bearingarms--2020-02-07--Proposed Range Challenges Ohio Town's Ban On Shooting

The town of Canfield , Ohio is home to Iron Sights Armory , a gun store that ’ s interested in expanding its operation to include an indoor shooting range .
The biggest problem for the company is the fact that the town actually bans any shooting inside of the city limits , with the exception of self-defense .
According to WKBN-TV , the issue drew a large crowd to the Canfield city council meeting this week , with residents on both sides of the issue turning out to speak .
“ My opposition is not to gun ownership .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting range in close proximity to our schools and to the bike trail , ” Ashley Kanotz said .
“ The proposal of putting a gun range within the city limits , in my opinion , is too close to a school regardless of where it is within the city , ” John Schuler said .
Iron Sights Armory ’ s counter-argument refers to a gun range in Austintown .
The Training Range on Mahoning Avenue sits less than a mile away from Austintown Middle School .
“ Yet there hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence has increased because of that gun range being located near them , ” Eric Parisi said .
Honestly , you could have an indoor range next door to a school and it ’ s not going to pose any sort of issue , other than causing heartburn for folks who don ’ t want a safe place to shoot in their community .
Other residents brought up the potential economic impact of having a range in town .
Resident Frank Micchia said the range itself will boost Canfield ’ s economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily cost over $ 200,000 .
That ’ s a sizable investment.
” Some think it will end up hurting the economy .
“ The time and age in which we live in now , we understand that divisive issues such as this will lead small businesses or local businesses not to come to this community , ” Pat Sculli said .
What ’ s more divisive ; offering a place for gun owners to safely and responsibly train with their firearms , or forbidding the construction of a legal business where people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many “ gun safety ” advocates don ’ t actually want gun safety , education , or training at all .
Their idea of gun safety is simply “ don ’ t own a gun , ” and while I don ’ t believe anyone should own a firearm if they don ’ t want to , that doesn ’ t give them the right to bar others from owning a firearm or to prevent them from having access to a range .
Then there ’ s the legal issue .
Canfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot fired in self-defense inside the city limits , which could be subject to a legal challenge .
While the state ’ s firearm preemption law does allow for localities to regulate the discharge of firearms , the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of judicial review when looking at laws that fundamentally impact the ability to exercise the rights protected by the Second Amendment .
While that particular case dealt with the ability to possess a firearm , a challenge to Canfield ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the case the the rights of Canfield residents are being denied by forbidding them to have a safe place where they can train , compete , and use their firearms .
Hopefully if the owners of Iron Sights Armory decide to move forward with plans for a range , the city council will do the right thing and amend their ordinance to allow for the discharge of a firearm in public or private ranges .
If council members decide to stand their ground and defend their ban , however , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenged in court .

The town of Canfield, Ohio is home to Iron Sights Armory, a gun store that’s interested in expanding its operation to include an indoor shooting range. The biggest problem for the company is the fact that the town actually bans any shooting inside of the city limits, with the exception of self-defense.
According to WKBN-TV, the issue drew a large crowd to the Canfield city council meeting this week, with residents on both sides of the issue turning out to speak.
“My opposition is not to gun ownership. It’s opposition to having a shooting range in close proximity to our schools and to the bike trail,” Ashley Kanotz said. “The proposal of putting a gun range within the city limits, in my opinion, is too close to a school regardless of where it is within the city,” John Schuler said. Iron Sights Armory’s counter-argument refers to a gun range in Austintown. The Training Range on Mahoning Avenue sits less than a mile away from Austintown Middle School. “Yet there hasn’t been a direct correlation that shows any violence has increased because of that gun range being located near them,” Eric Parisi said.
Honestly, you could have an indoor range next door to a school and it’s not going to pose any sort of issue, other than causing heartburn for folks who don’t want a safe place to shoot in their community.
Other residents brought up the potential economic impact of having a range in town.
Resident Frank Micchia said the range itself will boost Canfield’s economy. “If approved and built, would easily cost over $200,000. That’s a sizable investment.” Some think it will end up hurting the economy. “The time and age in which we live in now, we understand that divisive issues such as this will lead small businesses or local businesses not to come to this community,” Pat Sculli said.
What’s more divisive; offering a place for gun owners to safely and responsibly train with their firearms, or forbidding the construction of a legal business where people can exercise their constitutional rights?
Far too many “gun safety” advocates don’t actually want gun safety, education, or training at all. Their idea of gun safety is simply “don’t own a gun,” and while I don’t believe anyone should own a firearm if they don’t want to, that doesn’t give them the right to bar others from owning a firearm or to prevent them from having access to a range.
Then there’s the legal issue. Canfield, Ohio bars any shooting besides a shot fired in self-defense inside the city limits, which could be subject to a legal challenge. While the state’s firearm preemption law does allow for localities to regulate the discharge of firearms, the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of judicial review when looking at laws that fundamentally impact the ability to exercise the rights protected by the Second Amendment. While that particular case dealt with the ability to possess a firearm, a challenge to Canfield’s discharge ban could use that precedent to make the case the the rights of Canfield residents are being denied by forbidding them to have a safe place where they can train, compete, and use their firearms.
Hopefully if the owners of Iron Sights Armory decide to move forward with plans for a range, the city council will do the right thing and amend their ordinance to allow for the discharge of a firearm in public or private ranges. If council members decide to stand their ground and defend their ban, however, I’d love to see that decision challenged in court.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--Bloomberg Now Paying Social Media Influencers For Support

Michael Bloomberg has already spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in his quest to become president , but he ’ s dropping a few more Bloomberg Bucks on social media influencers who are willing to shill for the anti-gun billionaire in exchange for cold , hard cash .
According to The Daily Beast , Bloomberg ’ s election team has started a new campaign aimed at getting “ micro-influencers ” to show their ( paid ) support for the former New York mayor .
For a fixed $ 150 fee , the Bloomberg campaign is pitching micro-influencers—someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in industry parlance—to create original content “ that tells us why Mike Bloomberg is the electable candidate who can rise above the fray , work across the aisle so ALL Americans feel heard & respected.
” “ Are you sick of the chaos & infighting overshadowing the issues that matter most to us ?
Please express your thoughts verbally or for still image posts please overlay text about why you support Mike , ” the campaign copy tells would-be Bloomberg stans under the heading “ Content We ’ d Love From You , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike is the candidate who can change our country for the better , state why YOU think he ’ s a great candidate.
” Honestly , I ’ m a little surprised that Bloomberg ’ s only shelling out $ 150 for the paid endorsements .
It ’ s not like he has to be stingy with his cash , after all .
It looks like Bloomberg ’ s targeting those influencers with smaller followers , which may be an attempt to help the campaign appear more organic , by using individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks .
The Bloomberg content campaign appears geared toward collecting content that can later be shared by the campaign , essentially creating a stock-image library of well-crafted , “ organic ” -seeming still images and videos custom-made for the campaign .
The relatively low $ 150 cost per post also makes the investment comparatively cheap—some influencers can command fees in the five or even six figures for a brand campaign , and that ’ s not even including celebrity accounts , who can earn enough money per post to make even billionaire Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg ’ s campaign may be the first to use the resources of Tribe to try and build the illusion of grassroots support , but now that the cat ’ s out of the bag , don ’ t be surprised if Joe Biden ’ s campaign starts offering $ 20 or so for those willing to stump for him online .
Meanwhile , according to the Real Clear Politics polling average , Bloomberg ’ s campaign is now averaging double digit support for the first time since the gun control sugar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though he ’ s still showing less than half the level of support seen by Biden and Sanders .
Who knows , maybe Bloomberg ’ s next move will be to start giving people $ 150 if they tell pollsters that they plan on voting for him .

Michael Bloomberg has already spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in his quest to become president, but he’s dropping a few more Bloomberg Bucks on social media influencers who are willing to shill for the anti-gun billionaire in exchange for cold, hard cash.
According to The Daily Beast, Bloomberg’s election team has started a new campaign aimed at getting “micro-influencers” to show their (paid) support for the former New York mayor.
For a fixed $150 fee, the Bloomberg campaign is pitching micro-influencers—someone who has from 1,000 to 100,000 followers, in industry parlance—to create original content “that tells us why Mike Bloomberg is the electable candidate who can rise above the fray, work across the aisle so ALL Americans feel heard & respected.” “Are you sick of the chaos & infighting overshadowing the issues that matter most to us? Please express your thoughts verbally or for still image posts please overlay text about why you support Mike,” the campaign copy tells would-be Bloomberg stans under the heading “Content We’d Love From You,” asking influencers to “Show+Tell why Mike is the candidate who can change our country for the better, state why YOU think he’s a great candidate.”
Honestly, I’m a little surprised that Bloomberg’s only shelling out $150 for the paid endorsements. It’s not like he has to be stingy with his cash, after all. It looks like Bloomberg’s targeting those influencers with smaller followers, which may be an attempt to help the campaign appear more organic, by using individuals who aren’t well known to most folks.
The Bloomberg content campaign appears geared toward collecting content that can later be shared by the campaign, essentially creating a stock-image library of well-crafted, “organic”-seeming still images and videos custom-made for the campaign. The relatively low $150 cost per post also makes the investment comparatively cheap—some influencers can command fees in the five or even six figures for a brand campaign, and that’s not even including celebrity accounts, who can earn enough money per post to make even billionaire Bloomberg blush.
According to The Daily Beast, Bloomberg’s campaign may be the first to use the resources of Tribe to try and build the illusion of grassroots support, but now that the cat’s out of the bag, don’t be surprised if Joe Biden’s campaign starts offering $20 or so for those willing to stump for him online.
Meanwhile, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Bloomberg’s campaign is now averaging double digit support for the first time since the gun control sugar daddy launched his presidential bid last November, though he’s still showing less than half the level of support seen by Biden and Sanders. Who knows, maybe Bloomberg’s next move will be to start giving people $150 if they tell pollsters that they plan on voting for him.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--PA State Senator Blasts Gov's Plan To Strip School Safety Funds

I ’ d originally planned on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. being interview-free , but Thursday afternoon I had the chance to chat with Pennsylvania State Sen. Mario Scavello about Gov .
Tom Wolf ’ s two-faced concern for students in the state and didn ’ t want that interview to wait until Monday ’ s show .
So while there are plenty of your emails and comments discussed on today ’ s show , we also talk about Wolf ’ s call for lawmakers to pass new gun control legislation “ for the children ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars from a fund meant to provide school security grants to Pennsylvania school districts .
Sen. Scavello doesn ’ t hold back in the interview , excoriating the governor for his proposal and vowing that the Republican-controlled legislature will fight to keep both the school security grants and the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvania residents intact .
Budget hearings in the state begin later this month , and Scavello says the state GOP will be highlighting Wolf ’ s intent on hamstringing districts that need to upgrade their physical security .
Be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , and stick around for discussion about the latest with the push for gun control in Virginia as well .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube , as well as Apple Podcasts , and thanks for watching , listening , and spreading the word !
On a personal note , I mentioned that I taped today ’ s show on Thursday afternoon because I was with my wife this morning as we received the results from her latest CT scans .
As expected , the tumors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months , but she ’ s starting a new treatment next week , and we ’ re hopeful that she ’ s going to beat this horrible disease .
I just want to say thank you to everyone who ’ s reached out over the past few days with words of support and encouragement .
I deeply appreciate each and every one of you , and your words have helped to keep us strong and optimistic in this fight .

I’d originally planned on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. being interview-free, but Thursday afternoon I had the chance to chat with Pennsylvania State Sen. Mario Scavello about Gov. Tom Wolf’s two-faced concern for students in the state and didn’t want that interview to wait until Monday’s show.
So while there are plenty of your emails and comments discussed on today’s show, we also talk about Wolf’s call for lawmakers to pass new gun control legislation “for the children” while attempting to slash tens of millions of dollars from a fund meant to provide school security grants to Pennsylvania school districts.
Sen. Scavello doesn’t hold back in the interview, excoriating the governor for his proposal and vowing that the Republican-controlled legislature will fight to keep both the school security grants and the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvania residents intact. Budget hearings in the state begin later this month, and Scavello says the state GOP will be highlighting Wolf’s intent on hamstringing districts that need to upgrade their physical security.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stick around for discussion about the latest with the push for gun control in Virginia as well.
Don’t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube, as well as Apple Podcasts, and thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word!
On a personal note, I mentioned that I taped today’s show on Thursday afternoon because I was with my wife this morning as we received the results from her latest CT scans. As expected, the tumors in her lungs have grown over the past three months, but she’s starting a new treatment next week, and we’re hopeful that she’s going to beat this horrible disease. I just want to say thank you to everyone who’s reached out over the past few days with words of support and encouragement. I deeply appreciate each and every one of you, and your words have helped to keep us strong and optimistic in this fight.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--Small Group Of FL Mayors Push For Universal Background Checks

Florida is a bit of a punchline here in the United States , and it ’ s not difficult to understand why .
If there ’ s a bizarre headline to be made , it ’ s almost certainly going to begin with “ Florida Man.
” It ’ s odd , too , because the state isn ’ t really like that .
I ’ ve been there more times than I can count and know countless people from there , and none are the kind of person to say they want to both heal and kill people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the state is pretty sane .
Unless , of course , you look at a group of fewer than 20 mayors who want to push universal background checks down the state ’ s throat .
Tampa Mayor Jane Castor , Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez and 15 other Florida mayors wrote to a Republican senator Thursday encouraging him to pass universal background checks for gun purchases .
The letter was sent to Sen. Tom Lee , R-Thonotosassa , who is leading an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled Senate to pass a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called gun show loophole .
“ As you lead the effort to consider legislation this session to prevent gun violence , including mass shootings , we write to express our support for passing a state law to require criminal background checks on all gun sales , ” the mayors , including the mayor of Parkland , wrote .
“ The Florida Legislature should build upon the important gun violence legislation passed following the Parkland mass shooting and pass a comprehensive background check law.
” Lee ’ s bill closes the gun show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun shows go through a background check .
But for all other private-party gun sales , the buyer and seller would just have to fill out a form answering a series of questions and have it signed and notarized .
The form would not have to be given to any agency .
Of course , what the mayor of Parkland fails to note is that the shooter in his own town ’ s mass shooting passed the damn background check .
Mass shooters all too often do , after all .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal impact on mass shootings or crime , at best .
Most likely , it would have no impact at all .
So why are these mayors trying to push for bills like this ?
That ’ s easy .
They simply want to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms by any means necessary .
In their mind , any restriction is completely and totally justified if it might interfere with someone trying to buy a gun they might use for some nefarious purpose .
Nevermind that we know criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nevermind that mass shooters can usually pass background checks because they weren ’ t prosecuted for the numerous cases of domestic violence attributed to them previously .
No , what we need to do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy and sell guns .
The important thing to note is that this represents a small minority of mayors in Florida .
It ’ s what happens when you elected Florida Man/Florida Woman to public office , apparently .

Florida is a bit of a punchline here in the United States, and it’s not difficult to understand why. If there’s a bizarre headline to be made, it’s almost certainly going to begin with “Florida Man.” It’s odd, too, because the state isn’t really like that. I’ve been there more times than I can count and know countless people from there, and none are the kind of person to say they want to both heal and kill people, for example.
For the most part, the state is pretty sane.
Unless, of course, you look at a group of fewer than 20 mayors who want to push universal background checks down the state’s throat.
Tampa Mayor Jane Castor, Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez and 15 other Florida mayors wrote to a Republican senator Thursday encouraging him to pass universal background checks for gun purchases. The letter was sent to Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, who is leading an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled Senate to pass a more modest gun control bill, which closes the so-called gun show loophole. “As you lead the effort to consider legislation this session to prevent gun violence, including mass shootings, we write to express our support for passing a state law to require criminal background checks on all gun sales,” the mayors, including the mayor of Parkland, wrote. “The Florida Legislature should build upon the important gun violence legislation passed following the Parkland mass shooting and pass a comprehensive background check law.” Lee’s bill closes the gun show loophole by requiring all private-party sales at gun shows go through a background check. But for all other private-party gun sales, the buyer and seller would just have to fill out a form answering a series of questions and have it signed and notarized. The form would not have to be given to any agency.
Of course, what the mayor of Parkland fails to note is that the shooter in his own town’s mass shooting passed the damn background check. Mass shooters all too often do, after all.
In other words, this bill would have a minimal impact on mass shootings or crime, at best. Most likely, it would have no impact at all.
So why are these mayors trying to push for bills like this? That’s easy. They simply want to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms by any means necessary. In their mind, any restriction is completely and totally justified if it might interfere with someone trying to buy a gun they might use for some nefarious purpose.
Nevermind that we know criminals get their guns via the black market. Nevermind that mass shooters can usually pass background checks because they weren’t prosecuted for the numerous cases of domestic violence attributed to them previously. No, what we need to do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy and sell guns.
The important thing to note is that this represents a small minority of mayors in Florida.
It’s what happens when you elected Florida Man/Florida Woman to public office, apparently.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--KY Governor To Look At Loosening Carry Laws At Capitol

When a group of Second Amendment advocates protested for their gun rights while carrying firearms , the anti-gun establishment lost their collective stuff .
It was an affront , something some thought of as even worse than Richmond .
How dare Kentuckians use their First and Second Amendment rights like that .
However , at the end of the day , nothing happened .
Despite the “ more guns mean more crime ” rhetoric we routinely hear from anti-gunners , there wasn ’ t any crime or violence .
Not in Richmond and not in Kentucky ’ s capitol .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the governor is considering loosening restrictions even further .
Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear said Thursday his administration is evaluating rules about what people can and can not bring into the Capitol , but that any changes the administration makes won ’ t restrict the ability to bring guns into the Capitol .
“ We believe that the rules right now , if followed , are appropriate , at least as it comes to firearms , which are constitutionally protected , ” Beshear said .
“ We need to take a look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been put into place , whether they ’ re about umbrellas or other issues.
” Under current rules , umbrellas are not allowed in the Capitol but anyone can openly carry a gun so long as they legally possess the firearm , except in the Supreme Court chambers , the House and Senate chambers and the House and Senate gallery .
Those rules sparked public outcry last week after pro-gun activists wearing camouflage spent much of Friday walking around the Capitol carrying large guns .
Photos of the activists went viral on social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publications .
One photo showed a group of men lifting their guns above their heads and another showed men carrying guns while wearing ski masks over their faces .
Now , the protesters did , apparently , violate the rules a bit .
Masks were not allowed , for example , as well as handguns needing to be holstered and rifles slung .
That said , it appears that information wasn ’ t communicated to the protesters , so it doesn ’ t look like an attempt to ignore the law so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
That said , I think we can all agree that rules that limit carrying an umbrella probably need to be revisited .
However , it doesn ’ t look like the rules on guns will be rolled back , and that ’ s a good thing .
A very good thing .
Especially since open carry is so contentious within the Second Amendment community .
And especially since Beshear is a Democrat , a party not known for their Second Amendment sympathies in the first place .
No , the umbrella @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a huge impact on the Second Amendment .
What it does , though , is work to destigmatize activists in general , the idea that they simply can ’ t be trusted while interacting with lawmakers within the capitol .
The truth is , if someone wanted to hurt them , it ’ s not like they wouldn ’ t have plenty of chances to do so anyway .
Maybe this is a first step toward even more repeals of rule and , perhaps most importantly , indication that even the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can afford to acknowledge .

When a group of Second Amendment advocates protested for their gun rights while carrying firearms, the anti-gun establishment lost their collective stuff. It was an affront, something some thought of as even worse than Richmond. How dare Kentuckians use their First and Second Amendment rights like that.
However, at the end of the day, nothing happened. Despite the “more guns mean more crime” rhetoric we routinely hear from anti-gunners, there wasn’t any crime or violence. Not in Richmond and not in Kentucky’s capitol.
In fact, it went so well, the governor is considering loosening restrictions even further.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said Thursday his administration is evaluating rules about what people can and cannot bring into the Capitol, but that any changes the administration makes won’t restrict the ability to bring guns into the Capitol. “We believe that the rules right now, if followed, are appropriate, at least as it comes to firearms, which are constitutionally protected,” Beshear said. “We need to take a look back at some other rules that have been put into place, whether they’re about umbrellas or other issues.” Under current rules, umbrellas are not allowed in the Capitol but anyone can openly carry a gun so long as they legally possess the firearm, except in the Supreme Court chambers, the House and Senate chambers and the House and Senate gallery. Those rules sparked public outcry last week after pro-gun activists wearing camouflage spent much of Friday walking around the Capitol carrying large guns. Photos of the activists went viral on social media and were picked up by national publications. One photo showed a group of men lifting their guns above their heads and another showed men carrying guns while wearing ski masks over their faces.
Now, the protesters did, apparently, violate the rules a bit. Masks were not allowed, for example, as well as handguns needing to be holstered and rifles slung. That said, it appears that information wasn’t communicated to the protesters, so it doesn’t look like an attempt to ignore the law so much as a misunderstanding about the rules in question.
That said, I think we can all agree that rules that limit carrying an umbrella probably need to be revisited.
However, it doesn’t look like the rules on guns will be rolled back, and that’s a good thing. A very good thing. Especially since open carry is so contentious within the Second Amendment community. And especially since Beshear is a Democrat, a party not known for their Second Amendment sympathies in the first place.
No, the umbrella rule being rolled back won’t have a huge impact on the Second Amendment. What it does, though, is work to destigmatize activists in general, the idea that they simply can’t be trusted while interacting with lawmakers within the capitol. The truth is, if someone wanted to hurt them, it’s not like they wouldn’t have plenty of chances to do so anyway.
Maybe this is a first step toward even more repeals of rule and, perhaps most importantly, indication that even the governor is more sympathetic to their cause than he can afford to acknowledge.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--VA House Committee Passes Amended Gun, Mag, Suppressor Ban

With limited debate , the Virginia House Public Safety Committee Friday morning passed an amended version of HB961 that would ban future sales of the most commonly sold rifles , magazines , and all suppressors in the state of Virginia .
The 12-9 vote comes as House Democrats were forced to overhaul the bill in order to gain support from reluctant Democrat legislators .
Gone , for now anyway , are requirements that gun owners register their so-called “ assault weapons ” with the state police , as well as turn in or destroy any lawfully possessed suppressors or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still contains language that would require Virginians to either turn over or destroy ammunition magazines deemed to be “ high capacity.
” According to the current language of HB961 , that means any Virginian possessing an ammunition magazine that can accept more than 12-rounds on January 1st , 2021 would be a felon .
As House Republicans noted shortly after the bill passed out of committee “ amounts to confiscation.
” Phil Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League isn ’ t impressed with the modifications to HB961 either .
Van Cleave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from over , though gun control activists are celebrating the committee ’ s passage of HB961 .
It ’ s clear that the strategy of Democrat leadership in the House is to water down the legislation enough to allow lawmakers to say they ’ re not “ taking anyone ’ s guns , ” though the bill would still turn the vast majority of the state ’ s gun owners into felons simply for maintaining possession of the magazines that they possess .
What ’ s more , the bill still turns the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms , magazines , and suppressors into a privilege .
Existing owners of these items would be “ allowed ” to continue to possess their guns and suppressors , but no future sales would be permitted .
The bill also prohibits the manufacturing of so-called “ assault weapons , ” which would mean that Virginia-based gun companies like Zenith Firearms would be forced to relocate outside of the state in order to continue doing business .
HB961 must pass out of the House of Delegates by the end of Tuesday , February 11th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it ’ s clear that there is still reluctance on the part of some House Democrats to embrace the extreme measure .
Over on the state Senate side , passage isn ’ t assured either .
At least four Democrat state senators said they couldn ’ t vote for the original language of HB961 , and it ’ s unclear whether the substitute language will be enough to garner their support .
At least one Democrat state senator , Lynwood Lewis , has said he won ’ t vote for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of legally owned firearms or magazines .
In other words , while gun control advocates are clearly trying to portray the passage of HB961 as inevitable , it ’ s not a done deal .
Virginia gun owners need to contact their delegates today and over the weekend before next week ’ s House vote on the measure , and be prepared to do the same if the bill crosses over to the state Senate .

With limited debate, the Virginia House Public Safety Committee Friday morning passed an amended version of HB961 that would ban future sales of the most commonly sold rifles, magazines, and all suppressors in the state of Virginia.
The 12-9 vote comes as House Democrats were forced to overhaul the bill in order to gain support from reluctant Democrat legislators. Gone, for now anyway, are requirements that gun owners register their so-called “assault weapons” with the state police, as well as turn in or destroy any lawfully possessed suppressors or “trigger activators.”
However, the bill still contains language that would require Virginians to either turn over or destroy ammunition magazines deemed to be “high capacity.” According to the current language of HB961, that means any Virginian possessing an ammunition magazine that can accept more than 12-rounds on January 1st, 2021 would be a felon. As House Republicans noted shortly after the bill passed out of committee “amounts to confiscation.”
“House Democrats seem to have learned nothing from the public outcry caused by their proposals. A similar Senate version of House Bill 961 is exactly what prompted the ‘Second Amendment sanctuary cities’ movement across Virginia.” – @cToddGilbert pic.twitter.com/eDmTdhwGY1 — VA House GOP (@vahousegop) February 7, 2020
Phil Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League isn’t impressed with the modifications to HB961 either.
Unfortunately after a long debate and a change to the bill that really didn’t help, HB 961 passed out of committee and will head to the floor of the house. If it passes there then I will head to the Senate. Battle far from over. I’m going to do a video to explain all this today. — Phil Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) February 7, 2020
Van Cleave is right that the battle is far from over, though gun control activists are celebrating the committee’s passage of HB961.
It’s clear that the strategy of Democrat leadership in the House is to water down the legislation enough to allow lawmakers to say they’re not “taking anyone’s guns,” though the bill would still turn the vast majority of the state’s gun owners into felons simply for maintaining possession of the magazines that they possess.
What’s more, the bill still turns the ownership of some of the most common firearms, magazines, and suppressors into a privilege. Existing owners of these items would be “allowed” to continue to possess their guns and suppressors, but no future sales would be permitted. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing of so-called “assault weapons,” which would mean that Virginia-based gun companies like Zenith Firearms would be forced to relocate outside of the state in order to continue doing business.
HB961 must pass out of the House of Delegates by the end of Tuesday, February 11th in order to remain viable this session, and it’s clear that there is still reluctance on the part of some House Democrats to embrace the extreme measure. Over on the state Senate side, passage isn’t assured either. At least four Democrat state senators said they couldn’t vote for the original language of HB961, and it’s unclear whether the substitute language will be enough to garner their support. At least one Democrat state senator, Lynwood Lewis, has said he won’t vote for any bill that would force Virginians to get rid of legally owned firearms or magazines.
In other words, while gun control advocates are clearly trying to portray the passage of HB961 as inevitable, it’s not a done deal. Virginia gun owners need to contact their delegates today and over the weekend before next week’s House vote on the measure, and be prepared to do the same if the bill crosses over to the state Senate.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--VA Dems Make It Clear: It's About Guns, Not Crime

Virginia Democrats on Thursday evening killed a bill that would have done more to reduce violent crime in the state ’ s hardest hit cities than any of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s proposals , making it clear that their agenda isn ’ t about saving lives , but restricting rights .
HB1617 , authored by Republican Del .
Jason Miyares , a former prosecutor , would have provided grant money to cities in order to implement two programs ; Project Ceasefire and Project Exile .
The two programs work in conjunction with each other , both targeting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those individuals are given a choice .
They can stop shooting , in which case they can work with the Ceasefire folks to help put their life on the right path , whether it ’ s through a GED program , job training , an apprenticeship , and the like .
Or , if they keep shooting , they ’ ll be dealing with the men and women in Project Exile , and their cases are going to be referred to federal court where they ’ ll be facing long prison sentences without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re going to stop shooting .
We ’ ll help you if you let us , but we ’ ll make you if we have to.
” That ’ s the message and the strategy behind these programs and it works , as has been detailed by researchers like David Kennedy , who has helped implement the strategy in many cities over the past twenty years .
It works because it targets the people who are actually committing violent crimes .
In many cases , these most likely to offend are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and tragedy in the communities they live and prey upon .
But many of them are not beyond redemption , and lives have not only been saved but changed by these efforts .
This is the bill that Democrats killed , while passing bills to ration handgun purchases , limit firearms training , establish red flag laws , and even allow localities to pass their own gun control laws .
They want cities across the state to be able to put useless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the books , while preventing them from putting proven and effective programs in place that don ’ t require any new legislation beyond establishing a funding mechanism .
This is shameful .
I ’ m not being hyperbolic when I say that I believe this bill , had it been enacted into law , would have saved more lives than all of Gov .
Northam ’ s gun bills put together , and Democrats killed it in committee .
This is not common sense .
In fact , it makes no sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model has support from a lot of liberal politicians .
No , I believe the reason Democrats killed this bill are simply because it was authored by a Republican and it didn ’ t do anything to restrict the rights of legal gun owners .
Those two things made it unsupportable for the majority of the General Laws committee , and Virginians in high-crime neighborhoods are going to pay the price for the Democrats ’ partisanship .

Virginia Democrats on Thursday evening killed a bill that would have done more to reduce violent crime in the state’s hardest hit cities than any of Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposals, making it clear that their agenda isn’t about saving lives, but restricting rights.
HB1617, authored by Republican Del. Jason Miyares, a former prosecutor, would have provided grant money to cities in order to implement two programs; Project Ceasefire and Project Exile.
The two programs work in conjunction with each other, both targeting the cities most violent and prolific offenders. Those individuals are given a choice. They can stop shooting, in which case they can work with the Ceasefire folks to help put their life on the right path, whether it’s through a GED program, job training, an apprenticeship, and the like. Or, if they keep shooting, they’ll be dealing with the men and women in Project Exile, and their cases are going to be referred to federal court where they’ll be facing long prison sentences without the possibility of early release.
“You’re going to stop shooting. We’ll help you if you let us, but we’ll make you if we have to.” That’s the message and the strategy behind these programs and it works, as has been detailed by researchers like David Kennedy, who has helped implement the strategy in many cities over the past twenty years. It works because it targets the people who are actually committing violent crimes. In many cases, these most likely to offend are also the most likely to be victimized. They’re responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and tragedy in the communities they live and prey upon. But many of them are not beyond redemption, and lives have not only been saved but changed by these efforts.
This is the bill that Democrats killed, while passing bills to ration handgun purchases, limit firearms training, establish red flag laws, and even allow localities to pass their own gun control laws. They want cities across the state to be able to put useless, ineffective, and unconstitutional laws on the books, while preventing them from putting proven and effective programs in place that don’t require any new legislation beyond establishing a funding mechanism.
This is shameful. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that I believe this bill, had it been enacted into law, would have saved more lives than all of Gov. Northam’s gun bills put together, and Democrats killed it in committee. This is not common sense. In fact, it makes no sense, given the fact that the Project Ceasefire model has support from a lot of liberal politicians.
No, I believe the reason Democrats killed this bill are simply because it was authored by a Republican and it didn’t do anything to restrict the rights of legal gun owners. Those two things made it unsupportable for the majority of the General Laws committee, and Virginians in high-crime neighborhoods are going to pay the price for the Democrats’ partisanship.


bearingarms--2020-02-07--Giffords Raises Grades For Some Pro-Gun States

Giffords is the kind of organization where nothing is ever really good enough for them .
There are no hard limits to what they want when it comes to gun control .
They simply want it all .
And that ’ s apparent in their grading of various states .
After all , in a grading system that includes pluses and minuses , California only got an “ A ” from the gun-grabbing group .
However , it should be noted that they will bump-up grades even for pro-gun states if they adopt just a small bit of gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranking the strength of state gun laws , the gun control advocacy group Giffords boosted ratings for a handful of states in the Midwest and West , most of which have traditionally been home to a strong gun rights culture .
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released its scorecard Thursday , touting six states that received higher grades : • Colorado ( C to a C+ ) : Enacted an extreme risk protection order law • Nevada ( D to a C+ ) : Enacted universal background checks , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bump stock ban , and a child access prevention law • Nebraska ( C- to a C ) : Directed funding to community violence intervention strategies • Utah ( D- to a D ) : Enacted a law requiring more reporting of prohibited purchaser records to federal background check system • New Mexico ( F to a C ) : Enacted bills to strengthen background checks and disarm domestic abusers .
Well , let ’ s look at Utah for a moment .
All they really did is push for reporting to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that was enough to take them from a D- to a D. That ’ s all it took , just a single bill that ’ s arguably not even really gun control–the laws limiting who can buy what are already on the books , after all–and they ’ re counting that as a win .
What about these other states .
Nevada and New Mexico have been fairly pro-gun states .
Now , they ’ re not .
What ’ s going on ?
Are we really losing ?
Yes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those states is that they ’ re seeing more people move into the state from the hellhole currently known as California .
They ’ re fleeing high taxes and insane regulation and settling in freer states like New Mexico and Nevada , among others .
The problem is , they ’ re also demanding the same insane legislation that created what they just left .
That includes gun control .
So , the voting demographics of these states are shifting and the results are less than ideal .
Yet there ’ s something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Illinois just moved up to an A- .
One of the most rabidly anti-gun states in the country was a B-level state by Giffords ’ s grading system .
Honestly , that should tell you all you need to know about Giffords .
It ’ s clear that even the most draconian of gun control measures possible won ’ t be enough for them .
They want all our guns and our gun rights .
They can claim they want no such thing , of course , but look at the grades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Giffords is the kind of organization where nothing is ever really good enough for them. There are no hard limits to what they want when it comes to gun control. They simply want it all.
And that’s apparent in their grading of various states. After all, in a grading system that includes pluses and minuses, California only got an “A” from the gun-grabbing group.
However, it should be noted that they will bump-up grades even for pro-gun states if they adopt just a small bit of gun control, apparently.
In its annual scorecard ranking the strength of state gun laws, the gun control advocacy group Giffords boosted ratings for a handful of states in the Midwest and West, most of which have traditionally been home to a strong gun rights culture. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released its scorecard Thursday, touting six states that received higher grades: Illinois (B+ to an A-): Enacted gun dealer regulations
Colorado (C to a C+): Enacted an extreme risk protection order law
Nevada (D to a C+): Enacted universal background checks, an extreme risk protection order law, a bump stock ban, and a child access prevention law
Nebraska (C- to a C): Directed funding to community violence intervention strategies
Utah (D- to a D): Enacted a law requiring more reporting of prohibited purchaser records to federal background check system
New Mexico (F to a C): Enacted bills to strengthen background checks and disarm domestic abusers.
So what’s really happening?
Well, let’s look at Utah for a moment. All they really did is push for reporting to happen, something that’s relatively uncontroversial, and that was enough to take them from a D- to a D. That’s all it took, just a single bill that’s arguably not even really gun control–the laws limiting who can buy what are already on the books, after all–and they’re counting that as a win.
What about these other states. Nevada and New Mexico have been fairly pro-gun states. Now, they’re not. What’s going on? Are we really losing?
Yes and no. What’s happening in those states is that they’re seeing more people move into the state from the hellhole currently known as California. They’re fleeing high taxes and insane regulation and settling in freer states like New Mexico and Nevada, among others. The problem is, they’re also demanding the same insane legislation that created what they just left. That includes gun control.
So, the voting demographics of these states are shifting and the results are less than ideal.
Yet there’s something else we should note. Please notice that Illinois just moved up to an A-. One of the most rabidly anti-gun states in the country was a B-level state by Giffords’s grading system.
Honestly, that should tell you all you need to know about Giffords. It’s clear that even the most draconian of gun control measures possible won’t be enough for them. They want all our guns and our gun rights. They can claim they want no such thing, of course, but look at the grades. They tell a very different story.


bearingarms--2020-02-09--OR Dems Pushing Storage Law Over Objections From Both Sides

Anti-gun politicians in Portland , Oregon are pushing a measure that would require firearms be kept under lock and key unless they ’ re being carried by gun owners , even in their own homes , and according to The Oregonian , the legislators feel confident that they ’ ll be able to approve the bill , despite objections from both gun owners and gun control advocates .
“ Kids are dying , ” said Hillsboro Democrat Janeen Sollman , one of House Bill 4005 ’ s main sponsors .
“ And we need to make sure we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above all.
” ..
The bill is sufficiently moderate , Sollman said , that one of Oregon ’ s particularly vocal gun control groups doesn ’ t support it , while at the same time it ’ s sufficiently strong that Oregon gun rights groups are against it .
“ I feel like we ’ re in a very good place , ” said co-sponsor Rep. Rachel Prusak , D-West Linn , touting the fact that neither the Oregon Firearms Federation nor Ceasefire Oregon support the bill .
“ To me , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I have to say , “ nobody likes it , which is why we know it ’ s a good bill ” is very strange attitude .
Gun control groups and Second Amendment organizations have very different reasons for their opposition , of course .
Ceasefire Oregon doesn ’ t think the bill goes far enough , and wants the civil penalties in the legislation replaced with criminal penalties .
Gun rights groups , on the other hand , say the bill is fundamentally flawed and will infringe on the right of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only piece of legislation that should concern the state ’ s gun owners .
Two other gun control bills this session could be controversial but so far are garnering far less attention .
One would allow schools , cities , counties and other local jurisdictions to set their own rules on where people can carry guns .
Now , people with concealed handgun licenses are allowed to take their guns into public buildings .
Under Senate Bill 1538 , local government agencies could forbid that .
The core principle behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , is to respect the different needs of different communities .
“ The gun enthusiasts think it ’ s very dangerous to have a gun-free environment .
And people like me – the more guns , the more dangerous , ” the Portland Democrat said .
“ Under this bill , neither side would prevail.
” House Bill 4036 would designate Portland International Airport ’ s passenger terminal as a public building , adding it to the state ’ s short list of places where people need to have a concealed handgun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a cute argument from Burdick , but it ’ s simply not true .
Under her bill , anti-gun activists would surely prevail in the state ’ s biggest cities , while more rural jurisdictions would likely stick with the status quo .
The problem is that our right to keep and bear arms isn ’ t a right established through local ordinances or even state statute .
It ’ s a right that pre-dates our Constitution , and it ’ s a right that shouldn ’ t expand or contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population density of your town .
The same holds true for HB4036 .
If it were to pass along with SB1538 , the pre-security area of the Portland International Airport would almost certainly become a gun-free zone for no other reason than to appease the fears of anti-gun lawmakers and activists .
Oregon has several major problems to deal with at the moment , including a rising homeless rate and an increasing crime rate that ’ s driven by drug and gang violence , not the state ’ s legal gun owners .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constitutional rights while ignoring the real cause of the increase in violent crime won ’ t make anyone safer , but it most certainly will put their constitutional rights in jeopardy .

Anti-gun politicians in Portland, Oregon are pushing a measure that would require firearms be kept under lock and key unless they’re being carried by gun owners, even in their own homes, and according to The Oregonian, the legislators feel confident that they’ll be able to approve the bill, despite objections from both gun owners and gun control advocates.
“Kids are dying,” said Hillsboro Democrat Janeen Sollman, one of House Bill 4005’s main sponsors. “And we need to make sure we’re putting public peace, health and safety above all.”.. The bill is sufficiently moderate, Sollman said, that one of Oregon’s particularly vocal gun control groups doesn’t support it, while at the same time it’s sufficiently strong that Oregon gun rights groups are against it. “I feel like we’re in a very good place,” said co-sponsor Rep. Rachel Prusak, D-West Linn, touting the fact that neither the Oregon Firearms Federation nor Ceasefire Oregon support the bill. “To me, that’s saying we have good policy.”
I have to say, “nobody likes it, which is why we know it’s a good bill” is very strange attitude.
Gun control groups and Second Amendment organizations have very different reasons for their opposition, of course. Ceasefire Oregon doesn’t think the bill goes far enough, and wants the civil penalties in the legislation replaced with criminal penalties. Gun rights groups, on the other hand, say the bill is fundamentally flawed and will infringe on the right of self-defense.
The storage bill isn’t the only piece of legislation that should concern the state’s gun owners.
Two other gun control bills this session could be controversial but so far are garnering far less attention. One would allow schools, cities, counties and other local jurisdictions to set their own rules on where people can carry guns. Now, people with concealed handgun licenses are allowed to take their guns into public buildings. Under Senate Bill 1538, local government agencies could forbid that. The core principle behind the bill, chief sponsor Sen. Ginny Burdick said, is to respect the different needs of different communities. “The gun enthusiasts think it’s very dangerous to have a gun-free environment. And people like me – the more guns, the more dangerous,” the Portland Democrat said. “Under this bill, neither side would prevail.” House Bill 4036 would designate Portland International Airport’s passenger terminal as a public building, adding it to the state’s short list of places where people need to have a concealed handgun license to bring a gun.
That’s a cute argument from Burdick, but it’s simply not true. Under her bill, anti-gun activists would surely prevail in the state’s biggest cities, while more rural jurisdictions would likely stick with the status quo. The problem is that our right to keep and bear arms isn’t a right established through local ordinances or even state statute. It’s a right that pre-dates our Constitution, and it’s a right that shouldn’t expand or contract based on your ZIP code or the population density of your town.
The same holds true for HB4036. If it were to pass along with SB1538, the pre-security area of the Portland International Airport would almost certainly become a gun-free zone for no other reason than to appease the fears of anti-gun lawmakers and activists.
Oregon has several major problems to deal with at the moment, including a rising homeless rate and an increasing crime rate that’s driven by drug and gang violence, not the state’s legal gun owners. Targeting those citizens who are simply exercising their constitutional rights while ignoring the real cause of the increase in violent crime won’t make anyone safer, but it most certainly will put their constitutional rights in jeopardy.


bearingarms--2020-02-09--Police Called After 6-Year Old Points "Finger Gun" At Teacher

A Pennsylvania mom is furious after police were called when her 6-year old daughter with Downs Syndrome pointed her index finger at her teacher and said , “ I shoot you.
” Maggie Gaines says she has no problem with her daughter being sent to the principal ’ s office over the comment , but says there was simply no need for the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District to call the police .
“ I was fine with everything up until calling the police , ” Gaines told CBSPhilly .
“ And I said , ‘ You absolutely do not have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is ridiculous.
’ ” Gaines maintained the district ’ s response was a gross overreaction and should have been handled much differently .
“ My daughter got frustrated and pointed her finger at her teacher and said , ‘ I shoot you , ’ ” Gaines said .
“ At that point , they went to the principal ’ s office and it was quickly assessed that she didn ’ t even really know what she was saying .
“ She really didn ’ t understand what she was saying , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I ’ m sure all 6-year-olds don ’ t really know what that means , ” Gaines added .
“ Now , there is a record at the police that says she made a threat to her teacher.
” Gaines says the school district is misinterpreting state law , and that there is no reason to call police when schools have determined that there is no actual threat .
According to CBSPhilly , the controversy has now drawn the attention of at least one state lawmaker .
Pennsylvania state Sen. Andrew Dinniman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family , is expressing concern with how the school district is handling the incident .
“ As a state senator , an educator , and a parent , I am concerned when I hear that such important decisions appear to be guided blindly by written policy or legal interpretation without those in positions of authority using their judgment , experience , and commonsense to weigh in .
Furthermore , I am alarmed that a school seems to be acting as an extension of the police department in promulgating data and records on children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement .
This isn ’ t the first time we ’ ve seen a student ’ s finger gun land them in trouble .
In 2019 , a middle school student in Kansas faced felony charges after making a finger gun in class , while students in the same school district who brought actual firearms to school were charged with misdemeanors .
After her story generated a lot of local media attention , prosecutors diverted her case and made her do community service instead of moving forward with the felony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an absurd inability on the part of the school district to tell the difference between actual threats and kids being kids , but they also demonstrate that public officials are quick to recognize when adverse media attention might prove problematic for them .
It ’ s just a shame that it takes local reporters getting involved for these school districts and public officials to do the right thing .

A Pennsylvania mom is furious after police were called when her 6-year old daughter with Down Syndrome pointed her index finger at her teacher and said, “I shoot you.”
Maggie Gaines says she has no problem with her daughter being sent to the principal’s office over the comment, but says there was simply no need for the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District to call the police.
“I was fine with everything up until calling the police,” Gaines told CBSPhilly. “And I said, ‘You absolutely do not have to call the police. You know, this is ridiculous.’” Gaines maintained the district’s response was a gross overreaction and should have been handled much differently. “My daughter got frustrated and pointed her finger at her teacher and said, ‘I shoot you,’” Gaines said. “At that point, they went to the principal’s office and it was quickly assessed that she didn’t even really know what she was saying. “She really didn’t understand what she was saying, and having Down syndrome is one aspect, but I’m sure all 6-year-olds don’t really know what that means,” Gaines added. “Now, there is a record at the police that says she made a threat to her teacher.”
Gaines says the school district is misinterpreting state law, and that there is no reason to call police when schools have determined that there is no actual threat. According to CBSPhilly, the controversy has now drawn the attention of at least one state lawmaker.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Andrew Dinniman, who was contacted by the Gaines family, is expressing concern with how the school district is handling the incident. “As a state senator, an educator, and a parent, I am concerned when I hear that such important decisions appear to be guided blindly by written policy or legal interpretation without those in positions of authority using their judgment, experience, and commonsense to weigh in. Furthermore, I am alarmed that a school seems to be acting as an extension of the police department in promulgating data and records on children as young as kindergarteners,” Dinniman said in a statement.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a student’s finger gun land them in trouble. In 2019, a middle school student in Kansas faced felony charges after making a finger gun in class, while students in the same school district who brought actual firearms to school were charged with misdemeanors. After her story generated a lot of local media attention, prosecutors diverted her case and made her do community service instead of moving forward with the felony charges.
Both of these cases demonstrate an absurd inability on the part of the school district to tell the difference between actual threats and kids being kids, but they also demonstrate that public officials are quick to recognize when adverse media attention might prove problematic for them. It’s just a shame that it takes local reporters getting involved for these school districts and public officials to do the right thing.


bearingarms--2020-02-09--Does Wyoming Bill Seek To Turn State Into Sanctuary?

It ’ s always a good thing when a state decides to take someone ’ s Second Amendment rights seriously .
Especially in this current climate where the Second Amendment is under almost constant assault .
It ’ s easy for lawmakers to ignore the Second Amendment , especially in relatively pro-gun states .
However , a bill in Wyoming seeks to protect the Second Amendment in very serious ways .
The bill is also known as the ” Second Amendment Preservation Act , ” and is sponsored by Rep. Mark Jennings ( R-Sheridan County ) and 13 co-sponsors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list of possible actions or laws as an infringement on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
Those actions would include gun registration , gun confiscation efforts , special taxes aimed only at firearms and gun accessories and other similar actions .
The bill would also make it so that anyone who tried to enforce such laws would be ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer in the state .
In a way , it seeks to turn the entire state into a Second Amendment sanctuary community .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Note that universal background checks and red flag laws–two of the more contentious issues being discussed–aren ’ t really covered explicitly .
Sure , red flag laws can be argued to fall under gun confiscation efforts , but it can also be argued to be something different .
I know I ’ d consider it as confiscation , but would the courts ?
Not mentioned above is that the bill would also cover : That would cover things like assault weapon bans .
However , it ’ s also not likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently has 13 cosponsors , which isn ’ t bad .
However , it was introduced during a budget session .
Under state law , that means it needs a two-thirds majority to pass .
I ’ m sorry , but getting two-thirds of the people to vote for a given bill is slim .
Oh , Republicans have the majorities where they could do it just along party lines , but I also think this is the kind of bill you ’ re likely to see swept under the rug .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because this would be beautiful .
Honestly , it ’ s the kind of thing that would make me consider relocating up that way if I could tolerate the cold worth a damn .
Still , if it gets enough support now , it may come back up later when it doesn ’ t need quite so many votes to pass .
That would be a big win as well as a reminder to Washington that just because a handful of self-appointed urban elites and their preferred politicians think gun control is swell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the nation has any interest going down that particular rabbit hole .
Most of us would rather preserve our rights and let the cities figure out some other way to address violence , especially since there ’ s reason to believe gun control isn ’ t remotely necessary to accomplish that .

It’s always a good thing when a state decides to take someone’s Second Amendment rights seriously. Especially in this current climate where the Second Amendment is under almost constant assault. It’s easy for lawmakers to ignore the Second Amendment, especially in relatively pro-gun states.
However, a bill in Wyoming seeks to protect the Second Amendment in very serious ways.
The bill is also known as the ”Second Amendment Preservation Act,” and is sponsored by Rep. Mark Jennings (R-Sheridan County) and 13 co-sponsors. Among other things, it would declare a list of possible actions or laws as an infringement on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those actions would include gun registration, gun confiscation efforts, special taxes aimed only at firearms and gun accessories and other similar actions.
The bill would also make it so that anyone who tried to enforce such laws would be ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer in the state.
In a way, it seeks to turn the entire state into a Second Amendment sanctuary community.
However, it only does so to a point. Note that universal background checks and red flag laws–two of the more contentious issues being discussed–aren’t really covered explicitly. Sure, red flag laws can be argued to fall under gun confiscation efforts, but it can also be argued to be something different. I know I’d consider it as confiscation, but would the courts?
Not mentioned above is that the bill would also cover:
(iv) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition by law abiding citizens;
That would cover things like assault weapon bans.
Yes, it’s big.
However, it’s also not likely to pass.
You see, the bill currently has 13 cosponsors, which isn’t bad. However, it was introduced during a budget session. Under state law, that means it needs a two-thirds majority to pass. I’m sorry, but getting two-thirds of the people to vote for a given bill is slim. Oh, Republicans have the majorities where they could do it just along party lines, but I also think this is the kind of bill you’re likely to see swept under the rug.
It’s a shame, too, because this would be beautiful. Honestly, it’s the kind of thing that would make me consider relocating up that way if I could tolerate the cold worth a damn.
Still, if it gets enough support now, it may come back up later when it doesn’t need quite so many votes to pass. That would be a big win as well as a reminder to Washington that just because a handful of self-appointed urban elites and their preferred politicians think gun control is swell, it doesn’t mean the rest of the nation has any interest going down that particular rabbit hole.
Most of us would rather preserve our rights and let the cities figure out some other way to address violence, especially since there’s reason to believe gun control isn’t remotely necessary to accomplish that.


bearingarms--2020-02-08--Red Flag Bill Narrowly Approved By NM State Senate

A red flag gun seizure bill opposed by the vast majority of the state ’ s sheriffs and rank and file police officers was narrowly approved by the New Mexico State Senate on Friday on a 22-20 vote .
The Albuquerque Journal reports that the controversial bill is expected to pass the House as well , and could get to Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham ’ s desk before the legislative session ends in less than two weeks .
“ We have an obligation to every single New Mexican , every single family , every single child that we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just that additional layer of safety and public support , ” Lujan Grisham said during a news conference after Friday ’ s vote .
This year ’ s red flag gun bill , Senate Bill 5 , has divided New Mexico ’ s law enforcement ranks .
Thirty of the state ’ s 33 county sheriffs oppose the measure , while State Police Chief Tim Johnson and top Albuquerque Police Department officials support it .
While “ top ” officials with the Albuquerque Police Department may support the bill , the rank and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure does become law , expect a court challenge from sheriffs across the state .
They ’ re the ones that will be tasked with serving any Extreme Risk Protection Orders , and Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace has previously told Bearing Arms that he will face a contempt charge rather than confiscate anyone ’ s firearms under a red flag order .
“ We ’ re really taking a hard stance on it , ” the sheriff said of the state sheriffs association ’ s opposition to the bill .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it , that realize the unconstitutionality of them .
And again , if these orders come through my office , if we get them , we ’ re not going to put people at risk .
We ’ re not going to put our officers at risk .
And if I have to go to the judge and get held in contempt of court to prove a point , I ’ m ready .
We ’ re gon na do the right thing here.
” He ’ ll likely have plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 33 county sheriffs also opposed to the red flag law .
In addition to drawing hundreds of gun owners to the state capitol to lobby lawmakers to axe the proposal , the staunch opposition to the gun confiscation bill has also prompted localities to reject resolutions offered up in support of the red flag language .
Doña Ana County commissioners rejected a resolution supporting the bill in a 3-2 vote on Jan. 28 , at a public meeting packed by opponents .
The bill has also stoked opposition from a majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom participated in a Friday [ February 1st ] morning press conference organized by the National Rifle Association ’ s Institute for Legislative Action and the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association .
Two New Mexico sheriffs , Tony Mace of Cibola County and Shane Ferrari of San Juan County , argued there were already laws on the books allowing law enforcement to intervene in a behavioral health crisis .
While Mace stuck to a defense of the second amendment , Ferrari argued that “ red flag ” court orders would limit his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose deputies to danger .
“ These attacks are right out of the left ’ s playbook , to limit or eliminate our rights as Americans to protect ourselves and we are seeing this plan unfold right in front of our eyes , ” Sandoval County Commissioner Jay Block said , adding , “ They want us to believe they ’ re protecting us by disarming us in the name of safety.
” While the bill is almost guaranteed to get to Gov .
Grisham ’ s desk for her signature , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt , and I suspect that the push by anti-gun lawmakers in Santa Fe is going to reignite and reinvigorate the state ’ s Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , which began in 2019 as the Democrat-controlled legislature imposed universal background checks in the state .

A red flag gun seizure bill opposed by the vast majority of the state’s sheriffs and rank and file police officers was narrowly approved by the New Mexico State Senate on Friday on a 22-20 vote. The Albuquerque Journal reports that the controversial bill is expected to pass the House as well, and could get to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk before the legislative session ends in less than two weeks.
“We have an obligation to every single New Mexican, every single family, every single child that we do everything in our power that can provide just that additional layer of safety and public support,” Lujan Grisham said during a news conference after Friday’s vote. This year’s red flag gun bill, Senate Bill 5, has divided New Mexico’s law enforcement ranks. Thirty of the state’s 33 county sheriffs oppose the measure, while State Police Chief Tim Johnson and top Albuquerque Police Department officials support it.
While “top” officials with the Albuquerque Police Department may support the bill, the rank and file most certainly do not.
Deputy Chief Medina does NOT speak for the rank and file officers of APD, we do, and we are NOT in favor of red flag… Posted by Albuquerque Police Officers Association on Tuesday, January 28, 2020
If the measure does become law, expect a court challenge from sheriffs across the state. They’re the ones that will be tasked with serving any Extreme Risk Protection Orders, and Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace has previously told Bearing Arms that he will face a contempt charge rather than confiscate anyone’s firearms under a red flag order.
“We’re really taking a hard stance on it,” the sheriff said of the state sheriffs association’s opposition to the bill. “There are attorneys that don’t like it, that realize the unconstitutionality of them. And again, if these orders come through my office, if we get them, we’re not going to put people at risk. We’re not going to put our officers at risk. And if I have to go to the judge and get held in contempt of court to prove a point, I’m ready. We’re gonna do the right thing here.”
He’ll likely have plenty of company, with 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs also opposed to the red flag law. In addition to drawing hundreds of gun owners to the state capitol to lobby lawmakers to axe the proposal, the staunch opposition to the gun confiscation bill has also prompted localities to reject resolutions offered up in support of the red flag language.
Doña Ana County commissioners rejected a resolution supporting the bill in a 3-2 vote on Jan. 28, at a public meeting packed by opponents. The bill has also stoked opposition from a majority of New Mexico county sheriffs, some of whom participated in a Friday [February 1st] morning press conference organized by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action and the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association. Two New Mexico sheriffs, Tony Mace of Cibola County and Shane Ferrari of San Juan County, argued there were already laws on the books allowing law enforcement to intervene in a behavioral health crisis. While Mace stuck to a defense of the second amendment, Ferrari argued that “red flag” court orders would limit his agency’s tactical options and potentially expose deputies to danger. “These attacks are right out of the left’s playbook, to limit or eliminate our rights as Americans to protect ourselves and we are seeing this plan unfold right in front of our eyes,” Sandoval County Commissioner Jay Block said, adding, “They want us to believe they’re protecting us by disarming us in the name of safety.”
While the bill is almost guaranteed to get to Gov. Grisham’s desk for her signature, its future after that remains very much in doubt, and I suspect that the push by anti-gun lawmakers in Santa Fe is going to reignite and reinvigorate the state’s Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, which began in 2019 as the Democrat-controlled legislature imposed universal background checks in the state.


bearingarms--2020-02-08--Warren Says She'll Nuke Senate Filibuster To Get Gun Control

During Friday night ’ s Democratic presidential campaign debate , Elizabeth Warren gave gun owners a stark reminder of just how important the 2020 election will be for our right to keep and bear arms when she said that , if elected , she would nuke the filibuster rule in the Senate in order to ram through gun control bills .
From NPR : When discussing gun control efforts , Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren brought up her willingness to scrap the legislative filibuster , especially on an issue like universal background checks , which polls show has the support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibuster creates a hurdle in the Senate that makes it more difficult to passlegislation .
Warren is one of three Democratic candidates on the record backing the end of the filibuster , along with Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Ind.
, and billionaire activist TomSteyer .
Buttigieg was then asked about expanding the Supreme Court .
He ’ s called for increasing the number of justices to 15 , with five of those being “ apolitical justices picked by the first 10.
” Today the Supreme Court has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t specify how many justices it may include .
Warren , Steyer and entrepreneur Andrew Yang have also expressed support for increasing the size of the court .
It ’ s crazy to me that Warren would choose universal background checks as her legislative excuse to nuke filibuster , given the fact that even the Obama-era Justice Department acknowledged that a universal background check law would be almost impossible to enforce without a federal gun registration requirement .
Of course Warren wants a federal gun registry as well , though she didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate .
As concerning as Warren and Buttigieg ’ s comments about scrapping the filibuster may be , it ’ s their support for packing the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices that would be even more dangerous to our civil liberties .
If Warren had her way , her court packing scheme would lead to the the overturning or gutting of the Heller decision , allowing for virtually any gun control law to pass constitutional muster with the high court .
The 2020 election isn ’ t just about who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next four years .
It ’ s about whether or not our Second Amendment rights will be protected or even recognized in the decades ahead .
Anti-gun Democrats like Warren have made it clear that if elected , they will target legal gun owners , not violent criminals , in their quest to “ end gun violence.
” It ’ s up to Second Amendment supporters to get involved and engaged this election cycle and back candidates who will ensure our right to keep and bear arms remains intact .
Cam Edwards has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

During Friday night’s Democratic presidential campaign debate, Elizabeth Warren gave gun owners a stark reminder of just how important the 2020 election will be for our right to keep and bear arms when she said that, if elected, she would nuke the filibuster rule in the Senate in order to ram through gun control bills. From NPR:
When discussing gun control efforts, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren brought up her willingness to scrap the legislative filibuster, especially on an issue like universal background checks, which polls show has the support of a clear majority of Americans. The filibuster creates a hurdle in the Senate that makes it more difficult to passlegislation. Warren is one of three Democratic candidates on the record backing the end of the filibuster, along with Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and billionaire activist TomSteyer. Buttigieg was then asked about expanding the Supreme Court. He’s called for increasing the number of justices to 15, with five of those being “apolitical justices picked by the first 10.” Today the Supreme Court has nine members but the Constitution doesn’t specify how many justices it may include. Warren, Steyer and entrepreneur Andrew Yang have also expressed support for increasing the size of the court.
It’s crazy to me that Warren would choose universal background checks as her legislative excuse to nuke filibuster, given the fact that even the Obama-era Justice Department acknowledged that a universal background check law would be almost impossible to enforce without a federal gun registration requirement. Of course Warren wants a federal gun registry as well, though she didn’t bring that up during Friday night’s debate.
As concerning as Warren and Buttigieg’s comments about scrapping the filibuster may be, it’s their support for packing the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices that would be even more dangerous to our civil liberties. If Warren had her way, her court packing scheme would lead to the the overturning or gutting of the Heller decision, allowing for virtually any gun control law to pass constitutional muster with the high court.
The 2020 election isn’t just about who will be in the White House for the next four years. It’s about whether or not our Second Amendment rights will be protected or even recognized in the decades ahead. Anti-gun Democrats like Warren have made it clear that if elected, they will target legal gun owners, not violent criminals, in their quest to “end gun violence.” It’s up to Second Amendment supporters to get involved and engaged this election cycle and back candidates who will ensure our right to keep and bear arms remains intact.


bearingarms--2020-02-08--Range Fights For Its Life As Neighbors Try To Shut It Down

If you want to get firearm training on a budget , you may not be able to take a face-to-face class with an instructor .
Those are expensive , unfortunately .
So , a lot of people opt to watch videos .
Of course , there are issues with this method , too , but at least you get some training and learn some skills you can then take to the range .
Yet one of the best-known names out there for training videos is Panteao .
Panteao has a ton of videos on all manner of weapons handling as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills .
Most are filmed at Panteao ’ s own range , apparently , and now it looks like that range has come under fire .
Last month Swansea resident Susan Smith was standing on her property “ when a bullet pierced the air approximately five feet from me , ” Smith said in a lawsuit filed this week in Lexington County state court .
“ The sound of a passing high-powered bullet has an unmistakable and unique sound — a high pitched ‘ zing , ’ ” she wrote in an affidavit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is one of 10 plaintiffs suing Panteao Sportsman ’ s Club , a 76-acre outdoor collection of ranges for pistols , rifles and shotguns , over “ rogue bullets ” and a “ warzone ” atmosphere marked by “ penetrating , reverberating gunfire and blasts.
” “ I was terrified , ” Smith wrote , adding she ‘ ” immediately took cover in fear behind a large tree to try to shield myself from being killed by a stray bullet.
” Five feet from her , she says .
What , did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tidbit makes me seriously doubt what she ’ s saying .
However , Smith isn ’ t alone .
Others are making similar claims .
“ I have been a gun owner for most of my life and own in excess of 20 guns , including handguns , long rifles , shotguns and an AR-15 , ” said Kinard Pound , who runs a landscaping business and has spent his whole life in the Gaston-Swansea area .
“ But now I am afraid for my family ’ s safety when we visit my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Club is open , ” wrote Pound , who has five children .
Once , he and his father were working outside when the range was open and “ we suddenly heard bullets zipping through the trees above our heads.
” he wrote .
Needless to say , gun range owner Fernando Coelho disagrees with this assessment .
He argues that it can ’ t be from his range .
“ Our primary concern is making sure the rounds — the bullets — are staying within the property and those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a safe manner , ” Coelho said .
“ We have been for the past five years progressively spending money to improve this facility , both for the users , and for the surrounding neighbors.
” Coelho said when he ’ s gotten complaints about stray bullets , he has checked his shooters and ranges and determined it was “ physically impossible ” that any errant bullets in the area were coming from his range .
In some cases , what sounds like a bullet passing near a house might in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
There is only one entrance to the range , and it is separated from the road by some 150 yards of forest .
Range officers are on site , he said .
His staff checks drivers ’ licenses to ascertain identities and goes over the safety rules with patrons and shows them the various shooting bays .
The Panteao ranges are located in rolling , almost hilly , wooded country side .
Across the road from the range less than half a mile away is another outdoor range at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is also a source of gunfire , Coelho said .
I ’ ve watched some of Panteao ’ s videos .
The ranges all seem to be surrounded by heavy woods that , in addition to the backstops , would reduce the likelihood of rounds going astray .
Especially if there ’ s another range nearby .
So what ’ s going on here ?
Coelho argues his range has been there for a decade but has become more visible as his company ’ s market share has increased .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them more of a target .
Oh , I know some of the plaintiffs claim they own guns , but that doesn ’ t preclude them from being gun grabbers themselves .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a firearm , for crying out loud .
My guess–and it ’ s just a guess–is that Panteao is scaring the neighbors because they ’ re teaching people who to use scary-looking rifles .
Maybe the other range is immune from this because they ’ re a hunting range , not one teaching people how to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just a supposition on my part .
What it does look like , though , is that this has little to do with supposed rounds flying–something that few ranges would allow to happen without coming down hard on those responsible–and more to do with Panteao “ freaking the norms.
” The problem is , this is going to be expensive for them .
Looks like a hell of an excuse to go and spend some money with them .

If you want to get firearm training on a budget, you may not be able to take a face-to-face class with an instructor. Those are expensive, unfortunately. So, a lot of people opt to watch videos. Of course, there are issues with this method, too, but at least you get some training and learn some skills you can then take to the range.
Yet one of the best-known names out there for training videos is Panteao.
Panteao has a ton of videos on all manner of weapons handling as well as a handful of other neat skills. Most are filmed at Panteao’s own range, apparently, and now it looks like that range has come under fire.
Last month Swansea resident Susan Smith was standing on her property “when a bullet pierced the air approximately five feet from me,” Smith said in a lawsuit filed this week in Lexington County state court. “The sound of a passing high-powered bullet has an unmistakable and unique sound — a high pitched ‘zing,’ ” she wrote in an affidavit attached to the lawsuit, in which she is one of 10 plaintiffs suing Panteao Sportsman’s Club, a 76-acre outdoor collection of ranges for pistols, rifles and shotguns, over “rogue bullets” and a “warzone” atmosphere marked by “penetrating, reverberating gunfire and blasts.” “I was terrified,” Smith wrote, adding she ‘” immediately took cover in fear behind a large tree to try to shield myself from being killed by a stray bullet.”
Five feet from her, she says. What, did she measure it?
Honestly, that tidbit makes me seriously doubt what she’s saying. However, Smith isn’t alone. Others are making similar claims.
“I have been a gun owner for most of my life and own in excess of 20 guns, including handguns, long rifles, shotguns and an AR-15,” said Kinard Pound, who runs a landscaping business and has spent his whole life in the Gaston-Swansea area. “But now I am afraid for my family’s safety when we visit my parents’ home when the Panteao Sportsman’s Club is open,” wrote Pound, who has five children. Once, he and his father were working outside when the range was open and “we suddenly heard bullets zipping through the trees above our heads.” he wrote.
Needless to say, gun range owner Fernando Coelho disagrees with this assessment.
He argues that it can’t be from his range.
“Our primary concern is making sure the rounds — the bullets — are staying within the property and those that are using our property are using it in a safe manner,” Coelho said. “We have been for the past five years progressively spending money to improve this facility, both for the users, and for the surrounding neighbors.” Coelho said when he’s gotten complaints about stray bullets, he has checked his shooters and ranges and determined it was “physically impossible” that any errant bullets in the area were coming from his range. In some cases, what sounds like a bullet passing near a house might in fact be an echo from his range, he said. There is only one entrance to the range, and it is separated from the road by some 150 yards of forest. Range officers are on site, he said. His staff checks drivers’ licenses to ascertain identities and goes over the safety rules with patrons and shows them the various shooting bays. … The Panteao ranges are located in rolling, almost hilly, wooded country side. Across the road from the range less than half a mile away is another outdoor range at the Buck and Boar Hunting Lodge, and that is also a source of gunfire, Coelho said.
That’s interesting to me.
I’ve watched some of Panteao’s videos. The ranges all seem to be surrounded by heavy woods that, in addition to the backstops, would reduce the likelihood of rounds going astray.
Especially if there’s another range nearby.
So what’s going on here? Coelho argues his range has been there for a decade but has become more visible as his company’s market share has increased. That’s probably true. It also makes them more of a target.
Oh, I know some of the plaintiffs claim they own guns, but that doesn’t preclude them from being gun grabbers themselves. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a firearm, for crying out loud.
My guess–and it’s just a guess–is that Panteao is scaring the neighbors because they’re teaching people who to use scary-looking rifles. Maybe the other range is immune from this because they’re a hunting range, not one teaching people how to defend their lives. Of course, that’s just a supposition on my part.
What it does look like, though, is that this has little to do with supposed rounds flying–something that few ranges would allow to happen without coming down hard on those responsible–and more to do with Panteao “freaking the norms.”
The problem is, this is going to be expensive for them. Looks like a hell of an excuse to go and spend some money with them.


bearingarms--2020-02-08--Oregon Gun Grabbers Advocate For Mandatory Storage Bill

The Pacific Northwest sure looks like a beautiful place to be .
All those trees , the perpetually damp weather that calls to a pluviophile ( rain lover ) such as myself , there ’ s just so much there that it would be really hard not to pack up all of my belongings and haul tail to the opposite corner of the nation .
It would be hard , of course , except for the anti-gun nonsense that dominates so much of that part of the nation .
Among the latest stupidity is in Oregon .
It seems activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A bill that would create a series of gun storage requirements drew hundreds of gun control activists to the Capitol Wednesday as lawmakers prepared for a public hearing on the bill later this week .
“ Secure storage is a simple and common-sense way for gun owners to be responsible with their firearms , ” said Hilary Uhlig , leader of the Oregon chapter of Moms Demand Action .
“ This bill will encourage responsible behavior and make sure people are held accountable.
” House Bill 4005 would require that when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is secured with either a trigger or cable lock or in a locked container .
Firearms must be secured in a similar manner while being transferred .
If a gun is not stored in the manner described and later stolen and used to injure a person or property within two years , the gun owner is liable for that injury .
This is the kind of stupidity you see from people who know absolutely nothing about guns , personal defense , home defense , or anything else along those lines .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think guns not in use should be secured in some manner .
Most gun owners I know advocate similarly .
The problem is , the law doesn ’ t understand the various ways a gun can be “ in use.
” For example , a handgun in a nightstand is in use .
It ’ s placed there for easy access in the event someone wants to break into your home and you need some way to respond and protect your family ’ s lives .
To me , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the shotgun in the closet or the AR-15 under the bed .
The same can be said of the 1911 tucked into a recliner ’ s pocket .
All of these are “ in use ” simply because their purpose is to be available if they ’ re needed .
Yet the laws being advocated for ignore that .
They seek to punish the victim of a crime , blaming them for having their property stolen , then make them liable for the actions of a third party .
I wonder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks whose cars are stolen for not having them locked up tight ?
Do they want these auto owners to be held liable for the car accidents that might result from that theft ?
Of course not .
Cars–something the ownership of which is not expressly protected by the Constitution–aren ’ t demonized like guns are .
My hope is that even anti-gun Oregon will see its way clear of not passing this particular brand of evil .
And yes , it ’ s evil to try and punish the victims for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also making it more difficult to have a firearm on hand to protect your life and the lives of your loved one .

The Pacific Northwest sure looks like a beautiful place to be. All those trees, the perpetually damp weather that calls to a pluviophile (rain lover) such as myself, there’s just so much there that it would be really hard not to pack up all of my belongings and haul tail to the opposite corner of the nation. It would be hard, of course, except for the anti-gun nonsense that dominates so much of that part of the nation.
Among the latest stupidity is in Oregon. It seems activists are pushing for a mandatory storage bill.
A bill that would create a series of gun storage requirements drew hundreds of gun control activists to the Capitol Wednesday as lawmakers prepared for a public hearing on the bill later this week. “Secure storage is a simple and common-sense way for gun owners to be responsible with their firearms,” said Hilary Uhlig, leader of the Oregon chapter of Moms Demand Action. “This bill will encourage responsible behavior and make sure people are held accountable.” House Bill 4005 would require that when a gun is not being carried, it is secured with either a trigger or cable lock or in a locked container. Firearms must be secured in a similar manner while being transferred. If a gun is not stored in the manner described and later stolen and used to injure a person or property within two years, the gun owner is liable for that injury.
This is the kind of stupidity you see from people who know absolutely nothing about guns, personal defense, home defense, or anything else along those lines.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think guns not in use should be secured in some manner. Most gun owners I know advocate similarly.
The problem is, the law doesn’t understand the various ways a gun can be “in use.”
For example, a handgun in a nightstand is in use. It’s placed there for easy access in the event someone wants to break into your home and you need some way to respond and protect your family’s lives. To me, that’s in use.
The same is true of the shotgun in the closet or the AR-15 under the bed. The same can be said of the 1911 tucked into a recliner’s pocket.
All of these are “in use” simply because their purpose is to be available if they’re needed. Yet the laws being advocated for ignore that. They seek to punish the victim of a crime, blaming them for having their property stolen, then make them liable for the actions of a third party.
I wonder, do these same people want to punish folks whose cars are stolen for not having them locked up tight? Do they want these auto owners to be held liable for the car accidents that might result from that theft?
Of course not. Cars–something the ownership of which is not expressly protected by the Constitution–aren’t demonized like guns are.
My hope is that even anti-gun Oregon will see its way clear of not passing this particular brand of evil. And yes, it’s evil to try and punish the victims for the crimes committed with their stolen property while also making it more difficult to have a firearm on hand to protect your life and the lives of your loved one.