bearingarms--2020-10-15--Myrtle Beach Residents Reject Gun Control Measure

In the South , most states have some measure of preemption on the books .
This is a pro-gun area and they don ’ t want their larger municipalities creating their own gun control laws that jam up law-abiding citizens who are unaware such measures are in place .
Especially since so many of these larger municipalities have much higher crime than the rest of the state .
However , there ’ s one exception in many preemption laws , and that ’ s the ability for communities to restrict the discharging of a firearm within the city limits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed such restrictions and there ’ s reason to understand why they did .
While I may not agree with this–there are ways to restrict dangerous activity without such an ordinance , after all–I do understand where these cities are coming from .
One that doesn ’ t have such a law is , apparently , Myrtle Beach , South Carolina .
And , based on what happened when a city councilman suggested such a law , they ’ re not likely to ever have one .
Yesterday , the Freedom Action Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attempt along with a call to action .
Hundreds of calls , emails , and text messages poured into the inboxes of Horry County Councilmen .
[ Councilman Gary ] Loftus asked for the measure to be approved this morning , but the Public Safety Committee could not recommend it .
We spoke with Horry County Council Chairman Johnny Gardner who told us Loftus has requested the ordinance be placed on the agenda tonight .
It will be placed on the agenda as not recommended by the Public Safety Committee .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hardly the most restrictive kind of measure we could potentially see .
That said , it was still an attempt to restrict the gun rights of Myrtle Beach residents and it was justly smacked down and smacked down hard .
While it ’ ll still be on the agenda , it was described as being “ dead on arrival.
” Of course , there are others who like would have opposed the measure had they known about it .
In particular , general contractors might have taken issue with one part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being illegal for use within the city .
While air nail guns can be dangerous if used improperly , they ’ re generally used by people trying to conduct a task .
They allow them to nail things together far faster than with a hammer .
In a trade , time is money , so doing things quickly and automating in the first places you can just make sense .
Telling them it ’ s illegal to use expensive tools they purchased to speed up the construction process wasn ’ t likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a good thing gun rights advocates stepped up and let their voices be heard .
There ’ s no reason for a measure like this to pass , so killing it before it could do any harm is a net win for everyone .
The biggest problem , at least in my minds , was that someone actually thought a measure like this was a good idea and figured they could get away with putting it out there .
Hopefully , voters will make their displeasure known come reelection @ @

In the South, most states have some measure of preemption on the books. This is a pro-gun area and they don’t want their larger municipalities creating their own gun control laws that jam up law-abiding citizens who are unaware such measures are in place. Especially since so many of these larger municipalities have much higher crime than the rest of the state.
However, there’s one exception in many preemption laws, and that’s the ability for communities to restrict the discharging of a firearm within the city limits.
In fact, many communities have already passed such restrictions and there’s reason to understand why they did. While I may not agree with this–there are ways to restrict dangerous activity without such an ordinance, after all–I do understand where these cities are coming from.
One that doesn’t have such a law is, apparently, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. And, based on what happened when a city councilman suggested such a law, they’re not likely to ever have one.
Yesterday, the Freedom Action Network alerted local residents to this morning’s attempt along with a call to action. Hundreds of calls, emails, and text messages poured into the inboxes of Horry County Councilmen. [Councilman Gary] Loftus asked for the measure to be approved this morning, but the Public Safety Committee could not recommend it. We spoke with Horry County Council Chairman Johnny Gardner who told us Loftus has requested the ordinance be placed on the agenda tonight. It will be placed on the agenda as not recommended by the Public Safety Committee.
Now, in fairness, weapons discharging ordinances are hardly the most restrictive kind of measure we could potentially see. That said, it was still an attempt to restrict the gun rights of Myrtle Beach residents and it was justly smacked down and smacked down hard. While it’ll still be on the agenda, it was described as being “dead on arrival.”
Of course, there are others who like would have opposed the measure had they known about it.
In particular, general contractors might have taken issue with one part of the ordinance that included nail guns as being illegal for use within the city. While air nail guns can be dangerous if used improperly, they’re generally used by people trying to conduct a task. They allow them to nail things together far faster than with a hammer. In a trade, time is money, so doing things quickly and automating in the first places you can just make sense. Telling them it’s illegal to use expensive tools they purchased to speed up the construction process wasn’t likely to go over well.
So, again, it’s a good thing gun rights advocates stepped up and let their voices be heard. There’s no reason for a measure like this to pass, so killing it before it could do any harm is a net win for everyone. The biggest problem, at least in my minds, was that someone actually thought a measure like this was a good idea and figured they could get away with putting it out there.
Hopefully, voters will make their displeasure known come reelection time.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--ATF Suspends Cease And Desist Order For Maker Of Honey Badger Pistol

It ’ s not a full reversal of the ATF ’ s decision classifying Q , LLC ’ s Honey Badger pistol as a short-barreled rifle , but it ’ s a step in the right direction .
That ’ s according to Josh Savani , NRA-ILA ’ s director of research and information , who joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. with an update on latest efforts to rein in the agency ’ s abuses .
As the Washington Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski reported on Wednesday , the ATF followed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , LLC with a letter this week advising the company that the order has been suspended for 60 days while the Department of Justice reviews the ATF ’ s determination that the Honey Badger is actually a short-barreled rifle that falls under the auspices of the National Firearms Act instead of an AR-15 pistol with an integrated stabilizing brace .
That puts a final determination off until after the November elections , and Savani says if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris wins , he expects the ATF to take a hard line on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration will also have bigger fish to fry .
As Savani points out , if a Biden administration pursues its gun control agenda , then it won ’ t just be the Honey Badger that would need to be registered under the NFA .
Virtually every semi-automatic rifle , pistol , and shotgun that the administration declares to be “ assault weapons ” would either have to be handed over to the federal government or registered under the NFA .
Possession of an unregistered NFA device is punishable by ten years in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250,000 per violation , and given the scope of the guns and magazines that Joe Biden wants to ban , tens of millions of legal gun owners could be turned into potential felons overnight if they refuse to comply with the order to register their arms with the government .
For now , anyway , that is a theoretical battle , and Savini says there is still work to be done with the ATF and the issue of pistol stabilizing braces .
First and foremost , the ATF needs to come up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the “ I know it when I see it ” approach to determining whether or not a pistol with a stabilizing brace is actually a short-barreled rifle .
That arbitrary standard needs to be replaced with a regulation that is not only easily understood , but also makes sense .
Savani describes himself as “ cautiously optimistic ” that the Honey Badger issue can be resolved quickly , and says the White House is aware of the Honey Badger issue ( which likely explains why DOJ is now reviewing the ATF ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress .
I think that cautious optimism is contingent on who wins in November , however .
With Election Day less than three weeks away , though , I expect that the bureaucrats in the ATF can stall any final determination on stabilizing braces until after we know who ’ ll be occupying the White House in 2021 .
The suspension of the cease-and-desist letter may not be everything that Q , LLC CEO Adam Johnson wants or needs , but for the moment , it may be the most he can @ @ @

It’s not a full reversal of the ATF’s decision classifying Q, LLC’s Honey Badger pistol as a short-barreled rifle, but it’s a step in the right direction. That’s according to Josh Savani, NRA-ILA’s director of research and information, who joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. with an update on latest efforts to rein in the agency’s abuses.
As the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski reported on Wednesday, the ATF followed up its original cease-and-desist demand to gunmaker Q, LLC with a letter this week advising the company that the order has been suspended for 60 days while the Department of Justice reviews the ATF’s determination that the Honey Badger is actually a short-barreled rifle that falls under the auspices of the National Firearms Act instead of an AR-15 pistol with an integrated stabilizing brace.
“The purpose of this suspension is to allow the United States Department of Justice to further review the applicability of the National Firearms Act to the manufacture and transfer of the model ‘Honey Badger Pistol’ firearm,” ATF chief counsel Joel Roessner said in a letter. The move gave the gun company and owners of such weapons—which have been legal since 2012—a 60-day reprieve.
That puts a final determination off until after the November elections, and Savani says if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris wins, he expects the ATF to take a hard line on the Honey Badger, though the new administration will also have bigger fish to fry.
As Savani points out, if a Biden administration pursues its gun control agenda, then it won’t just be the Honey Badger that would need to be registered under the NFA. Virtually every semi-automatic rifle, pistol, and shotgun that the administration declares to be “assault weapons” would either have to be handed over to the federal government or registered under the NFA. Possession of an unregistered NFA device is punishable by ten years in a federal prison and a fine of $250,000 per violation, and given the scope of the guns and magazines that Joe Biden wants to ban, tens of millions of legal gun owners could be turned into potential felons overnight if they refuse to comply with the order to register their arms with the government.
For now, anyway, that is a theoretical battle, and Savini says there is still work to be done with the ATF and the issue of pistol stabilizing braces. First and foremost, the ATF needs to come up with a clear standard for manufacturers, rather than the “I know it when I see it” approach to determining whether or not a pistol with a stabilizing brace is actually a short-barreled rifle. That arbitrary standard needs to be replaced with a regulation that is not only easily understood, but also makes sense.
Savani describes himself as “cautiously optimistic” that the Honey Badger issue can be resolved quickly, and says the White House is aware of the Honey Badger issue (which likely explains why DOJ is now reviewing the ATF’s decision), as are members of Congress. I think that cautious optimism is contingent on who wins in November, however.
With Election Day less than three weeks away, though, I expect that the bureaucrats in the ATF can stall any final determination on stabilizing braces until after we know who’ll be occupying the White House in 2021. The suspension of the cease-and-desist letter may not be everything that Q, LLC CEO Adam Johnson wants or needs, but for the moment, it may be the most he can hope for.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--The Motivations Behind The Great Gun Run Of 2020

While we ’ ve been reporting on the record-high number of gun sales for months now , many news outlets are just now discovering that millions of Americans have flocked to gun stores since March in order to pick up a firearm for the very first time .
Suprisingly , given the anti-gun bias inherent in the press , the recent coverage has been fairly balanced in its reporting .
Take Reuters , for example , which published a story on Thursday about “ election fears driving gun sales.
” Andreyah Garland , a 44-year-old single mother of three daughters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection in the quaint middle-class town of Fishkill , New York .
She joined a new and fast-growing local gun club to learn how to shoot .
She has since applied for a pistol permit and constantly hunts for increasingly scarce ammunition — making three trips weekly to a local Walmart .
“ They ’ re always out , ” she said .
Like legions of other first-time buyers who are contributing to record sales for the U.S. gun industry this year , Garland ’ s decision to take up arms is driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic , social unrest over police killings of Black people and a potentially contested election that many fear could spark violence .
“ With everything going on around us , ” she said , “ you see a need.
” Ordinarily , a news outlet like Reuters would counter Garland ’ s quote about seeing a need to own a gun with a comment by a gun control advocate claiming that “ actually , owning a gun makes you a bazillion times more likely to be the victim ” of gun violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reuters noted that there are plenty of new gun owners like Garland out there , including quite a few who don ’ t fit the stereotype of the white , middle-aged guy with a beard and a ballcap .
Among the first-timers is Bailey Beeken , 61 , who lives in Riverdale , New York , and describes herself as a white , politically liberal , middle-class woman .
She started taking shooting lessons this summer , she said , because “ whichever way this election goes , it could get really scary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the pandemic pitting mask-wearers against mask protesters , and police-brutality protests sparking violent street clashes , “ I just feel like it ’ s a powder keg , ” she said .
“ I want to be armed and dangerous.
” In the Los Angeles Times on Thursday , sociologist Jennifer Carlson also writes about the millions of new gun owners and what ’ s driving them to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time .
It ’ s not panic buying that we ’ re seeing , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealers she spoke with said that was the case back in March when lockdowns were first put into effect around the country , but over the past few months most of the purchasers have been concerned over the increasing chaos in our country .
They ’ re not necessarily predicting societal collapse or a civil war , but they ’ re uncertain what the future holds .
“ I had a kid walk into my store with a Bernie Sanders shirt on !
” a seller in the greater Miami area told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an elderly gay man who came into his store and silently stared at a gun for 10 minutes before finally mustering the courage to make the purchase .
Many of these buyers didn ’ t know much about features , models or brands ( if they mentioned a brand , it was Glock — perhaps because Glocks figure in movie shoot-out scenes and pop songs ) .
They were trying to buy the sense of security associated with a gun .
“ When you have uncertainty , you have to have a guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country is the right to protect yourself , ” a central Florida gun seller explained .
Carlson tries to conclude her piece on an optimistic note , but I ’ m not sure she manages to pull it off .
The point is , 2020 isn ’ t everyday life .
Whether people are suspending their liberal politics to purchase a gun or doubling down on their long-standing embrace of weapons , they are converging on the firearm as a means of control , power and — perhaps — agency in a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my interviews is that the surge in gun sales marked an extraordinarily swift change of perspectives .
Americans seemed to go from secure to frightened quickly , and deeply .
That shift from normal life to abnormal , the sense of inevitable chaos the sellers spoke of , is the overwhelming message behind millions of new guns in our hands and our homes .
I disagree that 2020 isn ’ t everyday life .
Since at least March , 2020 has been our everyday life , and I don ’ t know too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly going to return to the way it was once the elections are over or we ring in 2021 from our socially-distanced New Year ’ s Eve Zoom parties .
Carlson spoke to several gun shop owners who said they were concerned about the civil unrest in our country getting worse no matter who wins the November elections , and I can ’ t say that I blame them .
I ’ m not panicking over that possibility , and I ’ m certainly not excited about it .
I am , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that the deep political divides are only going to get worse after the elections .
If Democrats are able to retake both the Senate and the White House , I worry that their base will demand the end of the judicial filibuster and the packing of the Supreme Court .
I ’ m concerned that Democrats will claim that their election victories , no matter how narrow , are mandates for sweeping gun control laws and other policies that would fundamentally transform this country .
That won ’ t go over well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the same holds true if Donald Trump wins a second-term .
And then , of course , there ’ s the possibility that we won ’ t know who won the election for weeks or months after as the courts try to address multiple state and federal lawsuits .
That would likely fuel both unrest and uncertainty in the short term , and would also ensure that the millions of Americans who ’ ve already purchased a firearm in recent months would be joined by millions more new gun owners from all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum who suddenly feel a need to exercise their own right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves amidst the chaos .

While we’ve been reporting on the record-high number of gun sales for months now, many news outlets are just now discovering that millions of Americans have flocked to gun stores since March in order to pick up a firearm for the very first time. Suprisingly, given the anti-gun bias inherent in the press, the recent coverage has been fairly balanced in its reporting.
Take Reuters, for example, which published a story on Thursday about “election fears driving gun sales.”
Andreyah Garland, a 44-year-old single mother of three daughters, bought a shotgun in May for protection in the quaint middle-class town of Fishkill, New York. She joined a new and fast-growing local gun club to learn how to shoot. She has since applied for a pistol permit and constantly hunts for increasingly scarce ammunition — making three trips weekly to a local Walmart. “They’re always out,” she said. Like legions of other first-time buyers who are contributing to record sales for the U.S. gun industry this year, Garland’s decision to take up arms is driven in part by disturbing news about the coronavirus pandemic, social unrest over police killings of Black people and a potentially contested election that many fear could spark violence. “With everything going on around us,” she said, “you see a need.”
Ordinarily, a news outlet like Reuters would counter Garland’s quote about seeing a need to own a gun with a comment by a gun control advocate claiming that “actually, owning a gun makes you a bazillion times more likely to be the victim” of gun violence. Not this time. Instead, Reuters noted that there are plenty of new gun owners like Garland out there, including quite a few who don’t fit the stereotype of the white, middle-aged guy with a beard and a ballcap.
Among the first-timers is Bailey Beeken, 61, who lives in Riverdale, New York, and describes herself as a white, politically liberal, middle-class woman. She started taking shooting lessons this summer, she said, because “whichever way this election goes, it could get really scary, and it could get bloody.” With the pandemic pitting mask-wearers against mask protesters, and police-brutality protests sparking violent street clashes, “I just feel like it’s a powder keg,” she said. “I want to be armed and dangerous.”
In the Los Angeles Times on Thursday, sociologist Jennifer Carlson also writes about the millions of new gun owners and what’s driving them to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time. It’s not panic buying that we’re seeing, at least not now, writes Carlson. Gun dealers she spoke with said that was the case back in March when lockdowns were first put into effect around the country, but over the past few months most of the purchasers have been concerned over the increasing chaos in our country. They’re not necessarily predicting societal collapse or a civil war, but they’re uncertain what the future holds.
“I had a kid walk into my store with a Bernie Sanders shirt on!” a seller in the greater Miami area told me. An Arizona seller told me of an elderly gay man who came into his store and silently stared at a gun for 10 minutes before finally mustering the courage to make the purchase. Many of these buyers didn’t know much about features, models or brands (if they mentioned a brand, it was Glock — perhaps because Glocks figure in movie shoot-out scenes and pop songs). They were trying to buy the sense of security associated with a gun. “When you have uncertainty, you have to have a guarantee, and the only guarantee in this country is the right to protect yourself,” a central Florida gun seller explained.
Carlson tries to conclude her piece on an optimistic note, but I’m not sure she manages to pull it off.
The point is, 2020 isn’t everyday life. Whether people are suspending their liberal politics to purchase a gun or doubling down on their long-standing embrace of weapons, they are converging on the firearm as a means of control, power and — perhaps — agency in a time of extended turmoil. One takeaway from my interviews is that the surge in gun sales marked an extraordinarily swift change of perspectives. Americans seemed to go from secure to frightened quickly, and deeply. That shift from normal life to abnormal, the sense of inevitable chaos the sellers spoke of, is the overwhelming message behind millions of new guns in our hands and our homes.
I disagree that 2020 isn’t everyday life. Since at least March, 2020 has been our everyday life, and I don’t know too many people who think that life is suddenly going to return to the way it was once the elections are over or we ring in 2021 from our socially-distanced New Year’s Eve Zoom parties. Carlson spoke to several gun shop owners who said they were concerned about the civil unrest in our country getting worse no matter who wins the November elections, and I can’t say that I blame them.
I’m not panicking over that possibility, and I’m certainly not excited about it. I am, however, at least somewhat resigned to the idea that the deep political divides are only going to get worse after the elections. If Democrats are able to retake both the Senate and the White House, I worry that their base will demand the end of the judicial filibuster and the packing of the Supreme Court. I’m concerned that Democrats will claim that their election victories, no matter how narrow, are mandates for sweeping gun control laws and other policies that would fundamentally transform this country.
That won’t go over well in many parts of the country, but the same holds true if Donald Trump wins a second-term. And then, of course, there’s the possibility that we won’t know who won the election for weeks or months after as the courts try to address multiple state and federal lawsuits. That would likely fuel both unrest and uncertainty in the short term, and would also ensure that the millions of Americans who’ve already purchased a firearm in recent months would be joined by millions more new gun owners from all walks of life and across the political spectrum who suddenly feel a need to exercise their own right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves amidst the chaos.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Biden Court Packing Could Kill Second Amendment Forever

The purpose of the Supreme Court , as it ’ s used here in this country at this time , is to determine whether or not legislation is constitutional or not .
The same is true for lower federal courts as well .
They ’ re supposed to take the Supreme Court ’ s rulings and apply them evenly across other cases , then judge on the constitutionality of new issues as they arise until SCOTUS rules differently .
However , as we ’ ve seen , it doesn ’ t necessarily work that way .
Anti-gun judges have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , often ignoring the text of the amendment and inserting their own feelings and opinions , pretending those somehow carry more weight than “ shall not be infringed.
” With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett , we may finally see the end of some of this stuff .
At least , in theory .
The problem is that liberals are pressuring Biden to pack the Court should he win , and that ’ s bad for all of us .
Let ’ s start with a definition , as a curious number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretending the phrase “ court packing ” refers to a president filling a vacant seat in an election year .
Dictionary.com puts it this way : “ court packing : an unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court , which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws.
” “ Court packing ” is clearly about increasing the number of U.S Supreme Court justices in an attempt to advance a particular political agenda .
And that is what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Judge Amy Coney Barrett—President Trump ’ s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court that opened with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg–now under way in the U.S. Senate , some on the left have been calling for Joe Biden , if he does win the presidency , to do what FDR couldn ’ t .
They want him to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with four or more new , and likely anti-Second Amendment , justices .
This way , even if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislate from the bench would be nullified should Biden pack the court with jurists who feel the opposite .
This would turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a super legislature of men and women with lifetime appointments .
A Biden court-packing scheme would be an America-altering progressive power grab .
A power grab that Biden and his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) , won ’ t tell us whether they ’ d do or not .
That refusal to say one way or another is troubling .
Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
It ’ s wrong , but I get where it comes from .
What the left doesn ’ t grok is that if you pack the court , there ’ s little reason for the next Republican president with a GOP-controlled Congress not to do the same thing .
Mutually assured destruction really needs to be the name of the game here .
No one should pack the Court because doing so will be a green light for the next guys .
That ’ s the last thing anyone needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take much for either Biden or Harris to say as much , to point out that if the left tries to pack the Court , that ’ s just a green light to the right to do the same .
But that would require them to differentiate that from what President Trump has done , namely fill vacancies as his office requires but which they ’ ve decided to call court packing .
We all know that Biden and Harris won ’ t appoint pro-gun justices if they pack the court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will repeal Heller , McDonald , and everything else that upholds the Second Amendment , but they won ’ t stop there .
No , they ’ ll likely hear cases and rule that pretty much any bit of gun control isn ’ t just acceptable , but constitutional , which gives the green light to every anti-gun state to step up their efforts .
As if you needed another reason not to vote for Biden .

The purpose of the Supreme Court, as it’s used here in this country at this time, is to determine whether or not legislation is constitutional or not. The same is true for lower federal courts as well. They’re supposed to take the Supreme Court’s rulings and apply them evenly across other cases, then judge on the constitutionality of new issues as they arise until SCOTUS rules differently.
However, as we’ve seen, it doesn’t necessarily work that way. Anti-gun judges have been ruling against the Second Amendment for decades, often ignoring the text of the amendment and inserting their own feelings and opinions, pretending those somehow carry more weight than “shall not be infringed.”
With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, we may finally see the end of some of this stuff. At least, in theory.
The problem is that liberals are pressuring Biden to pack the Court should he win, and that’s bad for all of us.
Let’s start with a definition, as a curious number of politicians on the left are now pretending the phrase “court packing” refers to a president filling a vacant seat in an election year. Dictionary.com puts it this way: “court packing: an unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws.” “Court packing” is clearly about increasing the number of U.S Supreme Court justices in an attempt to advance a particular political agenda. And that is what is being threatened. With the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett—President Trump’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court that opened with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg–now under way in the U.S. Senate, some on the left have been calling for Joe Biden, if he does win the presidency, to do what FDR couldn’t. They want him to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with four or more new, and likely anti-Second Amendment, justices. This way, even if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, her stated belief that a judge should not legislate from the bench would be nullified should Biden pack the court with jurists who feel the opposite. This would turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a super legislature of men and women with lifetime appointments. A Biden court-packing scheme would be an America-altering progressive power grab. A power grab that Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), won’t tell us whether they’d do or not.
That refusal to say one way or another is troubling.
Look, I get the desire to pack the Court. It’s wrong, but I get where it comes from. What the left doesn’t grok is that if you pack the court, there’s little reason for the next Republican president with a GOP-controlled Congress not to do the same thing. Mutually assured destruction really needs to be the name of the game here. No one should pack the Court because doing so will be a green light for the next guys.
That’s the last thing anyone needs.
And, honestly, it wouldn’t take much for either Biden or Harris to say as much, to point out that if the left tries to pack the Court, that’s just a green light to the right to do the same. But that would require them to differentiate that from what President Trump has done, namely fill vacancies as his office requires but which they’ve decided to call court packing.
We all know that Biden and Harris won’t appoint pro-gun justices if they pack the court. Instead, they’ll find judges who will repeal Heller, McDonald, and everything else that upholds the Second Amendment, but they won’t stop there. No, they’ll likely hear cases and rule that pretty much any bit of gun control isn’t just acceptable, but constitutional, which gives the green light to every anti-gun state to step up their efforts.
That is a big problem.
As if you needed another reason not to vote for Biden.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Democrats Continue Their Absurd Attacks On Amy Coney Barrett's 2A Record

Shootings and homicides have increased dramatically in Hartford , Connecticut this year , despite the state having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country , but U.S .
Senator Chris Murphy is claiming that if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Court , the state will become an even more dangerous place because many of those ineffective gun control laws would be declared unconstitutional as well .
Murphy , along with several state-based gun control groups , held a press conference Thursday morning in order to bash Barrett ’ s originalist judicial philosophy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s gun control laws are in jeopardy .
“ We think it ’ s really important for people to know what is going to happen to violence rates all across this country if Amy Coney Barrett is put on the supreme court , ” Murphy said .
Murphy ’ s news conference came as the capital city dealt with a surge in gun violence .
Since Friday , one person was killed and eight others hurt in shootings across the city .
Honestly , Murphy ’ s attacks on Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downright moronic , but the Connecticut Democrat has had lots of company in claiming that the philosophy somehow involves returning society to its state of existence in 1787 .
If originalism was only based on the original text of the Constitution , then Murphy wouldn ’ t have anything to worry about .
Judges like Barrett wouldn ’ t look to the Second Amendment at all in their determinations , since the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights ratified four years after the Constitution ’ s adoption .
Unfortunately for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who ’ ve been obtusely insisting that originalism would lock the country into the laws on the books in 1787 , that ’ s not what the judicial philosophy entails .
Instead , originalism simply means that you look at the intent of the Constitution and its amendments as they were written and understood at the time , instead of trying to redefine the Constitution to suit your particular purpose .
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery , the 19th Amendment ensured the right of women to vote , and the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms .
Under originalism , all of those amendments matter .
In fact , they ’ re just as much a part of the Constitution as the parts that were ratified in 1787 .
Originalists recognize that the world changes .
In fact , they recognize that the Constitution can change as well .
Unlike folks like Dan Rather and Chris Murphy , however , they also recognize that the way to change the Constitution is by amending it instead of simply trying to pretend that the Constitution now means something entirely different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would be much easier for politicians across the political spectrum if they didn ’ t have to worry about the constitutionality of the laws that they pass .
Fortunately for us the Constitution wasn ’ t designed solely to make life easy for politicians .
It was designed , at least in part , to ensure that there were checks on government overreach and infringements on our individual rights .
As for the gun control laws that Murphy is worried won ’ t withstand constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court if Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking himself what good they ’ re doing in the first place .
In Hartford , shootings are up 43 % compared to 2019 , and local police say that criminals are emboldened by a police accountability bill recently signed by Gov .
Ned Lamont .
If Connecticut ’ s ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines were ever declared unconstitutional , I doubt criminals would even notice .
The violence in Hartford , New Haven , and Bridgeport isn ’ t being driven by legal gun owners in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rising crime isn ’ t by criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms .
Instead , police and prosecutors need to ensure that there are swift and certain consequences for committing a violent crime .
That doesn ’ t involve putting more gun laws on the books or targeting legal gun owners , as Chris Murphy ’ s demanding .
It simply means getting serious about dealing with the individuals who are actually responsible committing the crimes in the first place .

Shootings and homicides have increased dramatically in Hartford, Connecticut this year, despite the state having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, but U.S. Senator Chris Murphy is claiming that if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Court, the state will become an even more dangerous place because many of those ineffective gun control laws would be declared unconstitutional as well.
Murphy, along with several state-based gun control groups, held a press conference Thursday morning in order to bash Barrett’s originalist judicial philosophy, claiming that with Barrett on the bench the state’s gun control laws are in jeopardy.
“We think it’s really important for people to know what is going to happen to violence rates all across this country if Amy Coney Barrett is put on the supreme court,” Murphy said. Murphy’s news conference came as the capital city dealt with a surge in gun violence. Since Friday, one person was killed and eight others hurt in shootings across the city.
Honestly, Murphy’s attacks on Barrett’s embrace of originalism have been downright moronic, but the Connecticut Democrat has had lots of company in claiming that the philosophy somehow involves returning society to its state of existence in 1787.
Women couldn’t vote.
Slavery was legal.
AR-15s and the internet and electric lights didn’t exist. But originalism. https://t.co/RpMRHcmKSq — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 14, 2020
If originalism was only based on the original text of the Constitution, then Murphy wouldn’t have anything to worry about. Judges like Barrett wouldn’t look to the Second Amendment at all in their determinations, since the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights ratified four years after the Constitution’s adoption.
Unfortunately for Murphy, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats who’ve been obtusely insisting that originalism would lock the country into the laws on the books in 1787, that’s not what the judicial philosophy entails.
Instead, originalism simply means that you look at the intent of the Constitution and its amendments as they were written and understood at the time, instead of trying to redefine the Constitution to suit your particular purpose. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 19th Amendment ensured the right of women to vote, and the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Under originalism, all of those amendments matter. In fact, they’re just as much a part of the Constitution as the parts that were ratified in 1787.
If you want to be an “originalist” in law, maybe you should go all the way. Cooking on a hearth. Leeches for medicine. An old mule for transportation. Or maybe you can recognize that the world changes. — Dan Rather (@DanRather) October 14, 2020
Originalists recognize that the world changes. In fact, they recognize that the Constitution can change as well. Unlike folks like Dan Rather and Chris Murphy, however, they also recognize that the way to change the Constitution is by amending it instead of simply trying to pretend that the Constitution now means something entirely different than what it meant last week.
It would be much easier for politicians across the political spectrum if they didn’t have to worry about the constitutionality of the laws that they pass. Fortunately for us the Constitution wasn’t designed solely to make life easy for politicians. It was designed, at least in part, to ensure that there were checks on government overreach and infringements on our individual rights.
As for the gun control laws that Murphy is worried won’t withstand constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court if Barrett is confirmed, he should really be asking himself what good they’re doing in the first place. In Hartford, shootings are up 43% compared to 2019, and local police say that criminals are emboldened by a police accountability bill recently signed by Gov. Ned Lamont.
“[The bill] is not allowing us to do our jobs, to be proactive police officers,” said Officer Anthony Fegaldi. “If you don’t have that element in your community, sometimes you can see some lawlessness as we’re seeing right now.” “To suggest the violence we are seeing because the men and women of the Hartford Police Department aren’t doing their job does a disservice to those who are out there working hard every day,” Mayor Bronin said. Mayor Bronin also said that the police department has made great strides when it comes to solving homicides and taking illegal guns off the street, and argues that doesn’t show a police department who is taking a back seat.
If Connecticut’s ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines were ever declared unconstitutional, I doubt criminals would even notice. The violence in Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport isn’t being driven by legal gun owners in the first place, and the way to address the rising crime isn’t by criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, police and prosecutors need to ensure that there are swift and certain consequences for committing a violent crime. That doesn’t involve putting more gun laws on the books or targeting legal gun owners, as Chris Murphy’s demanding. It simply means getting serious about dealing with the individuals who are actually responsible committing the crimes in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Leftist Attack Ad Calls Symbol Popular With Gun Crowd Racist

Republican Madison Cawthorn has a lot of people who don ’ t like him .
Then again , when you ’ re running for Congress , you ’ re going to get hammered on general principle .
However , when Vote Vets decided to take aim at him in an ad rolled out this week , they cross the line from attacking just him and try to label a good chunk of the gun community as racist as well .
First , let ’ s take a look at the ad : Now , Cawthorn has addressed many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at the time of the accident that left him in a wheelchair , he didn ’ t know he ’ d been rejected from Annapolis , hence his statement about the accident sidelining his plans .
However , a politicians potentially phrasing something in a way that ’ s misleading isn ’ t anything new .
You kind of expect spin from anyone running for office .
Honesty isn ’ t really appreciated .
Yet there are two claims that are problematic as hell .
One is that Cawthorn ’ s visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nest was somehow evidence of his racism .
After all , he called the visit a bucket list item , which is apparently not allowed .
Yet a zoom in of a screenshot in the video shows Cawthorn commenting on people laughing and having a good time where , decades earlier “ a supreme evil ” did the same thing .
Even some from the Anti-Defamation League found little to get worked up about .
Not many neo-Nazis refer to Hitler as a supreme evil .
Just saying .
Yet , for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labeling Cawthorn as using “ symbols that signal white supremacist groups ” and then pointing out a Spartan helmet .
The truth of the matter is that the Spartan helmet is popular not just with the gun crowd in general , but with many military service members who have found they relate to the Spartan mythos immortalized in the move 300 .
The idea of a warrior culture standing against the greatest assault western civilization had ever seen kind of strikes a cord with a lot of people .
Yet the group running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ran this add .
Vote Vets claims to be a group of progressive veterans who “ focus on matters including , but not limited to , foreign policy , energy security , veterans ’ unemployment , and opening military service to life-long Americans born to undocumented immigrants , as well as continued investment in care for veterans.
” However , from what I can see , they ’ re also willing to expend time and treasure vilifying countless fellow veterans who wear and use symbols similar to what Cawthorn is wearing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any racist group .
It ’ s one thing to attack a candidate .
Cawthorn signed up for that when he decided to run for office .
The veterans and gun owners who are disparaged by this demonizing and outright false attack ?
They didn ’ t .
Vote Vets should be ashamed of themselves .
Millions upon millions of honest , hardworking , decent Americans from all ethnicities have worn symbols relating to Sparta , the film 300 , and many others without any interest in pursuing a racist ideology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that also tells you why they can ’ t understand why so many oppose their policies .
They just label everything as racism and heaven forbid facts play into anything .

Republican Madison Cawthorn has a lot of people who don’t like him. Then again, when you’re running for Congress, you’re going to get hammered on general principle.
However, when Vote Vets decided to take aim at him in an ad rolled out this week, they cross the line from attacking just him and try to label a good chunk of the gun community as racist as well.
First, let’s take a look at the ad:
Now, Cawthorn has addressed many of these claims. For example, he said that at the time of the accident that left him in a wheelchair, he didn’t know he’d been rejected from Annapolis, hence his statement about the accident sidelining his plans.
However, a politicians potentially phrasing something in a way that’s misleading isn’t anything new. You kind of expect spin from anyone running for office. Honesty isn’t really appreciated.
Yet there are two claims that are problematic as hell.
One is that Cawthorn’s visit to Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest was somehow evidence of his racism. After all, he called the visit a bucket list item, which is apparently not allowed. Yet a zoom in of a screenshot in the video shows Cawthorn commenting on people laughing and having a good time where, decades earlier “a supreme evil” did the same thing.
Even some from the Anti-Defamation League found little to get worked up about.
Not many neo-Nazis refer to Hitler as a supreme evil. Just saying.
Yet, for the gun community, the worst part is labeling Cawthorn as using “symbols that signal white supremacist groups” and then pointing out a Spartan helmet.
The truth of the matter is that the Spartan helmet is popular not just with the gun crowd in general, but with many military service members who have found they relate to the Spartan mythos immortalized in the move 300. The idea of a warrior culture standing against the greatest assault western civilization had ever seen kind of strikes a cord with a lot of people.
Yet the group running this ad, Vote Vets approved of and ran this add. Vote Vets claims to be a group of progressive veterans who “focus on matters including, but not limited to, foreign policy, energy security, veterans’ unemployment, and opening military service to life-long Americans born to undocumented immigrants, as well as continued investment in care for veterans.” However, from what I can see, they’re also willing to expend time and treasure vilifying countless fellow veterans who wear and use symbols similar to what Cawthorn is wearing in that picture, yet have zero ties to any racist group.
It’s one thing to attack a candidate. Cawthorn signed up for that when he decided to run for office. The veterans and gun owners who are disparaged by this demonizing and outright false attack? They didn’t.
Vote Vets should be ashamed of themselves.
Millions upon millions of honest, hardworking, decent Americans from all ethnicities have worn symbols relating to Sparta, the film 300, and many others without any interest in pursuing a racist ideology. The fact that progressives can’t understand that also tells you why they can’t understand why so many oppose their policies.
They just label everything as racism and heaven forbid facts play into anything.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Why Are Chicago Prosecutors Undercharging Accused Violent Criminals?

Cook County State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx has come under criticism from the press and public officials in recent months over her light-on-crime approach to prosecutions , with Mayor Lori Lightfoot blaming Foxx ’ s office for some of the sharp increase in shootings and homicides in the city .
The Chicago Tribune has reported that in Foxx ’ s first three years in office , the prosecutor ended up dropping all charges in nearly 30 % of all felony cases , which is far more than her predecessor .
There are signs , however , that the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution in many felony cases .
It appears that those accused of violent crimes are also being undercharged , with prosecutors in Foxx ’ s office failing to prosecute violent felons who are alleged to have committed more crimes with illicitly owned firearms .
The website CWB Chicago recently reported on the case of 33-year old Marshal Delvalle , a four time felon who was recently arrested in connection with a string of reported robberies in the city earlier this month .
Yet , even though one of the incidents was allegedly captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marshal Delvalle with attempted murder , aggravated assault , discharging a firearm , or even being a felon in possession of a firearm .
But they did charge him with robbery .
Delvalle , 33 , is accused of robbing four people in two incidents that police this month said was part of a pattern that involved nine similar cases in the area .
At 8:55 a.m. on Friday , October 2 , an offender wielded a baseball bat as he tried to rob a 49-year-old man outside the victim ’ s home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the men began struggling , the victim ’ s wife appeared , and Delvalle got out of a nearby tan Mercury Marquis with a gun , Assistant State ’ s Attorney Jocelyn Schieve said .
Delvalle allegedly pointed the gun at the woman and demanded her purse .
He then shot at the husband as the man ran from the scene and fired on a witness who stepped out to see what was going on , Schieve said .
The witness was shot in the foot .
In the other incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lyft driver at gunpoint and firing several shots into the hood of the man ’ s car after taking his money and phone .
CWB Chicago reports that Delvalle recently got out of prison after a five-year sentence for aggravated fleeing and burglary , and his previous convictions include at least one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon .
Given the fact that Delvalle is prohibited by law from having a gun , why didn ’ t Cook County prosecutors charge him with being a felon-in-possession of a firearm ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why didn ’ t Foxx ’ s office pursue attempted murder or aggravated assault charges for the first robbery cited above ?
In that case , prosecutors acknowledge that Delvalle shot at two people and hit one of them , but they ’ re not pursuing any charges relating to the actual shooting .
Chicagoans should be demanding answers from Foxx ’ s office .
It ’ s bad enough that nearly 1/3rd of all felony cases are dropped by the Cook County State ’ s Attorney , but the case of Marshal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many cases that are pursued by Foxx also result in leaving the most serious charges off the table ?
With the vast majority of felony cases ending in plea bargains , Delvalle isn ’ t likely to actually be convicted of robbery charges .
Instead , the odds are good that he ’ ll take a plea to lighter crimes and receive a slap on the wrist as a result .
Chicago ’ s homicide rate is on pace to be the worst in two decades , but Kim Foxx continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
This is scandalous behavior , but with the prosecutor almost guaranteed to win re-election next month in spite of the many problems in her office , including the handling of the Jussie Smollett case , I doubt that the city ’ s violent criminals are too worried about prosecutors cracking down anytime soon .

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx has come under criticism from the press and public officials in recent months over her light-on-crime approach to prosecutions, with Mayor Lori Lightfoot blaming Foxx’s office for some of the sharp increase in shootings and homicides in the city. The Chicago Tribune has reported that in Foxx’s first three years in office, the prosecutor ended up dropping all charges in nearly 30% of all felony cases, which is far more than her predecessor.
There are signs, however, that the problem goes even deeper than the lack of prosecution in many felony cases. It appears that those accused of violent crimes are also being undercharged, with prosecutors in Foxx’s office failing to prosecute violent felons who are alleged to have committed more crimes with illicitly owned firearms.
The website CWB Chicago recently reported on the case of 33-year old Marshal Delvalle, a four time felon who was recently arrested in connection with a string of reported robberies in the city earlier this month.
Yet, even though one of the incidents was allegedly captured on video, they did not charge Marshal Delvalle with attempted murder, aggravated assault, discharging a firearm, or even being a felon in possession of a firearm. But they did charge him with robbery. Delvalle, 33, is accused of robbing four people in two incidents that police this month said was part of a pattern that involved nine similar cases in the area. At 8:55 a.m. on Friday, October 2, an offender wielded a baseball bat as he tried to rob a 49-year-old man outside the victim’s home on the 7000 block of North Rockwell. When the men began struggling, the victim’s wife appeared, and Delvalle got out of a nearby tan Mercury Marquis with a gun, Assistant State’s Attorney Jocelyn Schieve said. Delvalle allegedly pointed the gun at the woman and demanded her purse. He then shot at the husband as the man ran from the scene and fired on a witness who stepped out to see what was going on, Schieve said. The witness was shot in the foot.
In the other incident, Delvalle is accused of robbing a Lyft driver at gunpoint and firing several shots into the hood of the man’s car after taking his money and phone.
CWB Chicago reports that Delvalle recently got out of prison after a five-year sentence for aggravated fleeing and burglary, and his previous convictions include at least one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
Given the fact that Delvalle is prohibited by law from having a gun, why didn’t Cook County prosecutors charge him with being a felon-in-possession of a firearm? In fact, as CWB Chicago wonders, why didn’t Foxx’s office pursue attempted murder or aggravated assault charges for the first robbery cited above? In that case, prosecutors acknowledge that Delvalle shot at two people and hit one of them, but they’re not pursuing any charges relating to the actual shooting.
Chicagoans should be demanding answers from Foxx’s office. It’s bad enough that nearly 1/3rd of all felony cases are dropped by the Cook County State’s Attorney, but the case of Marshal Delvalle raises even more troubling questions. How many cases that are pursued by Foxx also result in leaving the most serious charges off the table? With the vast majority of felony cases ending in plea bargains, Delvalle isn’t likely to actually be convicted of robbery charges. Instead, the odds are good that he’ll take a plea to lighter crimes and receive a slap on the wrist as a result.
Chicago’s homicide rate is on pace to be the worst in two decades, but Kim Foxx continues to go easy on those accused of violent crimes. This is scandalous behavior, but with the prosecutor almost guaranteed to win re-election next month in spite of the many problems in her office, including the handling of the Jussie Smollett case, I doubt that the city’s violent criminals are too worried about prosecutors cracking down anytime soon.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Barrett Says She Can Judge 2A Fairly, Media Implodes

I think just about everyone expected the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to become a partisan sh*tshow .
We all saw it coming and there wasn ’ t a damn thing we could do about it except pop all the popcorn and dig in .
After all , the left is outraged that Trump exercised his constitutional authority to fulfill a constitutional duty and make a nomination .
They ’ re outraged that the Senate who refused to seat the nominee of a term-limited and thus outgoing president won ’ t do the same thing to a president that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , they were going to make it stupid , which is why Barrett has gotten some of the questions she ’ s gotten .
Sen. Lindsay Graham asked one , probably to make a broader point in an attempt to help Barrett , that still makes me shake my head .
He asked her if she could fairly decide Second Amendment cases while owning a gun .
Of course , she said she could and would , which is what you ’ d expect her to say .
However , over at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting thoughts on the aftermath .
CNN highlighted that exchange in a headline and tweet , noting that “ Barrett says she owns a gun , but could fairly judge a case on gun rights.
” The Independent also considered the point noteworthy : “ Nominee owns a gun , but says she would rule ‘ fairly ’ on gun control cases.
” So did Fox News : “ Barrett admits to owning a gun , says she can set aside beliefs to rule on 2nd Amendment fairly.
” As the Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not simply a matter of anti-gun bias .
But it does suggest that , more than a decade after the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense , that right is still treated as “ second-class ” in the press as well as the courts .
The doubt implied by these headlines goes even further , suggesting that a judge ’ s rulings are suspect when they involve constitutional rights she herself has exercised .
If that standard were applied consistently , no one would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet I ’ m going to take things a step further .
If , as the media appears to suggest above , owning a gun automatically makes your opinions on the Second Amendment suspect , then there are a couple of Democrats they need to stop listening to on guns .
Dianne Feinstein famously carries a firearm regularly despite the anti-gun jihad she ’ s waged for years .
Since she owns a gun , the incredulous media should probably start ignoring the California Democrat ’ s views on firearms .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former representative who was shot by a deranged individual and became an gun control crusader .
Giffords has admitted to owning guns recently , meaning she still has them after having been shot .
As a gun owner , based on the headlines , it seems the media would do well to completely ignore everything she says .
That probably extends to the group she founded and her new Gun Owners for Safety group .
After all , they own guns .
Can you really trust that they ’ ll treat guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dumbest approach the media has yet taken .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I ’ d love it if they ignored these two women , but because they babble nonsense when it comes to the Second Amendment , not because they own guns .
Owning a firearm doesn ’ t make what you ’ re saying more or less important .
It doesn ’ t suggest your views on rights are somehow compromised .
Frankly , the line of questioning was a softball and should never have made the headlines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media wonders why people don ’ t take them seriously anymore .

I think just about everyone expected the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to become a partisan sh*tshow. We all saw it coming and there wasn’t a damn thing we could do about it except pop all the popcorn and dig in. After all, the left is outraged that Trump exercised his constitutional authority to fulfill a constitutional duty and make a nomination. They’re outraged that the Senate who refused to seat the nominee of a term-limited and thus outgoing president won’t do the same thing to a president that’s campaigning for a second term.
So, they were going to make it stupid, which is why Barrett has gotten some of the questions she’s gotten.
Sen. Lindsay Graham asked one, probably to make a broader point in an attempt to help Barrett, that still makes me shake my head. He asked her if she could fairly decide Second Amendment cases while owning a gun.
Of course, she said she could and would, which is what you’d expect her to say.
However, over at Reason, they’ve got some interesting thoughts on the aftermath.
CNN highlighted that exchange in a headline and tweet, noting that “Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights.” The Independent also considered the point noteworthy: “Nominee owns a gun, but says she would rule ‘fairly’ on gun control cases.” So did Fox News: “Barrett admits to owning a gun, says she can set aside beliefs to rule on 2nd Amendment fairly.” As the Fox News example suggests, this framing is probably not simply a matter of anti-gun bias. But it does suggest that, more than a decade after the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that right is still treated as “second-class” in the press as well as the courts. … The doubt implied by these headlines goes even further, suggesting that a judge’s rulings are suspect when they involve constitutional rights she herself has exercised. If that standard were applied consistently, no one would be left to enforce those rights.
I, of course, agree.
Yet I’m going to take things a step further. If, as the media appears to suggest above, owning a gun automatically makes your opinions on the Second Amendment suspect, then there are a couple of Democrats they need to stop listening to on guns.
Dianne Feinstein famously carries a firearm regularly despite the anti-gun jihad she’s waged for years. Since she owns a gun, the incredulous media should probably start ignoring the California Democrat’s views on firearms.
The same can be said for Gabby Giffords, the former representative who was shot by a deranged individual and became an gun control crusader. Giffords has admitted to owning guns recently, meaning she still has them after having been shot. As a gun owner, based on the headlines, it seems the media would do well to completely ignore everything she says. That probably extends to the group she founded and her new Gun Owners for Safety group.
After all, they own guns. Can you really trust that they’ll treat guns fairly?
Honestly, this is the dumbest approach the media has yet taken. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they ignored these two women, but because they babble nonsense when it comes to the Second Amendment, not because they own guns.
Owning a firearm doesn’t make what you’re saying more or less important. It doesn’t suggest your views on rights are somehow compromised. Frankly, the line of questioning was a softball and should never have made the headlines, yet it did.
And the mainstream media wonders why people don’t take them seriously anymore.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--MI Dems Say Guns In Capitol A "Workplace Hazard"

Democratic lawmakers and gun control advocates have a new argument in their months-old quest to ban firearms from the Michigan State Capitol building in Lansing : it creates a workplace hazard .
Ever since dozens armed protesters turned out at the capitol during protests over Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s lockdown orders back in the spring , those wanting to make the Capitol complex gun-free have been relying on the state ’ s Capitol Commission to issue a ban .
Commissioners , however , first argued that they didn ’ t have the authority to implement such a ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed with the state ’ s AG that the commission could institute a ban on lawfully possessed guns in the building , the commission has punted on the issue .
Now House Minority Leader Christine Greig is urging House Speaker Lee Chatfield to direct the commission to put the gun ban in place , claiming that the presence of firearms in the capitol creates a hazardous work environment .
First of all , there are plenty of work places that haven ’ t declared themselves to be gun-free zones , but Greig also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just a place of work for legislators , but a gathering space for citizens to lobby lawmakers , protest their decisions , and rally in support of legislation .
Greig seems to understand that , because she called it “ unfair ” that signs are not permitted in the Capitol building while lawfully possessed firearms are okay .
Personally , I think ending the ban on signs is a far better idea than trying to make the Capitol a gun-free zone .
Obviously the arrests of several individuals who federal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer have given supporters of a Capitol gun ban new momentum for their cause , but let ’ s be honest here .
Anyone with ill intent isn ’ t going to be thwarted by a sign that says “ No Guns Allowed.
” Instead , it will be law-abiding citizens who ’ ll be denied their right to carry in self-defense .
It sounds like Republican lawmakers are holding firm on any legislative attempt to ban firearms from the Capitol complex , but I wouldn ’ t be surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue in the future .
While a complete ban on lawfully possessed firearms seems like a reach at the moment , it ’ s possible that the commission would try to find some sort of middle ground like banning the open carry of long guns while continuing to allow concealed carry holders to possess their guns on the Capitol grounds and inside the building itself .
I suspect that wouldn ’ t satisfy lawmakers like Greig , and it would upset many gun owners , but if the Capitol Commission is looking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the most likely possibility .

Democratic lawmakers and gun control advocates have a new argument in their months-old quest to ban firearms from the Michigan State Capitol building in Lansing: it creates a workplace hazard.
Ever since dozens armed protesters turned out at the capitol during protests over Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s lockdown orders back in the spring, those wanting to make the Capitol complex gun-free have been relying on the state’s Capitol Commission to issue a ban. Commissioners, however, first argued that they didn’t have the authority to implement such a ban, and even after their staff attorney agreed with the state’s AG that the commission could institute a ban on lawfully possessed guns in the building, the commission has punted on the issue.
Now House Minority Leader Christine Greig is urging House Speaker Lee Chatfield to direct the commission to put the gun ban in place, claiming that the presence of firearms in the capitol creates a hazardous work environment.
Greig says she plans to file a complaint with the state’s occupational health agency if Chatfield fails to act. “It’s very threatening when you walk around your workplace and see people with assault rifles,” Greig said in an interview. “Any other workplace would be addressing this, and it would be investigated and dealt with. But we are not afforded that as members of the House. It needs to change.”
First of all, there are plenty of work places that haven’t declared themselves to be gun-free zones, but Greig also fails to acknowledge that the Capitol isn’t just a place of work for legislators, but a gathering space for citizens to lobby lawmakers, protest their decisions, and rally in support of legislation.
Greig seems to understand that, because she called it “unfair” that signs are not permitted in the Capitol building while lawfully possessed firearms are okay. Personally, I think ending the ban on signs is a far better idea than trying to make the Capitol a gun-free zone.
Gideon D’Assandro, a spokesman for Chatfield, called the letter from Greig a “partisan press stunt.” “We all know MIOSHA can’t trump the constitution,” D’Assandro said in a statement, referring to the Michigan workplace safety agency. “The House is doing important work this week to keep Michigan safe and help improve the state’s response to the pandemic. The Legislature won’t be distracted from that.” Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not respond to a request for comment about whether it had received complaints about workplace safety issues at the Capitol.
Obviously the arrests of several individuals who federal and state officials say were plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have given supporters of a Capitol gun ban new momentum for their cause, but let’s be honest here. Anyone with ill intent isn’t going to be thwarted by a sign that says “No Guns Allowed.” Instead, it will be law-abiding citizens who’ll be denied their right to carry in self-defense.
It sounds like Republican lawmakers are holding firm on any legislative attempt to ban firearms from the Capitol complex, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Capitol Commission revisit the issue in the future. While a complete ban on lawfully possessed firearms seems like a reach at the moment, it’s possible that the commission would try to find some sort of middle ground like banning the open carry of long guns while continuing to allow concealed carry holders to possess their guns on the Capitol grounds and inside the building itself. I suspect that wouldn’t satisfy lawmakers like Greig, and it would upset many gun owners, but if the Capitol Commission is looking to “do something,” that seems like the most likely possibility.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Why Biden's Gun Policy Could Destroy Firearm Industry

There ’ s no doubt that the firearm industry and firearm enthusiasts generally consider former Vice President Joe Biden the worst possible choice for president .
That ’ s after the Libertarian candidate , possibly the Green Party candidate , and especially toenail fungus .
However , it ’ s not universal .
Some people really don ’ t get just how bad a Biden presidency could be for guns and gun rights .
See , part of Biden ’ s policy proposals could spell dire circumstances for the firearm industry itself .
There is more to his antigun agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal online sales of firearms and ammunition .
According to his website , Biden will work to “ repeal riders ” that get in the way of his agenda .
What does this mean ?
The former U.S. senator wants to get rid of the Tiahrt Amendment , which restricts public access to sensitive , law enforcement-only firearm tracing data .
This restriction is supported by Congress , the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing information which would jeopardize on-going criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers , cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk .
Now , this is important because trace-data restrictions don ’ t apply to law enforcement .
They have full access if needed for an investigation , and they make use of it .
However , what Biden and others who oppose the Tiahrt Amendment want to do with it is something far more insidious .
Especially when taken in light of Democrats ’ desire to repeal the Lawful Commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data not be made public ?
Gun control groups try to use these data to argue a trace is a signal that a law-abiding firearm retailer did something wrong if a firearm they legally sold after a background check ended up being traced for any reason .
That is simply not the case .
As the ATF has repeatedly stated , “ The appearance of [ a licensed dealer ] or a first unlicensed purchaser of record in association with a crime gun or in association with multiple crime guns in no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealer ( FFL ) or the first purchaser has committed criminal acts .
Rather , such information may provide a starting point for further and more detailed investigation.
” ( Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports , ATF , 1998 ) .
Now , let ’ s also note that anti-gunners believe they found a loophole in the PLCAA .
Remington has been dealing with a lawsuit regarding the Sandy Hook shooting where anti-gunners are attacking the company ’ s marketing , saying it was negligent in its advertising and is thus responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me wrong , I don ’ t think they ’ ve got a leg to stand on personally , but I ’ m not an attorney from the Northeast , a very anti-gun region of the country .
Who knows what will fly up that way .
However , now imagine they can start hitting every mom and pop gun store with that same degree of force , all because someone who did something bad did it with a gun that was originally purchased at that store ?
Oh , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brain knows it .
That ’ s not what it ’ s about , though .
See , remember during the lockdown when anti-gunners vehemently opposed gun stores being allowed to remain open ?
They didn ’ t have an argument that wasn ’ t all about how dangerous COVID-19 was , but that wasn ’ t their wheelhouse .
It betrayed the truth .
All they want to see is a world where it ’ s impossible to get your hands on a firearm .
If every gun store in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating your ability to buy a gun , then why do they need to push for gun control .
With trace data , they can target gun stores and then claim that the sales person said or did something wrong , something they can sue the gun store for .
Most gun stores are small businesses .
They can ’ t afford that kind of thing .
Then , with fewer outlets to sell firearms , the manufacturers are going to have major problems .
We saw what happened over the last few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a backlog .
Companies were in a bad place .
Now imagine they can ’ t find outlets to sell their products ?
All of this could completely unravel the firearm industry as a whole , especially as larger retailers are becoming more and more reluctant to sell firearms at all thanks to anti-gun campaigns .
The truth of the matter is that the public doesn ’ t need that trace data .
No good can come of it .
As the above-linked post goes on to note , people ’ s lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing as well as the threats to the firearm industry as a whole .
Yet does Joe Biden care about any of that ?
Of course not .
We ’ re the wrong sort for him to give a damn about .

There’s no doubt that the firearm industry and firearm enthusiasts generally consider former Vice President Joe Biden the worst possible choice for president. That’s after the Libertarian candidate, possibly the Green Party candidate, and especially toenail fungus. However, it’s not universal. Some people really don’t get just how bad a Biden presidency could be for guns and gun rights.
See, part of Biden’s policy proposals could spell dire circumstances for the firearm industry itself.
There is more to his antigun agenda than banning modern sporting rifles and eliminating the legal online sales of firearms and ammunition. According to his website, Biden will work to “repeal riders” that get in the way of his agenda. What does this mean? The former U.S. senator wants to get rid of the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize on-going criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk.
Now, this is important because trace-data restrictions don’t apply to law enforcement. They have full access if needed for an investigation, and they make use of it.
However, what Biden and others who oppose the Tiahrt Amendment want to do with it is something far more insidious. Especially when taken in light of Democrats’ desire to repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Why should trace data not be made public? Gun control groups try to use these data to argue a trace is a signal that a law-abiding firearm retailer did something wrong if a firearm they legally sold after a background check ended up being traced for any reason. That is simply not the case. As the ATF has repeatedly stated, “The appearance of [a licensed dealer] or a first unlicensed purchaser of record in association with a crime gun or in association with multiple crime guns in no way suggests that either the federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) or the first purchaser has committed criminal acts. Rather, such information may provide a starting point for further and more detailed investigation.” (Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports, ATF, 1998).
The danger of releasing trace data is not a hypothetical one. In fact, the pandemic of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers being in the 1990s stirred the need for such a law to protect privacy. These cases misused trace data as a substitute for actual evidence of wrongdoing by members of the industry. These same lawsuits gave rise to the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that the Biden-Harris campaign wants to repeal.
Now, let’s also note that anti-gunners believe they found a loophole in the PLCAA. Remington has been dealing with a lawsuit regarding the Sandy Hook shooting where anti-gunners are attacking the company’s marketing, saying it was negligent in its advertising and is thus responsible for the shooting.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’ve got a leg to stand on personally, but I’m not an attorney from the Northeast, a very anti-gun region of the country. Who knows what will fly up that way.
However, now imagine they can start hitting every mom and pop gun store with that same degree of force, all because someone who did something bad did it with a gun that was originally purchased at that store? Oh, it’s not their fault and anyone with half a brain knows it. That’s not what it’s about, though.
See, remember during the lockdown when anti-gunners vehemently opposed gun stores being allowed to remain open? They didn’t have an argument that wasn’t all about how dangerous COVID-19 was, but that wasn’t their wheelhouse. It betrayed the truth. All they want to see is a world where it’s impossible to get your hands on a firearm.
If every gun store in America is forced to shut down, thus eliminating your ability to buy a gun, then why do they need to push for gun control.
With trace data, they can target gun stores and then claim that the sales person said or did something wrong, something they can sue the gun store for. Most gun stores are small businesses. They can’t afford that kind of thing.
Then, with fewer outlets to sell firearms, the manufacturers are going to have major problems. We saw what happened over the last few years when there was too much of a backlog. Companies were in a bad place. Now imagine they can’t find outlets to sell their products?
All of this could completely unravel the firearm industry as a whole, especially as larger retailers are becoming more and more reluctant to sell firearms at all thanks to anti-gun campaigns.
The truth of the matter is that the public doesn’t need that trace data. No good can come of it. As the above-linked post goes on to note, people’s lives are put in danger with this kind of thing as well as the threats to the firearm industry as a whole.
Yet does Joe Biden care about any of that? Of course not. We’re the wrong sort for him to give a damn about.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Biden's Idea For Cops To Aim For The Leg Is Dumb And Dangerous

This is actually at least the second time that Joe Biden has proclaimed that policing reform should include training law enforcement officers to shoot armed suspects in the leg , rather than aiming for center mass .
The first occasion was back in early June , at a AME church in Wilmington , Delaware days after the riots in Minneapolis broke out after the death of George Floyd .
The second time was Thursday night during an ABC town hall in front of a crowd of several million American less than three weeks before Election Day .
This is absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that no one on Joe Biden ’ s campaign thought to tell the boss back in June that maybe he should drop the line , given how unbelievably stupid it is .
Joe Biden seems to think that if police officers aim for the leg , that the lethal force of a firearm is suddenly somehow less lethal .
This is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels ; the femoral artery runs through the leg and severing the artery can cause someone to bleed to death in a matter of minutes , aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a leg is more likely to result in a missed shot and the potential for a friendly fire injury to another officer or a civilian , the officer is firing to stop the threat and aiming for the leg instead of the chest is an ineffective and dangerous way to do so , just to name a few .
This honestly sounds like something that an 8-year old would come up with , not the Democratic candidate for president of the United States .
Even worse , this isn ’ t something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the spur of the moment on Thursday night .
As I said earlier , he made the exact same suggestion more than four months ago as part of his pitch to Black voters in his home state of Delaware .
Biden brought up the idea while speaking to African American community leaders Monday at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington , Delaware .
The former vice president mostly sat and listened during the event , only speaking at the end to address the comments and concerns they raised .
“ Instead of standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something , shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart , ” Biden said , going on to argue that “ There ’ s a lot of different things that can change ” in police training .
The former VP also made a pledge to those in attendance to “ deal with institutional racism , ” as well as to set up a police oversight body within the first 100 days of his presidency .
The 2020 hopeful continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ We set up , in the Justice Department , the ability for the Civil Rights Division to go in and look at the practices and policies of police departments .
That ’ s why we were able to stop stop-and-frisk.
” By the way , if anyone would ask Biden how he thinks his ban on “ large capacity magazines ” is going to be enforced without tactics similar to stop-and-frisk , they ’ d quickly realize that his gun and magazine ban are just as fantastical as his idea for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden has now brought this up at least twice as the prime example of his police reform policy , we have to assume he ’ s serious about this deeply unserious proposal .
Who knows if this hurts Biden at all , or if most non-gun owning Americans simply nodded their head and thought , “ yeah , that sounds good to me ” when they heard the former vice-president ’ s Hollywood-inspired plan .
Gun owners might want to take the time to explain on their own social media why Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad one , so that the non-gun owners in their social networks at least are exposed to a reality check .
We know they ’ re not going to get one from the likes of Snopes or AFP .

This is at least the second time that Joe Biden has proclaimed that policing reform should include training law enforcement officers to shoot armed suspects in the leg, rather than aiming for center mass. The first occasion was back in early June, at an AME church in Wilmington, Delaware, days after the riots in Minneapolis broke out after the death of George Floyd.
The second time was Thursday night during an ABC town hall in front of a crowd of several million Americans less than three weeks before Election Day.
.@JoeBiden says police should try shooting dangerous criminals “in the leg" pic.twitter.com/u3phk3MHSq — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 16, 2020
This is absolute idiocy, and I can’t believe that no one on Joe Biden’s campaign thought to tell the boss back in June that maybe he should drop the line, given how unbelievably stupid it is.
Joe Biden seems to think that if police officers aim for the leg, the lethal force of a firearm is suddenly somehow less lethal. This is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels; the femoral artery runs through the leg and severing the artery can cause someone to bleed to death in a matter of minutes, aiming for a smaller, moving target like a leg is more likely to result in a missed shot and the potential for a friendly fire injury to another officer or a civilian, the officer firing to stop the threat and aiming for the leg instead of the chest is an ineffective and dangerous way to do so, just to name a few.
I sat with Biden when I was Sheriff & discussed issues related to law enforcement. This is just a ridiculous statement. LEOs are trained to hit center mass, for the best chance to stop the threat. Teaching them to shoot in the leg would be stupid & reckless. #BidenTownHall #ILSen — Fmr. Sheriff Mark Curran, Dick Durbin’s opponent (@ElectMarkCurran) October 16, 2020
This honestly sounds like something that an 8-year old would come up with, not the Democratic candidate for president of the United States. Even worse, this isn’t something that Biden’s brain hacked up on the spur of the moment on Thursday night. As I said earlier, he made the exact same suggestion more than four months ago as part of his pitch to Black voters in his home state of Delaware.
Biden brought up the idea while speaking to African American community leaders Monday at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Delaware. The former vice president mostly sat and listened during the event, only speaking at the end to address the comments and concerns they raised. “Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart,” Biden said, going on to argue that “There’s a lot of different things that can change” in police training. The former VP also made a pledge to those in attendance to “deal with institutional racism,” as well as to set up a police oversight body within the first 100 days of his presidency. The 2020 hopeful continued by saying that during the Obama-Biden administration, “We set up, in the Justice Department, the ability for the Civil Rights Division to go in and look at the practices and policies of police departments. That’s why we were able to stop stop-and-frisk.”
By the way, if anyone would ask Biden how he thinks his ban on “large-capacity magazines” is going to be enforced without tactics similar to stop-and-frisk, they’d quickly realize that his gun and magazine ban are just as fantastical as his idea for police training reform. Given the fact that Biden has now brought this up at least twice as the prime example of his police reform policy, we have to assume he’s serious about this deeply unserious proposal.
Who knows if this hurts Biden at all, or if most non-gun owning Americans simply nodded their head and thought, “yeah, that sounds good to me” when they heard the former vice-president’s Hollywood-inspired plan. Gun owners might want to take the time to explain on their own social media why Biden’s big idea is such a bad one so that the non-gun owners in their social networks at least are exposed to a reality check. We know they’re not going to get one from the likes of Snopes or AFP.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--Domestic Violence And Gun Control Claims Don't Match Reality

Domestic violence is a horrible thing , something that we should all work to remove from the planet .
The idea of someone who claims to love someone else hurting that person and continuing to do so over and over again…it just doesn ’ t make any sense .
Then again , rationality often goes out the window when emotion gets involved , and 99 times out of 100 , this is about emotion .
However , one unfortunate byproduct of domestic violence–in particular , homicides related to domestic violence–is the push to enact gun control because of these horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has increased domestic violence .
According to Everytown For Gun Safety , over half of woman victims of intimate partner homicide in the US are killed with a gun .
Roughly 53 women are shot and killed by their partner in an average month throughout the US , according to its website .
Moreover , about 92 percent of all women killed with guns in high-income countries in 2015 were from the US .
While the rate of killings of women by violent partners with a firearm has increased in recent years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay inside with their abusers , accelerating the rates of domestic violence around the world .
“ Family violence during pandemics is associated with a range of factors including economic stress , disaster‐related instability , increased exposure to exploitative relationships , and reduced options for support , ” explained a study from the National Institutes of Health .
It noted , “ Reports of domestic abuse and family violence have increased around the world since social isolation and quarantine measures came into force .
Recently , anecdotal evidence from the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increases in intimate partner , women , and children violence due to isolation and quarantine.
” I agree , this is awful , but there are a couple of things you ’ re going to find missing from the general narrative taking place .
First , let ’ s remember that it ’ s already illegal for anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence to own a firearm .
With that , you can lump domestic abusers into one of two categories : those who have been convicted and those who haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been convicted , it ’ s already illegal for them to have a gun .
For those who haven ’ t been convicted , well , that ’ s the problem .
They haven ’ t been convicted of a crime , so how do you propose we deal with these individuals without impacted people who have done nothing wrong , including women who want a firearm to protect themselves from their abusers ?
Second , let ’ s look at the claim that more than half of all women killed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be true .
They fail to provide a link to their source , but say its from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program .
They also fail to provide an exact percentage , so it could be anything over 50 percent .
However , usually if someone says over half , you ’ re generally looking at only slightly more than 50 percent .
Often a mere fraction more .
Yet , when you look at overall homicides by weapon , 67 percent of all homicides from 2010-2014 were carried out with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program , in case someone thought the statistics were being compiled in different ways .
In other words , an abusive spouse is less likely to use a gun to kill his victim than a garden variety criminal .
Frankly , I think domestic abusers should be locked up for a good long time .
Make them felonies and call it a day .
I don ’ t harbor sympathy for these people .
But I ’ m sick and damned tired of my rights being up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scumbags , especially when statistics don ’ t actually support many of the claims in the first place .

Domestic violence is a horrible thing, something that we should all work to remove from the planet. The idea of someone who claims to love someone else hurting that person and continuing to do so over and over again…it just doesn’t make any sense. Then again, rationality often goes out the window when emotion gets involved, and 99 times out of 100, this is about emotion.
However, one unfortunate byproduct of domestic violence–in particular, homicides related to domestic violence–is the push to enact gun control because of these horrible incidents. Especially since it seems COVID has increased domestic violence.
I agree, this is awful, but there are a couple of things you’re going to find missing from the general narrative taking place.
First, let’s remember that it’s already illegal for anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence to own a firearm. With that, you can lump domestic abusers into one of two categories: those who have been convicted and those who haven’t.
For those who have been convicted, it’s already illegal for them to have a gun. For those who haven’t been convicted, well, that’s the problem. They haven’t been convicted of a crime, so how do you propose we deal with these individuals without impacted people who have done nothing wrong, including women who want a firearm to protect themselves from their abusers?
Second, let’s look at the claim that more than half of all women killed by a partner are shot.
That may well be true. They fail to provide a link to their source, but say its from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. They also fail to provide an exact percentage, so it could be anything over 50 percent. However, usually if someone says over half, you’re generally looking at only slightly more than 50 percent. Often a mere fraction more.
Yet, when you look at overall homicides by weapon, 67 percent of all homicides from 2010-2014 were carried out with a firearm. That, too, is from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, in case someone thought the statistics were being compiled in different ways. In other words, an abusive spouse is less likely to use a gun to kill his victim than a garden variety criminal.
Frankly, I think domestic abusers should be locked up for a good long time. Make them felonies and call it a day. I don’t harbor sympathy for these people.
But I’m sick and damned tired of my rights being up for discussion because of the actions of various scumbags, especially when statistics don’t actually support many of the claims in the first place.