GregAbbott_TX’s dog, Peaches! This happened just after Jack was awarded the Medal of Courage for taking down the shooter in his church with one shot from his pistol. pic.twitter.com/cPVVzTogsD — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) January 13, 2020
A great man and a good boy. How perfect.
Of course, if Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun pals had their way, Jack Wilson wouldn’t have been honored today. Instead, he would have been memorialized along with many others who would have died in the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ. Instead, thanks to the heroic efforts of Jack Wilson and the church’s security team, the killer’s rampage was stopped within seconds, though tragically not before 67-year old Richard White and 64-year old Anton “Tony” Wallace lost their lives.
Bloomberg and others declared that Wilson shouldn’t have been allowed to have his firearm inside that church, but declaring churches off-limits to lawful gun owners, wouldn’t have prevented the attack. It just would have added to the carnage by preventing good guys from fighting back.
Bloomberg has spent more than $16-million in Texas pushing his presidential campaign, even while proclaiming that “average Americans” like Jack Wilson shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms in public spaces. I doubt Bloomberg will win the Texas Democratic primary, but the state’s gun owners and Second Amendment supporters need to know that he and his anti-gun cohorts will also be trying to use the same playbook they used to flip Virginia’s legislature in 2019 to try and turn Texas blue in 2020.
It may sound crazy, but a lot of gun owners in Virginia thought the idea that Bloomberg could buy an anti-gun majority in their state was silly too.. right up until they saw the sweeping gun and magazine bans proposed by the state’s newly elected lawmakers. They want to disarm Jack Wilson and every other law-abiding gun owner in the state, and Texans can’t afford to ignore the risk to their rights that this year’s elections entail.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--NRA Members, 2A Supporters Pack VA Capitol To Oppose Gun Bills

While Virginia Democrats did their best to try to make it seem like gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters were equally represented at the state capitol on Monday , the truth is that NRA members and opponents of Governor Ralph Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda far outnumbered their counterparts on the other side of the issue .
A tweet by the National Rifle Association captured the scene in the hallways of the capitol complex as state senators began to pass several gun control bills on party line votes .
NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortensen declared afterwards that “ NRA members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an overwhelming show of support for the Second Amendment .
“ Many of them were in line to enter the capitol building before the sun came up and then flooded the committee room and fanned out across the capitol complex visiting their members.
” Mortensen also says that NRA members far outnumbered members of Moms Demand Action and other gun control groups who showed up to support the gun control bills , though you wouldn ’ t have guessed it by simply peeking into the committee hearing room .
Democrats instituted brand new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee hearing , requiring an equal number of gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters be seated , instead of a first come , first serve arrangement that would have left most gun control advocates stuck in the hallways .
Virginia Democrats are acting as if there was a massive wave of support for gun control across the state in last November ’ s elections .
There wasn ’ t .
In fact , statewide , a swing of 10,000 votes would have kept the legislature safely in the hands of Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburban swing districts , in part by promising “ commonsense gun safety , ” ( and in part thanks to millions of dollars in campaign ads by Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety ) but what they ’ re delivering is legislation that would turn the vast majority of the state ’ s legal gun owners into felons simply for maintaining possession of the guns and magazines they currently own , along with bills that target gun ranges , impose gun rationing , establish “ red flag ” laws that violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing to protect the public , universal background check laws that don ’ t reduce crime , and more .
So far , Virginia ’ s Democrats seem far more interested in doing the bidding of their billionaire backer Michael Bloomberg than the will of the voters who ’ ve shown up at the capitol to lobby for their rights , or the tens of thousands of Virginians who ’ ve turned out at county supervisors and city council meetings in support of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions .
Still , that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and NRA members who showed up at the state capitol on Monday were wasting their time .
Far from it .
They were there delivering a message , and if lawmakers refused to listen , that ’ s on them .
I know for a fact that average , ordinary Virginians are paying attention , as are members of the media .
Honestly , it ’ s not even a state story anymore .
What ’ s happening in Virginia has now become a national and even international story ( I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German television station later in the week , as a matter of fact ) .
To the gun owners , Second Amendment supporters , NRA members ( and staffers ) , and opponents of these gun laws who showed up in Richmond today , thank you .
Your presence is greatly appreciated , at least by those Virginians not eager to turn to a constitutionally protected right into a privilege .

While Virginia Democrats did their best to try to make it seem like gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters were equally represented at the state capitol on Monday, the truth is that NRA members and opponents of Governor Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda far outnumbered their counterparts on the other side of the issue.
A tweet by the National Rifle Association captured the scene in the hallways of the capitol complex as state senators began to pass several gun control bills on party line votes.
NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortensen declared afterwards that “NRA members and supporters filled the capitol today in an overwhelming show of support for the Second Amendment.
“Many of them were in line to enter the capitol building before the sun came up and then flooded the committee room and fanned out across the capitol complex visiting their members.”
Mortensen also says that NRA members far outnumbered members of Moms Demand Action and other gun control groups who showed up to support the gun control bills, though you wouldn’t have guessed it by simply peeking into the committee hearing room.
Democrats instituted brand new rules for those wanting to attend the committee hearing, requiring an equal number of gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters be seated, instead of a first come, first serve arrangement that would have left most gun control advocates stuck in the hallways.
Virginia Democrats are acting as if there was a massive wave of support for gun control across the state in last November’s elections. There wasn’t. In fact, statewide, a swing of 10,000 votes would have kept the legislature safely in the hands of Republicans.
Democrats did pick up a number of suburban swing districts, in part by promising “commonsense gun safety,” (and in part thanks to millions of dollars in campaign ads by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety) but what they’re delivering is legislation that would turn the vast majority of the state’s legal gun owners into felons simply for maintaining possession of the guns and magazines they currently own, along with bills that target gun ranges, impose gun rationing, establish “red flag” laws that violate the due process rights of citizens while failing to protect the public, universal background check laws that don’t reduce crime, and more.
So far, Virginia’s Democrats seem far more interested in doing the bidding of their billionaire backer Michael Bloomberg than the will of the voters who’ve shown up at the capitol to lobby for their rights, or the tens of thousands of Virginians who’ve turned out at county supervisors and city council meetings in support of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.
Still, that doesn’t mean that the thousands of Virginians and NRA members who showed up at the state capitol on Monday were wasting their time. Far from it. They were there delivering a message, and if lawmakers refused to listen, that’s on them. I know for a fact that average, ordinary Virginians are paying attention, as are members of the media. Honestly, it’s not even a state story anymore. What’s happening in Virginia has now become a national and even international story (I’m scheduled to do an interview with a German television station later in the week, as a matter of fact).
To the gun owners, Second Amendment supporters, NRA members (and staffers), and opponents of these gun laws who showed up in Richmond today, thank you. Your presence is greatly appreciated, at least by those Virginians not eager to turn to a constitutionally protected right into a privilege.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--Zito: Gun Vote Key To Trump's 2020 Chances

In 2016 , suburban women who owned firearms were a key constituency for Donald Trump .
In 2020 , however , many of these same suburban voters are going to be inundated with messaging from anti-gun candidates and activists like Michael Bloomberg .
Will that 2A coalition hold together , or perhaps even grow ?
Or will Bloomberg ’ s billions propel anti-gun candidates into the White House , much as his campaign cash helped flip Virginia ’ s legislature in November of 2019 ?
One of the most astute political observers I know is Salena Zito , and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arms Cam & Co. to discuss the impact of the gun vote in this year ’ s elections , as well as how the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement may play a role in driving voter turnout .
If anything , the Second Amendment has only grown in importance for many of Trump ’ s 2016 supporters , and while the president expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on background check legislation in 2019 , he backed away from that offer once Nancy Pelosi decided to go all-in on impeachment .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of judges , as well as two Supreme Court justices , that are likely to play a big role in protecting the constitutional rights of Americans in the years and even decades to come .
Zito says Democrats have learned nothing from the 2016 election , and while they may be calling for “ commonsense ” gun regulations , the specifics of their proposals are anything but commonsense .
Instead , they target legal gun owners with a variety of infringements on their rights , while ignoring or coddling violent criminals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America cities .
It ’ s a fascinating discussion that ’ s relevant to every Second Amendment supporter , so I encourage you to check out the entire interview above .
Also on today ’ s program we highlight the failures of the criminal justice system in Minnesota , an armed citizen story from Jacksonville , Florida , and a Prince George ’ s County , Maryland police officer going above and beyond to help a homeless man whose life was upended when his wife died from cancer a few years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and the Townhall.com podcast page as well as subscribing to Townhall Media at YouTube .
On tomorrow ’ s program we ’ ll have more on the first gun control bills to get voted out of committee in Virginia , as well as more of the day ’ s top Second Amendment news and information .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

In 2016, suburban women who owned firearms were a key constituency for Donald Trump. In 2020, however, many of these same suburban voters are going to be inundated with messaging from anti-gun candidates and activists like Michael Bloomberg. Will that 2A coalition hold together, or perhaps even grow? Or will Bloomberg’s billions propel anti-gun candidates into the White House, much as his campaign cash helped flip Virginia’s legislature in November of 2019?
One of the most astute political observers I know is Salena Zito, and she joins me on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. to discuss the impact of the gun vote in this year’s elections, as well as how the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement may play a role in driving voter turnout.
If anything, the Second Amendment has only grown in importance for many of Trump’s 2016 supporters, and while the president expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on background check legislation in 2019, he backed away from that offer once Nancy Pelosi decided to go all-in on impeachment. Trump has also been able to confirm a huge number of judges, as well as two Supreme Court justices, that are likely to play a big role in protecting the constitutional rights of Americans in the years and even decades to come.
Zito says Democrats have learned nothing from the 2016 election, and while they may be calling for “commonsense” gun regulations, the specifics of their proposals are anything but commonsense. Instead, they target legal gun owners with a variety of infringements on their rights, while ignoring or coddling violent criminals who are actually responsible for driving violence in America cities.
It’s a fascinating discussion that’s relevant to every Second Amendment supporter, so I encourage you to check out the entire interview above.
Also on today’s program we highlight the failures of the criminal justice system in Minnesota, an armed citizen story from Jacksonville, Florida, and a Prince George’s County, Maryland police officer going above and beyond to help a homeless man whose life was upended when his wife died from cancer a few years ago.
Don’t forget that you can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and the Townhall.com podcast page as well as subscribing to Townhall Media at YouTube. On tomorrow’s program we’ll have more on the first gun control bills to get voted out of committee in Virginia, as well as more of the day’s top Second Amendment news and information. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-01-13--VA Committee Approves Gun Bills On Party Line Vote

After a chaotic morning at the state capitol in Richmond , and despite huge turnout from thousands of gun owners , Virginia Democrats approved a number of gun control bills in a key committee hearing Monday .
The Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was supposed to begin at 8 a.m. , but was delayed more than an hour thanks to the long lines to get in the doors of the capitol .
New rules banning the lawful carrying of firearms in the capitol and office buildings led to new security measures , which in turn led to lengthy delays and annoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat staffers were apparently able to bypass the required security .
After folks cleared the long security line , they were then told that Democrats were requiring an equal number of supporters and opponents of the gun bills to be seated in the committee room , despite the fact that those opposed to the bills far outnumbered gun control supporters .
Once the hearing got underway , Sen. Judiciary chair John Edwards ( no relation ) was asked by Republican state senator Mark Obenshain why a number of gun bills were going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had told GOP members that the gun bills wouldn ’ t be heard this morning due to the absence of GOP state senator Bill Stanley .
This is the second lie in as many days for Virginia ’ s Democrat lawmakers .
On Friday , House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn and other Democrats claimed that newly enacted ban on firearms in the capitol was done at the request of the Capitol Police .
Not so , according to Col. Anthony Pike , who told the press that Democrats came to his office asking how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this morning ’ s hearing , Democrats passed a number of gun control bills out of the Judiciary Committee , though not without some modifications .
SB 12 and SB 70 , both dealing with requiring background checks on all private transfers of firearms , were combined into one bill going forward , and the measure was modified so that it only applies to private sales , not private transfers .
Gun control advocates were not pleased , according to the Virginia Shooting Sports Association .
Meanwhile SB 16 , Sen. Dick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and suppressor ban , was struck from the record , which means there will be no further action on the bill .
Instead , Democrats will focus their efforts on HB 961 , a slightly modified version of Saslaw ’ s legislation that “ allows ” gun owners to maintain possession of their banned firearms if they register them with the Virginia State Police .
The ban on magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds , as well as lawfully purchased suppressors , remains in the House version of the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Judiciary Committee also approved SB 69 , which imposes a gun rationing scheme on the state , forbidding most gun owners from purchasing more than one handgun per month .
Red flag legislation and a bill that would allow for local governments to pass temporary gun bans for permitted events were also approved on party line 9-5 votes .
The NRA , which had encouraged gun owners to attend the committee hearing today , say they were thrilled with the large turnout , though they aren ’ t happy with how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all of these bills is the floor of the state Senate , and I ’ d expect Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw to call for votes as soon as he can .
Virginia Democrats are obviously hoping to ram through as much of their anti-gun agenda as they can before Lobby Day brings tens of thousands of gun owners to the capitol on January 20th .

After a chaotic morning at the state capitol in Richmond, and despite huge turnout from thousands of gun owners, Virginia Democrats approved a number of gun control bills in a key committee hearing Monday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was supposed to begin at 8 a.m., but was delayed more than an hour thanks to the long lines to get in the doors of the capitol. New rules banning the lawful carrying of firearms in the capitol and office buildings led to new security measures, which in turn led to lengthy delays and annoyed staffers and citizens. Meanwhile, some Democrat staffers were apparently able to bypass the required security.
Outrageous. General Assembly staff can’t get to work but Administration officials blithely bypass Dem gun screening. https://t.co/QICJjD0cHD — Mark Obenshain (@MarkObenshain) January 13, 2020
After folks cleared the long security line, they were then told that Democrats were requiring an equal number of supporters and opponents of the gun bills to be seated in the committee room, despite the fact that those opposed to the bills far outnumbered gun control supporters.
New rules put in place by committee majority. A lot of pro gun people who had waited in line since 7:00am were not happy to have people in “Mom’s Demand” t-shirts escorted in ahead of them. — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) January 13, 2020
Once the hearing got underway, Sen. Judiciary chair John Edwards (no relation) was asked by Republican state senator Mark Obenshain why a number of gun bills were going to be voted on, given that Edwards had told GOP members that the gun bills wouldn’t be heard this morning due to the absence of GOP state senator Bill Stanley.
This is the second lie in as many days for Virginia’s Democrat lawmakers. On Friday, House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn and other Democrats claimed that newly enacted ban on firearms in the capitol was done at the request of the Capitol Police. Not so, according to Col. Anthony Pike, who told the press that Democrats came to his office asking how best to implement a ban.
As for this morning’s hearing, Democrats passed a number of gun control bills out of the Judiciary Committee, though not without some modifications.
SB 12 and SB 70, both dealing with requiring background checks on all private transfers of firearms, were combined into one bill going forward, and the measure was modified so that it only applies to private sales, not private transfers. Gun control advocates were not pleased, according to the Virginia Shooting Sports Association.
Sen. Peterson offered a substitute to remove the term transfer and focus only on sale. Committee approved. Sec. Moran is opposing the substitute and the gun ban lobby is now opposing it. — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) January 13, 2020
Meanwhile SB 16, Sen. Dick Saslaw’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban, was struck from the record, which means there will be no further action on the bill. Instead, Democrats will focus their efforts on HB 961, a slightly modified version of Saslaw’s legislation that “allows” gun owners to maintain possession of their banned firearms if they register them with the Virginia State Police. The ban on magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds, as well as lawfully purchased suppressors, remains in the House version of the so-called “assault firearms” bill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved SB 69, which imposes a gun rationing scheme on the state, forbidding most gun owners from purchasing more than one handgun per month.
Red flag legislation and a bill that would allow for local governments to pass temporary gun bans for permitted events were also approved on party line 9-5 votes.
The NRA, which had encouraged gun owners to attend the committee hearing today, say they were thrilled with the large turnout, though they aren’t happy with how the votes turned out.
An absolutely incredible turnout by @NRA members in Richmond today. In contrast, abysmal showing by Moms Demand and anti-gun groups. Bloomberg has billions to buy politicians BUT @NRA members have the will to fight harder. #valeg #virginia pic.twitter.com/B4Pvkx8JC9 — NRA (@NRA) January 13, 2020
The next stop for all of these bills is the floor of the state Senate, and I’d expect Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw to call for votes as soon as he can. Virginia Democrats are obviously hoping to ram through as much of their anti-gun agenda as they can before Lobby Day brings tens of thousands of gun owners to the capitol on January 20th.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--A CA Gun Control Policy Designed To Hurt The Poor

I ran across this story about the San Diego County Sheriff ’ s Office and their concealed carry licensing system from 10 News in San Diego and was immediately struck by the language used by the auditor for the state of California , who told the sheriff ’ s office to jack up the fees for being able to lawfully carry a concealed firearm .
The 2017 audit also recommended , “ To ensure that it maximizes allowable revenue from its CCW program , San Diego should immediately pursue increasing its initial , renewal , and amendment fees to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Auditor ’ s newly released report , the estimated date of completion of those recommendations is unknown .
The purpose of a CCW program is not to generate revenue for the state or the county , or at least it ’ s not supposed to be .
It ’ s supposedly to ensure that only law-abiding county residents exercise their right to bear arms .
For years in San Diego County , that meant that the average person couldn ’ t obtain a concealed carry license , because “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want to carry a firearm for self-defense ” didn ’ t meet the sheriff ’ s standard of justifiable need .
Things may be changing at the sheriff ’ s office , however .
10 News says the number of concealed carry licenses granted by the office have jumped from just 171 in 2017 to 707 in 2018 .
The department was also on pace to authorize more than 1,000 licenses in 2019 , though the stated policy of the office is still that “ self-defense ” is not evidence of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sheriff ’ s spokesperson also says the sheriff made a conscious decision to reject the auditor ’ s suggestion to raise the fees for applying for and receiving a concealed carry license .
The Sheriff ’ s Department did not agree on placing a high fee that would otherwise prevent the issuance of a CCW for a qualified and genuine necessity solely because of financial hardship .
The adjustment of those fees is now mandated by the state with the passage and implementation of Assembly Bill 1297 this year .
Sheriff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our business practice for reviewing the fees collected .
That fee will ultimately need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
” Under previous California law , counties could charge up to $ 100 for applying for and receiving a concealed carry license .
San Diego County charges about $ 65 to apply , and $ 93 for a two year permit .
The legislation that the sheriff mention , Ab 1297 , removes that $ 100 cap on fees , which means counties can now charge as much as they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected right .
The more it costs to exercise a right , the more folks on the lower end of the income scale will be able to do so .
That might be fine for billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and the coastal elites in California ’ s anti-gun enclaves , but it ’ s an absolute infringement on the right of the average Californian to be able to both keep and bear arms .
In California , the right to carry a concealed firearm doesn ’ t exist , and neither does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared a few years ago in the Peruta case that there was no right to carry a concealed firearm .
Given that the Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms , that must mean that open carry is a protected right , if concealed carry is not .
That ’ s what a panel of the 9th Circuit determined in a case called Young v Hawaii , but the 9th Circuit decided it would re-hear the case en banc in February of 2019 .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept the case on ice as it awaits a Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association ( or , anti-gun justices on the court just want to delay the case as long as possible , since Judge Diarmuid O ’ Scannlain wrote such a masterful opinion that I think opponents have an impossible task in trying to effectively rebut it .
In the meantime , California residents in many anti-gun enclaves will soon have another insult to be added to the injury of their rights ; a hike on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bad neighborhoods from even applying for their permit .
The fees are non-refundable , after all .
You don ’ t get your money back if you ’ re denied .
Meanwhile Hollywood ’ s celebrities are protected by their armed guards , Silicon Valley tech CEO ’ s have their corporate security teams , and the politically connected can even allegedly grease the wheels of the concealed carry process with a few campaign donations .
For a state that prides itself on being so democratic ( in every sense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame the state is so elitist in how it treats a right of the People .

I ran across this story about the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and their concealed carry licensing system from 10 News in San Diego and was immediately struck by the language used by the auditor for the state of California, who told the sheriff’s office to jack up the fees for being able to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.
The 2017 audit also recommended, “To ensure that it maximizes allowable revenue from its CCW program, San Diego should immediately pursue increasing its initial, renewal, and amendment fees to the maximum amounts allowable under state law.” According to the Auditor’s newly released report, the estimated date of completion of those recommendations is unknown.
The purpose of a CCW program is not to generate revenue for the state or the county, or at least it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposedly to ensure that only law-abiding county residents exercise their right to bear arms. For years in San Diego County, that meant that the average person couldn’t obtain a concealed carry license, because “it’s my right” and “I want to carry a firearm for self-defense”didn’t meet the sheriff’s standard of justifiable need.
Things may be changing at the sheriff’s office, however. 10 News says the number of concealed carry licenses granted by the office have jumped from just 171 in 2017 to 707 in 2018. The department was also on pace to authorize more than 1,000 licenses in 2019, though the stated policy of the office is still that “self-defense” is not evidence of a justifiable need.
In a statement, the sheriff’s spokesperson also says the sheriff made a conscious decision to reject the auditor’s suggestion to raise the fees for applying for and receiving a concealed carry license.
The Sheriff’s Department did not agree on placing a high fee that would otherwise prevent the issuance of a CCW for a qualified and genuine necessity solely because of financial hardship. The adjustment of those fees is now mandated by the state with the passage and implementation of Assembly Bill 1297 this year. Sheriff’s Financial Services is currently looking at our business practice for reviewing the fees collected. That fee will ultimately need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.”
Under previous California law, counties could charge up to $100 for applying for and receiving a concealed carry license. San Diego County charges about $65 to apply, and $93 for a two year permit.
The legislation that the sheriff mention, Ab 1297, removes that $100 cap on fees, which means counties can now charge as much as they want to permit someone to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
The more it costs to exercise a right, the more folks on the lower end of the income scale will be able to do so. That might be fine for billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and the coastal elites in California’s anti-gun enclaves, but it’s an absolute infringement on the right of the average Californian to be able to both keep and bear arms. In California, the right to carry a concealed firearm doesn’t exist, and neither does the right to openly carry a firearm.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared a few years ago in the Peruta case that there was no right to carry a concealed firearm. Given that the Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms, that must mean that open carry is a protected right, if concealed carry is not. That’s what a panel of the 9th Circuit determined in a case called Young v Hawaii, but the 9th Circuit decided it would re-hear the case en banc in February of 2019. Since then, however, it’s kept the case on ice as it awaits a Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (or, anti-gun justices on the court just want to delay the case as long as possible, since Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote such a masterful opinion that I think opponents have an impossible task in trying to effectively rebut it.
In the meantime, California residents in many anti-gun enclaves will soon have another insult to be added to the injury of their rights; a hike on fees that will preclude many good people in bad neighborhoods from even applying for their permit. The fees are non-refundable, after all. You don’t get your money back if you’re denied. Meanwhile Hollywood’s celebrities are protected by their armed guards, Silicon Valley tech CEO’s have their corporate security teams, and the politically connected can even allegedly grease the wheels of the concealed carry process with a few campaign donations. For a state that prides itself on being so democratic (in every sense of the word), it’s a shame the state is so elitist in how it treats a right of the People.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--2A "Protection Counties" Quietly Taking Root In NC

A growing number of counties in North Carolina are adopting pro-Second Amendment resolutions , inspired by the movement in Virginia and determined to take a preemptive stand in opposition to any new gun control proposals .
Despite the fact that Republicans control both chambers of the legislature , residents and local officials say they don ’ t want to wait until it ’ s too late .
From the Greensboro News & Record : Written by County Commissioner Zak Crotts , the resolution is expected to be introduced and put to a vote at Tuesday ’ s meeting of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 6:30 p.m. at the governmental center , 913 Greensboro St. Crotts told the Winston-Salem Journal he is taking action because of what is happening in Virginia and the possibility of the federal government passing gun-control legislation… The Greensboro paper notes that if Davidson County approves its “ Second Amendment Protection Resolution , ” it will join six other counties in the state that have already adopted similar resolutions in recent weeks .
In Davidson County , Sheriff Richie Simmons has thrown his weight behind the resolution , saying people want to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if any laws violating their constitutional rights take effect at the state or federal level .
Sheriff Simmons says he has a plan .
Be sure you read the entire article at the Greensboro paper , which does a very good job of laying out the state of the growing movement , albeit with the expected dose of liberal snark .
Still , kudos to the paper for quoting a constitutional scholar who says while the resolutions are symbolic , local law enforcement can use discretion in enforcing any law they like , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to Second Amendment news ( it ’ s my job , after all ) , but I was today years old when I realized just how fast the pro-Second Amendment resolutions are taking root in North Carolina .
One of the interesting things is that at least some of the resolutions don ’ t use the “ Second Amendment Sanctuary ” language , but have adopted the phrase Second Amendment Protection County , which is a new one for me .
It ’ s another hallmark of the hyper-local nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even all agree on what to call these resolutions .
What they can agree on is that it ’ s time to be heard , to send a message that any legal means can and will be used to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms .
With pro-Second Amendment legislators in charge at the state capitol , you can ’ t help but wonder if we ’ ll soon see a bill declaring North Carolina a Second Amendment Protection State as well .

A growing number of counties in North Carolina are adopting pro-Second Amendment resolutions, inspired by the movement in Virginia and determined to take a preemptive stand in opposition to any new gun control proposals. Despite the fact that Republicans control both chambers of the legislature, residents and local officials say they don’t want to wait until it’s too late. From the Greensboro News & Record:
Written by County Commissioner Zak Crotts, the resolution is expected to be introduced and put to a vote at Tuesday’s meeting of the Davidson County Board of Commissioners, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at the governmental center, 913 Greensboro St. Crotts told the Winston-Salem Journal he is taking action because of what is happening in Virginia and the possibility of the federal government passing gun-control legislation…
The Greensboro paper notes that if Davidson County approves its “Second Amendment Protection Resolution,” it will join six other counties in the state that have already adopted similar resolutions in recent weeks.
In Davidson County, Sheriff Richie Simmons has thrown his weight behind the resolution, saying people want to hear what their elected officials plan to do if any laws violating their constitutional rights take effect at the state or federal level. Sheriff Simmons says he has a plan.
Be sure you read the entire article at the Greensboro paper, which does a very good job of laying out the state of the growing movement, albeit with the expected dose of liberal snark. Still, kudos to the paper for quoting a constitutional scholar who says while the resolutions are symbolic, local law enforcement can use discretion in enforcing any law they like, including gun laws.
I pay close attention to Second Amendment news (it’s my job, after all), but I was today years old when I realized just how fast the pro-Second Amendment resolutions are taking root in North Carolina. One of the interesting things is that at least some of the resolutions don’t use the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” language, but have adopted the phrase Second Amendment Protection County, which is a new one for me. It’s another hallmark of the hyper-local nature of the movement that various counties can’t even all agree on what to call these resolutions.
What they can agree on is that it’s time to be heard, to send a message that any legal means can and will be used to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. With pro-Second Amendment legislators in charge at the state capitol, you can’t help but wonder if we’ll soon see a bill declaring North Carolina a Second Amendment Protection State as well.


bearingarms--2020-01-13--In Wake Of 2A Sanctuary Votes, A New Movement Takes Shape

We ’ re still seeing a handful of votes on Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in Virginia , but with 125 counties , cities , and towns having declared themselves save havens for the right to keep and bear arms , we ’ re simply running out of real estate to add to the totals .
I ’ ve been curious to see what ’ s happened in counties once the votes have been cast .
Were gun owners simply twiddling their thumbs while they waited for the legislative session to begin ?
In some parts of the state , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Wise County in the far southwestern part of the state , it sounds like gun owners have been busy .
About 300 Wise County residents gathered Friday to buy raffle tickets for firearms and to cheer opponents of proposed gun control legislation before a Jan. 20 trip to show the General Assembly their stance .
The Wise County Patriots Group , which organized the rally in the former Appalachia High School auditorium , also held a raffle for a 9 mm pistol , a .22-caliber rifle and a Mossberg shotgun as several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise funds for buses to take demonstrators to Richmond .
Appalachia Town Councilman Travis Anderson told the audience that the Patriots Group is now comprised of him , county resident Clarence Peters , Norton Vice Mayor Mark Caruso , county resident Ralph Gilley and former Wise town policeman Aaron Cathel .
Other elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and Wise joined the audience , including Supervisors J.H .
Rivers and Bob Adkins and Wise Second Amendment sanctuary resolution author and Town Council member Laura Taylor-Baugh .
I love the fact that local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts like this .
What we ’ re witnessing here is a new chapter in the Second Amendment sanctuary movement ; a growing network of similar hyper-local organizations that can communicate and coordinate collective responses to the gun control laws that Governor Ralph Northam is so intent on passing .
I ’ m also excited to see Wise County ’ s commonwealth ’ s attorney taking a vocal stand in opposition to these gun control proposals .
In Virginia , commonwealth ’ s attorneys are the local prosecutors , and if the commonwealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objecting to the gun bills , I suspect will be hearing from others very soon .
Wise County Commonwealth ’ s Attorney Chuck Slemp III led off the rally ’ s speakers with an attack on various gun control and criminal justice measures on the General Assembly ’ s plate for the 60-day legislative session .
“ Over the course of the last few weeks , months , we have seen , in my opinion , an assault on our freedoms , ” Slemp said .
He pointed to bills that would bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for felony larceny offenses and “ disarm ” law-abiding gun owners .
“ They ’ re going to undermine law enforcement and deprive victims of their voice , ” Slemp said .
“ Thieves don ’ t need a cost of living increase .
Free men need not ask permission to keep and bear arms to protect themselves , their families , their neighbors and their friends.
” While the purpose of this meeting was to help organize Wise County residents ’ trip to Richmond for Lobby Day on January 20th , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its work to oppose any new gun control legislation once they return home from the capitol .
I wish them luck , and I hope that their example is replicated in other counties across the state .

We’re still seeing a handful of votes on Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in Virginia, but with 125 counties, cities, and towns having declared themselves save havens for the right to keep and bear arms, we’re simply running out of real estate to add to the totals.
I’ve been curious to see what’s happened in counties once the votes have been cast. Were gun owners simply twiddling their thumbs while they waited for the legislative session to begin? In some parts of the state, that may have been the case, but in Wise County in the far southwestern part of the state, it sounds like gun owners have been busy.
About 300 Wise County residents gathered Friday to buy raffle tickets for firearms and to cheer opponents of proposed gun control legislation before a Jan. 20 trip to show the General Assembly their stance. The Wise County Patriots Group, which organized the rally in the former Appalachia High School auditorium, also held a raffle for a 9 mm pistol, a .22-caliber rifle and a Mossberg shotgun as several people lined up to buy tickets to raise funds for buses to take demonstrators to Richmond. Appalachia Town Councilman Travis Anderson told the audience that the Patriots Group is now comprised of him, county resident Clarence Peters, Norton Vice Mayor Mark Caruso, county resident Ralph Gilley and former Wise town policeman Aaron Cathel. Other elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and Wise joined the audience, including Supervisors J.H. Rivers and Bob Adkins and Wise Second Amendment sanctuary resolution author and Town Council member Laura Taylor-Baugh.
I love the fact that local officials are working with their constituents on efforts like this. What we’re witnessing here is a new chapter in the Second Amendment sanctuary movement; a growing network of similar hyper-local organizations that can communicate and coordinate collective responses to the gun control laws that Governor Ralph Northam is so intent on passing.
I’m also excited to see Wise County’s commonwealth’s attorney taking a vocal stand in opposition to these gun control proposals. In Virginia, commonwealth’s attorneys are the local prosecutors, and if the commonwealth’s attorney in Wise County is objecting to the gun bills, I suspect will be hearing from others very soon.
Wise County Commonwealth’s Attorney Chuck Slemp III led off the rally’s speakers with an attack on various gun control and criminal justice measures on the General Assembly’s plate for the 60-day legislative session. “Over the course of the last few weeks, months, we have seen, in my opinion, an assault on our freedoms,” Slemp said. He pointed to bills that would bring back parole, raise the dollar threshold for felony larceny offenses and “disarm” law-abiding gun owners. “They’re going to undermine law enforcement and deprive victims of their voice,” Slemp said. “Thieves don’t need a cost of living increase. Free men need not ask permission to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors and their friends.”
While the purpose of this meeting was to help organize Wise County residents’ trip to Richmond for Lobby Day on January 20th, it sounds like the patriots group will continue its work to oppose any new gun control legislation once they return home from the capitol. I wish them luck, and I hope that their example is replicated in other counties across the state.