bearingarms--2020-06-14--Church Carry Bill Signed Into Law In Louisiana

Changes are coming to Louisiana ’ s concealed carry laws with the signing of HB 334 by Gov .
John Bel Edwards on Friday .
The legislation , sponsored by former police officer Rep. Bryan Fontenot , tweaks the state law regarding concealed carry in churches and houses of worship , and passed the state legislature a few days ago with a veto-proof majority .
Currently in Louisana , concealed carry holders can only carry in a religious setting after the approval of the pastor , and after the congregation has been informed .
Additionally , those concealed carry holders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or synagogue must obtain eight additional hours of training at the request of the “ entity which has authority over the religious organization.
” With the signing of HB 334 , the additional training mandates will disappear , along with the requirement that congregants are informed of those who are carrying concealed .
Fontenot says those in charge of houses of worship can still choose to ban the carrying of concealed firearms on their property if they want , though at least one state representative disagrees with Fontenot ’ s assessment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeal of the current statute , pastors , rabbis , and other religious leaders no longer have the ability to set firearms policies for their buildings .
Two other pieces of pro-Second Amendment legislation are still on Gov .
Edwards ’ desk , and will soon become law as well unless the governor officially vetoes the measures .
House Bill 140 by Rep. Blake Miguez , would strengthen the state ’ s firearms preemption laws by limiting local governments to restricting the carrying of firearms only in those institutions listed in state statute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The measure would mean that dozens of local ordinances banning the carrying firearms in certain settings would be unenforceable .
House Bill 781 , also sponsored by Rep. Miguez , takes aim at localities that seek to ban the sale of firearms and ammunition during states of emergency , and makes it explicitly clear that these local governments don ’ t have the authority to suspend the Second Amendment with the declaration of an emergency .
All three bills passed out of the state legislature with veto-proof majorities , but so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has signed is HB 334 , the church carry bill .
Under Louisiana law , however , any bill passed by the legislature that is not vetoed by the governor automatically becomes law .
It ’ s unclear at the moment if Edwards will sign HB 140 and HB 781 , let them become law without his signature , or if he ’ ll veto the bills , setting up the prospect of a veto override fight in the legislature in the coming weeks .
I suspect the governor isn ’ t going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t win on the gun legislation and will at least allow the bills to become law , even if he doesn ’ t officially sign the two pieces of legislation .
Still , if you ’ re a gun owner in Louisiana now would be a great time to contact the governor ’ s office and urge him to support both HB 140 and HB 781 , as well as to thank Edwards for signing HB 334 into law .

Changes are coming to Louisiana’s concealed carry laws with the signing of HB 334 by Gov. John Bel Edwards on Friday. The legislation, sponsored by former police officer Rep. Bryan Fontenot, tweaks the state law regarding concealed carry in churches and houses of worship, and passed the state legislature a few days ago with a veto-proof majority.
Currently in Louisana, concealed carry holders can only carry in a religious setting after the approval of the pastor, and after the congregation has been informed. Additionally, those concealed carry holders who carry in a church, mosque, or synagogue must obtain eight additional hours of training at the request of the “entity which has authority over the religious organization.” With the signing of HB 334, the additional training mandates will disappear, along with the requirement that congregants are informed of those who are carrying concealed.
Fontenot says those in charge of houses of worship can still choose to ban the carrying of concealed firearms on their property if they want, though at least one state representative disagrees with Fontenot’s assessment. Rep. Joe Marino argues that with the repeal of the current statute, pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders no longer have the ability to set firearms policies for their buildings.
Two other pieces of pro-Second Amendment legislation are still on Gov. Edwards’ desk, and will soon become law as well unless the governor officially vetoes the measures.
House Bill 140 by Rep. Blake Miguez, would strengthen the state’s firearms preemption laws by limiting local governments to restricting the carrying of firearms only in those institutions listed in state statute like schools, courthouses, and airports. The measure would mean that dozens of local ordinances banning the carrying firearms in certain settings would be unenforceable.
House Bill 781, also sponsored by Rep. Miguez, takes aim at localities that seek to ban the sale of firearms and ammunition during states of emergency, and makes it explicitly clear that these local governments don’t have the authority to suspend the Second Amendment with the declaration of an emergency.
All three bills passed out of the state legislature with veto-proof majorities, but so far the only bill that Gov. Edwards has signed is HB 334, the church carry bill. Under Louisiana law, however, any bill passed by the legislature that is not vetoed by the governor automatically becomes law. It’s unclear at the moment if Edwards will sign HB 140 and HB 781, let them become law without his signature, or if he’ll veto the bills, setting up the prospect of a veto override fight in the legislature in the coming weeks.
I suspect the governor isn’t going to pick a fight he can’t win on the gun legislation and will at least allow the bills to become law, even if he doesn’t officially sign the two pieces of legislation. Still, if you’re a gun owner in Louisiana now would be a great time to contact the governor’s office and urge him to support both HB 140 and HB 781, as well as to thank Edwards for signing HB 334 into law.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--First Legal Challenge Filed To Virginia's New Gun Control Laws

Technically , the half-dozen gun control laws signed by Gov .
Ralph Northam don ’ t take effect in Virginia until July 1st , but the legal challenges to the new laws are now officially underway .
A new lawsuit filed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America on behalf of takes on the state ’ s new law restricting handgun purchases to one-per-month , unless the purchaser possesses a valid Virginia Concealed Handgun License or falls under several other exemptions .
The suit , filed in Goochland County Circuit Court , seeks an immediate injunction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect while the legal issues are considered by the court .
It also seeks a permanent injunction that would enjoin the law from being enforced as a violation of the constitutional rights of Virginia residents .
Interestingly , the brief filed on behalf of plaintiff Valerie Trojan , Brothers N Arms gun shop , the VCDL , and GOA argues that few courts have ever substantively dealt with the issue of gun rationing , though at least one federal court of appeals struck down a one-gun-per-month law passed by Washington , D.C. officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeals found that the District ’ s gun rationing scheme wasn ’ t backed up by any “ plausible rationale ” for the law .
The District had argued that its expert testimony indicated that placing limits on gun purchases by all might , in turn , limit trafficking in firearms by some .
The D.C .
Circuit rejected that argument as unsupported by the evidence .
Second , the District argued that “ the most effective method of limiting misuse of firearms , including homicide , suicide , and accidental shootings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present in a home.
” As the plaintiff ’ s attorneys note , the D.C .
Circuit “ flatly rejected ” that rationale , and said that , “ taken to its logical conclusion , that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home , ” which , of course , the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the Heller case .
In the current legal challenge , plaintiff Valerie Trojan argues that she would like to purchase more than one handgun in a month from her local gun store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have a concealed carry license , and doesn ’ t want to obtain “ government preclearance ” from the Virginia State Police that would allow her to purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period , she ’ s out of luck and would be in trouble with the law if she attempted to do so .
The suit argues that the new gun rationing law violates the rights of Virginia gun owners under Article 1 , Section 13 of the state constitution , which states in part : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ composed of the body of the people , trained to arms , is the proper , natural , and safe defense of a free state , therefore , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” While attorneys say in their initial filing that they also believe the new law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution , the current challenge is based solely on state , not federal , law .
In a statement , GOA ’ s Erich Pratt noted several objections with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that Virginia ’ s violent crime rate remains one of the lowest in the country .
Is there really a need for this kind of gun control law , particularly given concerns over how the law would be enforced ?
“ the enforcement of this law is problematic , as it necessitates a backdoor gun registry .
How else would handgun purchases be tracked and counted within a month ?
” The GOA/GOF/VDCL compliant additionally argues that this law infringes the right to keep and bear arms in a way that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like those protected under the First Amendment .
Consider : The statute is no less an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms than is limiting persons to purchasing one Bible per month would be an infringement on the rights of Virginians under Article I , Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution ( analogous to the First Amendment ) .
Indeed , the statute ’ s restriction is jurisprudentially indistinguishable from arbitrary rationing or numerical limits on any other enumerated right .
It would be unfathomable if the General Assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times per week a newspaper could be published , how many abortions a woman could receive in a decade , or how many times a court-appointed criminal defense lawyer could be appointed for an indigent defendant facing jailable offenses during a lifetime … to name but a few examples illustrative of this problem .
Fortunately , this nation ’ s founders did not place numerical limits in the Bill of Rights , and those Virginians who ratified Article I , Section 13 did not see fit to add any.
” As a Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see this litigation filed , and I hope that the judge in Trojan vs. Settle sees fit to at least grant the temporary injunction while the case makes its way through the court system .
Virginia had a similar law on the books that was repealed in 2012 without any harm or foul to the state ’ s crime rate , so it stands to reason that the impending law could be placed on hold and the status quo remain intact without any issue .
Let ’ s hope the judge agrees @

Technically, the half-dozen gun control laws signed by Gov. Ralph Northam don’t take effect in Virginia until July 1st, but the legal challenges to the new laws are now officially underway. A new lawsuit filed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America on behalf of takes on the state’s new law restricting handgun purchases to one-per-month, unless the purchaser possesses a valid Virginia Concealed Handgun License or falls under several other exemptions.
The suit, filed in Goochland County Circuit Court, seeks an immediate injunction blocking the gun rationing scheme from taking effect while the legal issues are considered by the court. It also seeks a permanent injunction that would enjoin the law from being enforced as a violation of the constitutional rights of Virginia residents.
Interestingly, the brief filed on behalf of plaintiff Valerie Trojan, Brothers N Arms gun shop, the VCDL, and GOA argues that few courts have ever substantively dealt with the issue of gun rationing, though at least one federal court of appeals struck down a one-gun-per-month law passed by Washington, D.C. officials. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the District’s gun rationing scheme wasn’t backed up by any “plausible rationale” for the law.
The District had argued that its expert testimony indicated that placing limits on gun purchases by all might, in turn, limit trafficking in firearms by some. The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument as unsupported by the evidence. Second, the District argued that “the most effective method of limiting misuse of firearms, including homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings, is to limit the number of firearms present in a home.”
As the plaintiff’s attorneys note, the D.C. Circuit “flatly rejected” that rationale, and said that, “taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home,” which, of course, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the Heller case.
In the current legal challenge, plaintiff Valerie Trojan argues that she would like to purchase more than one handgun in a month from her local gun store, Brothers N Arms. Since she doesn’t have a concealed carry license, and doesn’t want to obtain “government preclearance” from the Virginia State Police that would allow her to purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period, she’s out of luck and would be in trouble with the law if she attempted to do so.
The suit argues that the new gun rationing law violates the rights of Virginia gun owners under Article 1, Section 13 of the state constitution, which states in part: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” While attorneys say in their initial filing that they also believe the new law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the current challenge is based solely on state, not federal, law.
In a statement, GOA’s Erich Pratt noted several objections with the one-gun-a-month law, starting with the fact that Virginia’s violent crime rate remains one of the lowest in the country. Is there really a need for this kind of gun control law, particularly given concerns over how the law would be enforced?
“the enforcement of this law is problematic, as it necessitates a backdoor gun registry. How else would handgun purchases be tracked and counted within a month?” The GOA/GOF/VDCL compliant additionally argues that this law infringes the right to keep and bear arms in a way that would be unpalatable if applied to other rights, like those protected under the First Amendment. Consider: The statute is no less an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms than is limiting persons to purchasing one Bible per month would be an infringement on the rights of Virginians under Article I, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution (analogous to the First Amendment). Indeed, the statute’s restriction is jurisprudentially indistinguishable from arbitrary rationing or numerical limits on any other enumerated right. It would be unfathomable if the General Assembly attempted to place limits on how many times per week a newspaper could be published, how many abortions a woman could receive in a decade, or how many times a court-appointed criminal defense lawyer could be appointed for an indigent defendant facing jailable offenses during a lifetime … to name but a few examples illustrative of this problem. Fortunately, this nation’s founders did not place numerical limits in the Bill of Rights, and those Virginians who ratified Article I, Section 13 did not see fit to add any.”
As a Virginia gun owner, I’m pleased to see this litigation filed, and I hope that the judge in Trojan vs. Settle sees fit to at least grant the temporary injunction while the case makes its way through the court system. Virginia had a similar law on the books that was repealed in 2012 without any harm or foul to the state’s crime rate, so it stands to reason that the impending law could be placed on hold and the status quo remain intact without any issue. Let’s hope the judge agrees.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--Anti-Gun Activists Pushed By Tragedy Rarely Use Reason

I ’ ve said time and again that I actually do understand how tragedies can spur many into looking at gun control .
In the wake of a dear friend being killed in a mass shooting , I found myself questioning whether I ’ d been wrong about gun control for all those years .
I didn ’ t question myself for very long because I already knew the answer , I knew that guns weren ’ t to blame for my friend ’ s murder .
Instead , it was a people issue just like all the others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over tragedies as well .
Jessica Scott and Kate Fletcher of Moms Demand Action Arkansas can both recall the exact moment they went from ordinary mothers to passionate activists for reducing gun violence .
“ I got involved when a child here in Little Rock who was roughly the same age as my daughter , about 21/2 at the time , died after finding an unsecured handgun in his father ’ s nightstand , ” says Scott , a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and state chapter lead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessible weapons were and the particular danger they posed to children .
“ For me , I became a mother in October 2015 and shortly thereafter was the anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre , ” says Fletcher , state communications lead and a Little Rock corporate lawyer .
“ I can remember sitting in a rocking chair feeding her in her nursery at 2 or 3 o ’ clock in the morning , and the horrors of that day hit me .
I had always been sad about it , cried about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking about those babies while holding my own that just changed me.
” In other words , both women admit that it was an emotional reaction to horrible events .
Again , I get it .
The problem , however , is that emotions don ’ t create good laws .
They never have and they never will .
The father in Little Rock lost his child and thousands of other people saw what happened and made the decision to secure their firearms better .
There wasn ’ t a need for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called assault weapons .
Sandy Hook , for all its horrors , wasn ’ t a failure of gun control in any way .
The killer murdered his own mother to obtain a firearm .
He ’ d have killed her to obtain any firearm and yes , he could have still killed just as many of those poor children if he ’ d had a handgun in the first place .
Yet understanding these points requires reason .
It requires people to pause for a moment and use their brains and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you rarely find among the anti-gunners out there .
They run on emotion and use emotional arguments .
Of course , they use them because they work .
The problem is , emotion only works for so long .
Eventually , most people–not these two women , but most–eventually come to realize that they were being emotional and step away from that .
Why else does support for gun control skyrocket after a shooting , but then dips back to normal levels when things settle down ?
Time and time again , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite intense media pressure to maintain the anti-gun hysteria .
For anti-gunners pushed by tragedy into their anti-gun jihad , reason almost never comes into play , though .
That ’ s because if it did , a lot of them would stop being anti-gunners in the first place .

I’ve said time and again that I actually do understand how tragedies can spur many into looking at gun control. In the wake of a dear friend being killed in a mass shooting, I found myself questioning whether I’d been wrong about gun control for all those years. I didn’t question myself for very long because I already knew the answer, I knew that guns weren’t to blame for my friend’s murder. Instead, it was a people issue just like all the others.
However, other people get fired up over tragedies as well.
Jessica Scott and Kate Fletcher of Moms Demand Action Arkansas can both recall the exact moment they went from ordinary mothers to passionate activists for reducing gun violence. “I got involved when a child here in Little Rock who was roughly the same age as my daughter, about 21/2 at the time, died after finding an unsecured handgun in his father’s nightstand,” says Scott, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and state chapter lead. “It really hit me hard how accessible weapons were and the particular danger they posed to children. “For me, I became a mother in October 2015 and shortly thereafter was the anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre,” says Fletcher, state communications lead and a Little Rock corporate lawyer. “I can remember sitting in a rocking chair feeding her in her nursery at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, and the horrors of that day hit me. I had always been sad about it, cried about it, but there was something about thinking about those babies while holding my own that just changed me.”
In other words, both women admit that it was an emotional reaction to horrible events.
Again, I get it.
The problem, however, is that emotions don’t create good laws. They never have and they never will. The father in Little Rock lost his child and thousands of other people saw what happened and made the decision to secure their firearms better. There wasn’t a need for a new crusader to decide to go after so-called assault weapons.
Sandy Hook, for all its horrors, wasn’t a failure of gun control in any way. The killer murdered his own mother to obtain a firearm. He’d have killed her to obtain any firearm and yes, he could have still killed just as many of those poor children if he’d had a handgun in the first place.
Yet understanding these points requires reason. It requires people to pause for a moment and use their brains and not their emotions. That’s something you rarely find among the anti-gunners out there. They run on emotion and use emotional arguments.
Of course, they use them because they work.
The problem is, emotion only works for so long. Eventually, most people–not these two women, but most–eventually come to realize that they were being emotional and step away from that. Why else does support for gun control skyrocket after a shooting, but then dips back to normal levels when things settle down?
Time and time again, we’ve seen precisely that, often despite intense media pressure to maintain the anti-gun hysteria.
For anti-gunners pushed by tragedy into their anti-gun jihad, reason almost never comes into play, though. That’s because if it did, a lot of them would stop being anti-gunners in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--2A Advocates Shocked, Disappointed By SCOTUS Denials

Second Amendment advocates are reacting with disappointment and dismay after the Supreme Court turned back ten separate challenges to gun control laws from California to New Jersey on Monday .
The decision by the justices not to accept any of the cases that it ’ s been holding in conference for months not only delays any potential ruling by the high court on the right to keep and bear arms for months to come , but it raises new questions about the current makeup of the Court and why , despite four justices publicly stating that the Supreme Court is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment case , the Court chose to punt on virtually all of the cases it ’ s been considering .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation join me to discuss the disappointing news and what it means for the future of the right to keep and bear arms .
While both of my guests point to Chief Justice John Roberts as the most likely explanation for why the Court decided not to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more pointed in his criticism .
He says that the chief justice owes the American people an explanation for his apparent refusal to weigh in or signal support for any of the cases , especially given Roberts ’ siding with the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases that established once and for all the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms .
“ The Supreme Court ’ s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owner in the United States an explanation about why the high court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases .
“ Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose , there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases , and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that Roberts didn ’ t signal support for any of the Second Amendment cases because he ’ s hoping to avoid a politically-charged case before Election Day , and notes that the Court could still take up one of the many cases that are working their way through the appellate courts .
There ’ s also the case of Rodriguez vs. San Jose , which deals with the seizure of lawfully owned firearms by the San Jose police , and the subsequent refusal to return any of the firearms in question to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought by the Second Amendment Foundation , is also currently in conference at the Supreme Court , but the justices didn ’ t mention the case in their orders on Monday .
Still , Swearer says she too is troubled and disappointed by the Court ’ s decision today , and both she and Gottlieb agree that the Supreme Court has now suddenly become an even more important issue for gun owners in the 2020 elections .
With one or more vacancies expected on the Court in the next four years , whoever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the opportunity to shape the court for generations to come .
Be sure to check out both interviews in the video window above , and stick around afterwards for more news , including an armed neighbor who came to the aid of a family in Rome , New York after they were the victims of a home invasion , two crooks in Chicago charged with dragging a police officer behind a stolen car , and a sheriff ’ s deputy in South Carolina who not only saved an infant ’ s life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s godfather .

Second Amendment advocates are reacting with disappointment and dismay after the Supreme Court turned back ten separate challenges to gun control laws from California to New Jersey on Monday. The decision by the justices not to accept any of the cases that it’s been holding in conference for months not only delays any potential ruling by the high court on the right to keep and bear arms for months to come, but it raises new questions about the current makeup of the Court and why, despite four justices publicly stating that the Supreme Court is past due in terms of hearing a Second Amendment case, the Court chose to punt on virtually all of the cases it’s been considering.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation join me to discuss the disappointing news and what it means for the future of the right to keep and bear arms. While both of my guests point to Chief Justice John Roberts as the most likely explanation for why the Court decided not to accept any of the ten cases, Gottlieb is more pointed in his criticism. He says that the chief justice owes the American people an explanation for his apparent refusal to weigh in or signal support for any of the cases, especially given Roberts’ siding with the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases that established once and for all the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts. He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the high court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases. “Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to keep and bear arms.
Swearer says its possible that Roberts didn’t signal support for any of the Second Amendment cases because he’s hoping to avoid a politically-charged case before Election Day, and notes that the Court could still take up one of the many cases that are working their way through the appellate courts. There’s also the case of Rodriguez vs. San Jose, which deals with the seizure of lawfully owned firearms by the San Jose police, and the subsequent refusal to return any of the firearms in question to Lori Rodriguez. That case, also brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, is also currently in conference at the Supreme Court, but the justices didn’t mention the case in their orders on Monday.
Still, Swearer says she too is troubled and disappointed by the Court’s decision today, and both she and Gottlieb agree that the Supreme Court has now suddenly become an even more important issue for gun owners in the 2020 elections. With one or more vacancies expected on the Court in the next four years, whoever’s in the White House will have the opportunity to shape the court for generations to come.
Be sure to check out both interviews in the video window above, and stick around afterwards for more news, including an armed neighbor who came to the aid of a family in Rome, New York after they were the victims of a home invasion, two crooks in Chicago charged with dragging a police officer behind a stolen car, and a sheriff’s deputy in South Carolina who not only saved an infant’s life, but is now the little girl’s godfather.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--D.C. Police Figure Out A New Kind Of Gun Ban

In the case of Heller vs. D.C. , the district ’ s handgun ban was determined to be unconstitutional , that common classes of firearms can not be banned–a fact that the Court needs to remember when it comes to assault weapons–and thus ending the long nightmare for residents .
It also did wonders for many people throughout the country , giving them hope that our rights will be protected by the Court .
However , it seems police in the district have figured out a new way to ban guns .
They ’ re not technically banning them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re doing is amounts to just about the same thing .
In an arrangement unique to Washington , D.C. , the local police department is the only federally licensed firearms dealer that is open to the public .
Residents tell the Washington Free Beacon , however , that legally obtaining a handgun has become nearly impossible due to the department ’ s inaction .
The city faced a dilemma in mid-March when the only licensed dealer accepting public transfer requests abruptly closed shop .
Federal law requires handguns that are transported across state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealer ( FFL ) .
With no gun stores in city limits , the Metropolitan Police Department obtained its own license to process transfers , but residents say that the agency is hindering their ability to legally obtain firearms .
“ I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks , ” Elby Godwin , a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24 , told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell at this point if MPD is even processing transfers.
” The roadblocks the residents have run into have created what one expert described as a “ legally dangerous ” situation for the nation ’ s capital .
The city has been the subject of a string of successful Second Amendment lawsuits over its strict gun laws in recent years , including the Supreme Court ’ s landmark Heller decision in 2008 , which struck down the city ’ s total ban on handgun ownership .
The lack of either a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has remained a sticking point for many gun-rights activists , and some experts say the department ’ s failure to adequately process transfers could open the door to another legal battle .
“ My sense is that the District chose this approach to avoid a possible constitutional challenge .
It is a ‘ cover your a— ’ move , ” Professor Josh Blackman , who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law , told the Free Beacon .
“ If MPD is the sole [ licensed dealer ] in D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ handgun transfer ] attempts may have Second Amendment problems.
” You see , the legality of owning a gun is pretty well meaningless if you can ’ t actually acquire a firearm .
Sure , you can own one…if you can figure out some way to buy one , which you can ’ t do because the police department won ’ t process the transfer .
Now , sure , it ’ s possible they ’ re just slow as Christmas about this kind of thing and in way over their head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t exactly make it all better .
The results are the same .
People are going weeks and weeks without their firearms and during that time , they ’ re disarmed and at risk for becoming victims of horrible , unspeakable crimes .
How many people will need to die because they couldn ’ t get their firearm in a timely manner before the MPD decides to step up and do the job they agreed to by becoming an FFL ?
Frankly , I ’ m not going to hold my breath while @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In the case of Heller vs. D.C., the district’s handgun ban was determined to be unconstitutional, that common classes of firearms cannot be banned–a fact that the Court needs to remember when it comes to assault weapons–and thus ending the long nightmare for residents. It also did wonders for many people throughout the country, giving them hope that our rights will be protected by the Court.
However, it seems police in the district have figured out a new way to ban guns.
They’re not technically banning them, mind you, but what they’re doing is amounts to just about the same thing.
In an arrangement unique to Washington, D.C., the local police department is the only federally licensed firearms dealer that is open to the public. Residents tell the Washington Free Beacon, however, that legally obtaining a handgun has become nearly impossible due to the department’s inaction. The city faced a dilemma in mid-March when the only licensed dealer accepting public transfer requests abruptly closed shop. Federal law requires handguns that are transported across state lines to be shipped to a licensed dealer (FFL). With no gun stores in city limits, the Metropolitan Police Department obtained its own license to process transfers, but residents say that the agency is hindering their ability to legally obtain firearms. “I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks,” Elby Godwin, a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24, told the Free Beacon. “It is hard to tell at this point if MPD is even processing transfers.” … The roadblocks the residents have run into have created what one expert described as a “legally dangerous” situation for the nation’s capital. The city has been the subject of a string of successful Second Amendment lawsuits over its strict gun laws in recent years, including the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision in 2008, which struck down the city’s total ban on handgun ownership. The lack of either a gun store or public range within city limits has remained a sticking point for many gun-rights activists, and some experts say the department’s failure to adequately process transfers could open the door to another legal battle. “My sense is that the District chose this approach to avoid a possible constitutional challenge. It is a ‘cover your a—’ move,” Professor Josh Blackman, who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law, told the Free Beacon. “If MPD is the sole [licensed dealer] in D.C., then arguably refusing to respond to [handgun transfer] attempts may have Second Amendment problems.”
I tend to agree.
You see, the legality of owning a gun is pretty well meaningless if you can’t actually acquire a firearm. Sure, you can own one…if you can figure out some way to buy one, which you can’t do because the police department won’t process the transfer.
Now, sure, it’s possible they’re just slow as Christmas about this kind of thing and in way over their head on this, but that doesn’t exactly make it all better. The results are the same. People are going weeks and weeks without their firearms and during that time, they’re disarmed and at risk for becoming victims of horrible, unspeakable crimes.
How many people will need to die because they couldn’t get their firearm in a timely manner before the MPD decides to step up and do the job they agreed to by becoming an FFL?
Frankly, I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for them to do it.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--PA Man Facing Assault Charges After Being Shot By Alleged Victim

A Pennsylvania woman who shot a man after he broke into her home last month says the suspect had been harassing her for approximately 18-months , and now he ’ s facing felony aggravated assault , burglary and theft charges in connection with the attack on May 11th .
Police in Johnstown say 28-year old Terrell Dykes showed up at the Oakhurst Homes apartment complex last month intent on doing harm to the woman , alleging that he not only kicked in the front door of her home , but began assaulting her once inside .
The woman added that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she had grabbed her registered 9mm pistol and hid it in her waistband , according to the complaint .
When the woman attempted to call 911 , police say Dykes took the phone and smashed it , and then began stomping on her and punching her in the face .
Police add that when Dykes went to close the door to the home , so he could “ assault her without interruption , ” that a shot was fired .
The woman reportedly told police that she only meant to fire a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even realize that she had hit him , the complaint notes .
Firing a “ warning shot ” is a bad idea , particularly when you ’ re already being attacked .
As it turns out , Dykes wasn ’ t dropped by the shot to the neck .
Instead , he turned and attacked the woman again .
Police say a struggle for the gun then ensued and that the woman managed to remove the magazine from the gun and slide it under her stove .
Police add that Dykes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck the woman in the head with it , and that he then attempted to shoot her but the gun never went off .
Authorities say Dykes then fled the home with the gun and the woman ’ s phone , which was located in a nearby dumpster , but noted that the gun was never found .
Dykes is now behind bars on $ 250,000 bond and facing felony charges , while the victim in this case isn ’ t facing any charges at all .
Thankfully , it sounds like she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly received at Dykes ’ hands , and if Dykes is convicted on all charges he could be going away for 20 years .
Chances are , however , that Dykes will be offered a plea bargain on lesser charges , and if he takes the deal , he ’ ll be looking at far less than the maximum sentence .
Hopefully when Dykes is released from jail or prison , he ’ s learned well enough to leave his intended victim alone .
If not , I can only hope that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use her firearm to protect her life from imminent death or great bodily harm , she shouldn ’ t fire a warning shot .
“ I ’ m armed and I will defend my life ” is all the warning her attacker should get .

A Pennsylvania woman who shot a man after he broke into her home last month says the suspect had been harassing her for approximately 18-months, and now he’s facing felony aggravated assault, burglary and theft charges in connection with the attack on May 11th.
Police in Johnstown say 28-year old Terrell Dykes showed up at the Oakhurst Homes apartment complex last month intent on doing harm to the woman, alleging that he not only kicked in the front door of her home, but began assaulting her once inside.
The woman added that prior to Dykes breaking into her home, she had grabbed her registered 9mm pistol and hid it in her waistband, according to the complaint. When the woman attempted to call 911, police say Dykes took the phone and smashed it, and then began stomping on her and punching her in the face. Police add that when Dykes went to close the door to the home, so he could “assault her without interruption,” that a shot was fired. The woman reportedly told police that she only meant to fire a warning shot at Dykes, and didn’t even realize that she had hit him, the complaint notes.
Firing a “warning shot” is a bad idea, particularly when you’re already being attacked. As it turns out, Dykes wasn’t dropped by the shot to the neck. Instead, he turned and attacked the woman again.
Police say a struggle for the gun then ensued and that the woman managed to remove the magazine from the gun and slide it under her stove. Police add that Dykes eventually got control of the gun and struck the woman in the head with it, and that he then attempted to shoot her but the gun never went off. Authorities say Dykes then fled the home with the gun and the woman’s phone, which was located in a nearby dumpster, but noted that the gun was never found.
Dykes is now behind bars on $250,000 bond and facing felony charges, while the victim in this case isn’t facing any charges at all. Thankfully, it sounds like she’ll recover from the injuries she allegedly received at Dykes’ hands, and if Dykes is convicted on all charges he could be going away for 20 years. Chances are, however, that Dykes will be offered a plea bargain on lesser charges, and if he takes the deal, he’ll be looking at far less than the maximum sentence.
Hopefully when Dykes is released from jail or prison, he’s learned well enough to leave his intended victim alone. If not, I can only hope that she’s learned that if she has to use her firearm to protect her life from imminent death or great bodily harm, she shouldn’t fire a warning shot. “I’m armed and I will defend my life” is all the warning her attacker should get.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--The Left Isn't Anti-Gun, They're Anti-You Having A Gun

Despite the onslaught of new gun buyers , some still want to push for more and more gun control .
You ’ d think some would at least wait and see how the recent riots may have reshaped public opinion , but nope .
They ’ re going to push forward .
Of course , a lot of new gun owners are actually part of the left .
Maybe they think racist police are coming to their home at any minute or maybe they think something completely different .
It doesn ’ t matter .
It ’ s a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are talking about how wanting a gun and gun control isn ’ t hypocritical .
Dana Loesch took a moment to speak with Dave Rubin recently , and she had some interesting comments we need to remember .
“ A lot of people think they are anti-gun , but they ’ re really not .
They are anti-you-having a gun , ” Dana said .
“ I always tell people , if you ’ re anti-gun , you shouldn ’ t believe in calling the police to come with their guns … you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re anti-gun … If we ’ re to have discussion about legitimate class warfare , I would think the idea that only people wealthy enough to hire private security to protect them , that ’ s incredibly classist.
” Precisely .
The problem is never with them having guns .
The problem is you having guns .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is famous for carrying a firearm while crusading for gun control .
Actress Alyssa Milano has admitted to having a couple of firearms while also waging a personal jihad against gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of others are in the same boat as well .
See , they trust themselves with guns .
Why wouldn ’ t they ?
They know what their intentions are .
They also figure the armed security they hire can be trusted as well .
They ’ re paid to be trustworthy , actually .
What they don ’ t trust is you .
They don ’ t think you ’ ll have their best interests at heart .
Considering the number of scumbags uncovered following the whole # MeToo thing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe the average American doesn ’ t have their best interests in mind on a day to day basis .
We tend to like to defend ourselves from people like Harvey Weinstein , after all .
On a more serious note , though , these people really do want you disarmed while being free to have guns and carry them without a problem .
They don ’ t see the disconnect .
You see , in their minds , freedom doesn ’ t work that way .
They deserve special attention because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
This isn ’ t an issue of liberty to them .
They don ’ t believe in freedom , except for themselves .
At the end of the day , they don ’ t see a problem with gun control because they don ’ t see gun control really applying to them .
Which is hilarious , though , because the originators of gun control believed the same thing .
They figured the rules would only apply to blacks while whites could do whatever they wanted because no sheriff would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun .
What these so-called elites want is little different , they ’ re just treating everyone who isn ’ t them like the racist whites treated African-Americans interested in owning and carrying firearms .
At the end of the day , you ’ d think a society ready to purge anything that might possibly stick of racism and slavery would also be quick to get rid of one of the more insidious bits of its legacy , but nope .
Instead , the elites want guns for themselves–either personally or outsourced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny you the right to defend yourself .
They ’ re not anti-gun , they ’ re anti-you .

Despite the onslaught of new gun buyers, some still want to push for more and more gun control. You’d think some would at least wait and see how the recent riots may have reshaped public opinion, but nope. They’re going to push forward.
Of course, a lot of new gun owners are actually part of the left. Maybe they think racist police are coming to their home at any minute or maybe they think something completely different. It doesn’t matter. It’s a big enough thing that many on the left are talking about how wanting a gun and gun control isn’t hypocritical.
Dana Loesch took a moment to speak with Dave Rubin recently, and she had some interesting comments we need to remember.
“A lot of people think they are anti-gun, but they’re really not. They are anti-you-having a gun,” Dana said. “I always tell people, if you’re anti-gun, you shouldn’t believe in calling the police to come with their guns … you shouldn’t hire private security if you’re anti-gun … If we’re to have discussion about legitimate class warfare, I would think the idea that only people wealthy enough to hire private security to protect them, that’s incredibly classist.”
Precisely. The problem is never with them having guns. The problem is you having guns.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is famous for carrying a firearm while crusading for gun control. Actress Alyssa Milano has admitted to having a couple of firearms while also waging a personal jihad against gun rights. You can be damned sure plenty of others are in the same boat as well.
See, they trust themselves with guns. Why wouldn’t they? They know what their intentions are.
They also figure the armed security they hire can be trusted as well. They’re paid to be trustworthy, actually.
What they don’t trust is you. They don’t think you’ll have their best interests at heart. Considering the number of scumbags uncovered following the whole #MeToo thing, they probably have a good reason to believe the average American doesn’t have their best interests in mind on a day to day basis. We tend to like to defend ourselves from people like Harvey Weinstein, after all.
On a more serious note, though, these people really do want you disarmed while being free to have guns and carry them without a problem. They don’t see the disconnect. You see, in their minds, freedom doesn’t work that way. They deserve special attention because of who they are, meanwhile you don’t.
This isn’t an issue of liberty to them. They don’t believe in freedom, except for themselves.
At the end of the day, they don’t see a problem with gun control because they don’t see gun control really applying to them.
Which is hilarious, though, because the originators of gun control believed the same thing. They figured the rules would only apply to blacks while whites could do whatever they wanted because no sheriff would arrest a white man for carrying a gun. What these so-called elites want is little different, they’re just treating everyone who isn’t them like the racist whites treated African-Americans interested in owning and carrying firearms.
At the end of the day, you’d think a society ready to purge anything that might possibly stick of racism and slavery would also be quick to get rid of one of the more insidious bits of its legacy, but nope.
Instead, the elites want guns for themselves–either personally or outsourced to others to act on their behalf–and to deny you the right to defend yourself. They’re not anti-gun, they’re anti-you.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--BREAKING: SCOTUS Denies Cert In Pending 2A Cases

The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to the future of Second Amendment litigation Monday morning by rejecting nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases that it had been considering in conference in recent weeks .
Despite four justices announcing in the challenge to a New York City gun law that was mooted by the high court that they wanted and were ready to hear one of the many 2A cases pending before the court , today ’ s orders take them all off the table .
Here ’ s a quick look at the cases denied by the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Horan is a challenge to California ’ s microstamping law , which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns , but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state .
Worman v. Healey is a challenge to the state ’ s ban on so-called assault weapons .
Rogers v. Grewal , Cheeseman v. Polillo , and Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey ’ s carry laws and “ justifiable need ” requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland .
Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license , while Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county ’ s ban on modern sporting rifles .
Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns .
Justice Clarence Thomas , joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh , released a written dissent to the denial of the Rogers vs. Grewal case blasting his colleagues for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “ good cause ” or a “ justifiable need ” for doing so .
The majority of States , while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees , have not imposed such a restriction , which amounts to a “ [ b ] a [ n ] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.
” The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause ” restrictions .
The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “ good reason to fear injury to [ their ] person or property ” violates the Second Amendment .
By contrast , the First , Second , Third , and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “ justifiable need ” or “ good reason ” requirements , applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard .
“ One of this Court ’ s primary functions is to resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on which the courts of appeals are ‘ in conflict.
’ ” The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter .
We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens .
Why didn ’ t the Supreme Court take a single one of these cases , given the fact that we know there were four justices in favor of hearing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer is that the four justices were unconvinced that they would have a fifth and deciding vote to uphold the right to keep and bear arms .
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions , but it could be that there are doubts among the conservative wing of the Court as to how Roberts would rule in a future case .
It may also be that while justices like Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh all agree that a Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four simply couldn ’ t agree on which case or cases should get the nod from the Court .
We don ’ t know for sure , because the Supreme Court is one of the last remaining leak-proof institutions in Washington , D.C. , but I ’ d say that for now , the theory that Roberts is a question mark or has indicated opposition to these 2A cases is the most likely theory .
We ’ ll have much more on today ’ s decision , and what it means for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. this afternoon , so be sure to tune in for more analysis of today ’ s incredibly disappointing decision by the Supreme Court .

The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to the future of Second Amendment litigation Monday morning by rejecting nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases that it had been considering in conference in recent weeks. Despite four justices announcing in the challenge to a New York City gun law that was mooted by the high court that they wanted and were ready to hear one of the many 2A cases pending before the court, today’s orders take them all off the table.
Here’s a quick look at the cases denied by the Supreme Court in its orders today.
Pena v. Horan is a challenge to California’s microstamping law, which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns, but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state.
Gould v. Lipson is a challenge to Massachusetts’ carry laws.
Worman v. Healey is a challenge to the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.
Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo, and Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland.
Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license, while Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.
Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, released a written dissent to the denial of the Rogers vs. Grewal case blasting his colleagues for refusing to hear the case.
It appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “[b]a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.” The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment. By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter[s]’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.’” The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.
Why didn’t the Supreme Court take a single one of these cases, given the fact that we know there were four justices in favor of hearing a Second Amendment-related challenge? The most obvious answer is that the four justices were unconvinced that they would have a fifth and deciding vote to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions, but it could be that there are doubts among the conservative wing of the Court as to how Roberts would rule in a future case.
It may also be that while justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all agree that a Second Amendment-related case needs to be heard, the four simply couldn’t agree on which case or cases should get the nod from the Court.
We don’t know for sure, because the Supreme Court is one of the last remaining leak-proof institutions in Washington, D.C., but I’d say that for now, the theory that Roberts is a question mark or has indicated opposition to these 2A cases is the most likely theory.
We’ll have much more on today’s decision, and what it means for the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence coming up on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. this afternoon, so be sure to tune in for more analysis of today’s incredibly disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--CA Man Facing Mag Ban Charges Says"Freedom Week" Purchase Was Legal

California ’ s ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition is currently being challenged in court , but in the meantime the state is still attempting to enforce the law on legal gun owners in the state .
One Tulare County man is facing charges for possession of a 15-round magazine , but his attorney says the purchase was legal , because it was made during a one-week period when a federal judge had put a hold on enforcement of the state ’ s law .
Back in January , deputies in Tulare County showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While they were there , officers found a magazine in Pheng Yang ’ s bedroom .
Yang is the brother of the individual on parole , and wasn ’ t suspected of any crime himself .
After the magazine was discovered , however , police arrested him and charged him with illegally possessing the magazine , even though Yang told deputies that the magazine was purchased during “ Freedom Week.
” Since the year 2000 in California , it ’ s been illegal to manufacture , import , sell , give , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
But on March 29th of 2019 , a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and shouldn ’ t be enforced .
That launched a buying spree across California with gun owners snatching up large-capacity magazines .
About a week later , the same judge decided that the large-capacity magazine ban should continue to be enforced as California ’ s attorney general took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals .
But the judge also said the law could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high capacity magazine during that one-week gap .
And that one week , called Freedom Week , is now the argument in defense of Yang .
Yang ’ s attorney correctly points out that it ’ s up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Yang didn ’ t purchase the 15-round magazine during “ Freedom Week ” , and last week asked for the case against Yang to be dismissed .
Unfortunately , a Tulare County judge rejected the argument by defense attorney Eric Schweitzer , and the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted , Yang could face up to a year in jail for possessing the magazine , but I ’ m very curious to see what evidence the Tulare County prosecutors have that would prove Yang ’ s purchase was illegal .
It ’ s estimated that as many as a million magazines were purchased by California gun owners during “ Freedom Week , ” and Yang could very well have legally acquired the magazine during that one week grace period .
In order for prosecutors to successfully litigate this case , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a receipt or some other proof that Yang ’ s purchase didn ’ t take place in late March or early April of last year .
It ’ s not exactly a shock that a judge is allowing the case to continue , but it remains to be seen just how strong the state ’ s case against Pheng Yang really is .
I ’ ll be curious to see what , if any , plea deal prosecutors may offer Yang in order to avoid a trial , but if he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Week , ” I hope Yang rejects any deal and takes his day in court .
The best way to stop this kind of prosecutorial overreach would be do deal them a defeat at trial , and right now it looks like Yang has a pretty good shot at doing just that .

California’s ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition is currently being challenged in court, but in the meantime the state is still attempting to enforce the law on legal gun owners in the state. One Tulare County man is facing charges for possession of a 15-round magazine, but his attorney says the purchase was legal, because it was made during a one-week period when a federal judge had put a hold on enforcement of the state’s law.
Back in January, deputies in Tulare County showed up a home for a parole check. While they were there, officers found a magazine in Pheng Yang’s bedroom. Yang is the brother of the individual on parole, and wasn’t suspected of any crime himself. After the magazine was discovered, however, police arrested him and charged him with illegally possessing the magazine, even though Yang told deputies that the magazine was purchased during “Freedom Week.”
Since the year 2000 in California, it’s been illegal to manufacture, import, sell, give, lend, buy, or receive magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. But on March 29th of 2019, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. That launched a buying spree across California with gun owners snatching up large-capacity magazines. About a week later, the same judge decided that the large-capacity magazine ban should continue to be enforced as California’s attorney general took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals. But the judge also said the law could not be enforced against those who bought a high capacity magazine during that one-week gap. And that one week, called Freedom Week, is now the argument in defense of Yang.
Yang’s attorney correctly points out that it’s up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Yang didn’t purchase the 15-round magazine during “Freedom Week”, and last week asked for the case against Yang to be dismissed. Unfortunately, a Tulare County judge rejected the argument by defense attorney Eric Schweitzer, and the case is still proceeding to trial.
If convicted, Yang could face up to a year in jail for possessing the magazine, but I’m very curious to see what evidence the Tulare County prosecutors have that would prove Yang’s purchase was illegal. It’s estimated that as many as a million magazines were purchased by California gun owners during “Freedom Week,” and Yang could very well have legally acquired the magazine during that one week grace period. In order for prosecutors to successfully litigate this case, they’re going to have to come up with a receipt or some other proof that Yang’s purchase didn’t take place in late March or early April of last year.
It’s not exactly a shock that a judge is allowing the case to continue, but it remains to be seen just how strong the state’s case against Pheng Yang really is. I’ll be curious to see what, if any, plea deal prosecutors may offer Yang in order to avoid a trial, but if he really did make his purchase during “Freedom Week,” I hope Yang rejects any deal and takes his day in court. The best way to stop this kind of prosecutorial overreach would be do deal them a defeat at trial, and right now it looks like Yang has a pretty good shot at doing just that.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--Crime May Not Be Only Problem In Cities That Defund Police

For some insane reason , there are people actually squalling on about defunding the police .
While some try to argue that the term “ defund the police ” is really about reprioritizing where the money goes and stuff like that .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong , I ’ m quite sure that a number of people saying “ defund the police ” actually mean just that .
The problem is , that handful is speaking up and saying that ’ s what the term means when we know for a fact that many actually want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest , that argument is nothing but a motte and bailey , an effort to say something radical , then retreat to a more acceptable position to avoid criticism .
What ’ s worse is that some city officials are seriously considering this nonsense .
However , they may want to think long and hard on this one .
After all , not everyone thinks this is a great idea .
As cities across the country are discussing defunding or disbanding their police departments , truck drivers are voicing concerns of safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will refuse to deliver freight to cities with defunded police departments .
Truck driving is historically ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs in the country .
In 2018 , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic reported truck driving as the most deadly job in the country .
Truck drivers have spent the last year on the front line of a global pandemic and protests .
Now many are fearful of what might happen if police departments disband or are defunded .
Truck drivers have been voicing their concerns on the CDLLife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CDLLife posted a poll on the app .
We asked drivers on the app , “ Would you pick up/deliver to cities with defunded or disbanded police departments ?
Why or why not ?
” As of June 13 , 2020 , we ’ ve had over 1,283 respondents and 79 % say they will refuse loads to cities with disbanded or defunded police departments .
There are some quotes from respondents that make it clear they understand the threats quite well and won ’ t be interested in putting themselves in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have several friends who work at over-the-road drivers and I would hate for any of them to find themselves in such a tough position .
After all , driving is inherently dangerous as it is .
That ’ s without the criminal threat that looms over anyone potentially carrying millions of dollars worth of merchandise .
So why would they risk their lives further by going into cities talking about defunding their police ?
Even if something is built up in the place of a traditional police force but isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any sense would be hesitant to risk their lives .
Yet the big problem here is that cities–and this is all happening in major cities–are dependent upon the rural parts of the country for the luxuries in life .
You know , things like food , wood for building shelter , fuel for power plants .
You know , the little things .
That means they need trucks to bring all those little luxuries in .
If drivers won ’ t bring those loads in , then there ’ s a big problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more than 20 percent said they ’ d accept the loads , but will they be offered them ?
How many of those 21 percent are in a position to accept such loads in the first place ?
Further , if there ’ s only a handful that will take the loads , don ’ t be surprised if they start commanding higher pay for those loads .
That will drive up prices for everything across the board .
So , while the “ defund the police ” crowd think this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really need to start thinking about the second- and third-order effects of such a move .
I don ’ t think they ’ ll like it nearly as much as they seem to believe they will .

For some insane reason, there are people actually squalling on about defunding the police. While some try to argue that the term “defund the police” is really about reprioritizing where the money goes and stuff like that.
Sure. And I’m Betsy Ross.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m quite sure that a number of people saying “defund the police” actually mean just that. The problem is, that handful is speaking up and saying that’s what the term means when we know for a fact that many actually want the police to be abolished. For the rest, that argument is nothing but a motte and bailey, an effort to say something radical, then retreat to a more acceptable position to avoid criticism.
What’s worse is that some city officials are seriously considering this nonsense.
However, they may want to think long and hard on this one. After all, not everyone thinks this is a great idea.
As cities across the country are discussing defunding or disbanding their police departments, truck drivers are voicing concerns of safety. Seventy-seven percent of truck drivers say they will refuse to deliver freight to cities with defunded police departments. Truck driving is historically ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. In 2018, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic reported truck driving as the most deadly job in the country. Truck drivers have spent the last year on the front line of a global pandemic and protests. Now many are fearful of what might happen if police departments disband or are defunded. Truck drivers have been voicing their concerns on the CDLLife App. After reading about their concerns, CDLLife posted a poll on the app. We asked drivers on the app, “Would you pick up/deliver to cities with defunded or disbanded police departments? Why or why not?” As of June 13, 2020, we’ve had over 1,283 respondents and 79% say they will refuse loads to cities with disbanded or defunded police departments.
There are some quotes from respondents that make it clear they understand the threats quite well and won’t be interested in putting themselves in this kind of position.
I happen to have several friends who work at over-the-road drivers and I would hate for any of them to find themselves in such a tough position. After all, driving is inherently dangerous as it is. That’s without the criminal threat that looms over anyone potentially carrying millions of dollars worth of merchandise.
So why would they risk their lives further by going into cities talking about defunding their police? Even if something is built up in the place of a traditional police force but isn’t a traditional police force, anyone with any sense would be hesitant to risk their lives.
Yet the big problem here is that cities–and this is all happening in major cities–are dependent upon the rural parts of the country for the luxuries in life. You know, things like food, wood for building shelter, fuel for power plants. You know, the little things.
That means they need trucks to bring all those little luxuries in. If drivers won’t bring those loads in, then there’s a big problem for those cities.
Sure, a little more than 20 percent said they’d accept the loads, but will they be offered them? How many of those 21 percent are in a position to accept such loads in the first place? Further, if there’s only a handful that will take the loads, don’t be surprised if they start commanding higher pay for those loads. That will drive up prices for everything across the board.
So, while the “defund the police” crowd think this is all about making life better, they really need to start thinking about the second- and third-order effects of such a move. I don’t think they’ll like it nearly as much as they seem to believe they will.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--Everytown Pushing Police Reform, But Its Red Flag Laws Are Part Of The Problem

I ’ ve written before about the contradiction between the “ Defund Police ” movement and the calls for new gun control laws , which , at the moment , is seeing a pretty large overlap between the two groups .
How do you enforce new gun laws with a defunded police department ?
Should we be adding new gun control laws to the books when current enforcement typically results in disproportionate numbers of arrests for minorities ?
These are pretty big questions that so far haven ’ t been answered by gun control activists or those pushing to defund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s another : how do you plan on enforcing “ red flag ” or Extreme Risk Protection Orders ?
When a red flag firearms seizure order is signed by a judge , it ’ s up to local police to serve that order on the individual in question .
In some states , officers are empowered to immediately seize any legally-owned firearms , while in other states the individual may have a short period of time to lawfully transfer their firearms to someone for safekeeping , or can make arrangements to “ voluntarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having them forcibly seized .
In either case , however , it ’ s law enforcement , not mental health experts , who are responsible for dealing with someone who ’ s been deemed by a judge to potentially be a danger to themselves or others .
In fact , while gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety have been calling for police reform , including the use of more mental health professionals to deal with at-risk individuals , they continue to push for “ red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention the words “ mental health.
” In Virginia , for example , no doctor , nurse , or mental health counselor will ever evaluate the subject of a potential Extreme Risk Protection Order .
The process is conducted entirely through the legal system .
Under Virginia ’ s proposed law , judges or magistrates could issue an emergency order allowing police to seize a subject ’ s guns if an investigation determines that person poses “ a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or others in the near future.
” Within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be held to determine whether a more long-term order is justified .
At that hearing , a judge could decide to return the guns or extend the order for up to 180 days , with additional extensions possible if authorities believe the threat of violence has not diminished with time .
Everytown is currently lobbying for things like the Justice in Policing Act , which it calls “ an important step forward in stopping police brutality and gun violence ” ( how , exactly it would stop gun violence they never do say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police to disarm Americans not accused of a crime and without any kind of mental health evaluation whatsoever .
In fact , the judge who will decide whether or not there ’ s a reasonable suspicion that someone is a danger to themselves or others will never even see the subject of the petition before making their ruling .
It ’ s the height of hypocrisy for Everytown to be demanding police reform when it continues to push for Red Flag laws that don ’ t even have room for a psychiatrist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take their guns away .
We ’ ve already seen how enforcement of these laws can have fatal consequences , and I haven ’ t seen any gun control groups demanding greater transparency when the subject of a red flag order is shot by police , as in the case of Duncan Lemp , who was shot and killed by police in Potomac , Maryland in March while serving a red flag order .
As Montgomery Community Media recently reported : It has been almost three months since a Potomac man was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montgomery County Police Department Tactical Unit , but many details surrounding the case still have not been made public .
Since the March 12 death police-involved shooting of 21-year-old Duncan Lemp in his bedroom , the name of the officer who fired the fatal shots , autopsy results and any police camera video has yet to be released .
MCPD used a special warrant that allowed its officers to enter the home in the 12200 block of St. James Road in Potomac without first knocking .
The investigation has been turned over to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Office , as is the normal procedure , to avoid Montgomery County officials from investigating their own and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest .
When asked about the status of the case , Yolanda Vazquez , external affairs director at the Howard County ’ s SAO , only replied , “ The Duncan Lemp case is currently under investigation by our office.
” Attorneys for Lemp ’ s family say the man was shot by officers while he was sleeping .
The MCPD disputes that , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Release of the body cam footage would go a long way towards shedding some light on what really happened , but once again , the folks at Everytown seem strangely uninterested in getting any answers , despite their newfound appreciation for police reform and accountability .

I’ve written before about the contradiction between the “Defund Police” movement and the calls for new gun control laws, which, at the moment, is seeing a pretty large overlap between the two groups. How do you enforce new gun laws with a defunded police department? Should we be adding new gun control laws to the books when current enforcement typically results in disproportionate numbers of arrests for minorities? These are pretty big questions that so far haven’t been answered by gun control activists or those pushing to defund or abolish police departments. Here’s another: how do you plan on enforcing “red flag” or Extreme Risk Protection Orders?
When a red flag firearms seizure order is signed by a judge, it’s up to local police to serve that order on the individual in question. In some states, officers are empowered to immediately seize any legally-owned firearms, while in other states the individual may have a short period of time to lawfully transfer their firearms to someone for safekeeping, or can make arrangements to “voluntarily” hand over their firearms in lieu of having them forcibly seized. In either case, however, it’s law enforcement, not mental health experts, who are responsible for dealing with someone who’s been deemed by a judge to potentially be a danger to themselves or others.
In fact, while gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety have been calling for police reform, including the use of more mental health professionals to deal with at-risk individuals, they continue to push for “red flag” laws that don’t even mention the words “mental health.”
In Virginia, for example, no doctor, nurse, or mental health counselor will ever evaluate the subject of a potential Extreme Risk Protection Order. The process is conducted entirely through the legal system.
Under Virginia’s proposed law, judges or magistrates could issue an emergency order allowing police to seize a subject’s guns if an investigation determines that person poses “a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or others in the near future.” Within 14 days, a court hearing would be held to determine whether a more long-term order is justified. At that hearing, a judge could decide to return the guns or extend the order for up to 180 days, with additional extensions possible if authorities believe the threat of violence has not diminished with time.
Everytown is currently lobbying for things like the Justice in Policing Act, which it calls “an important step forward in stopping police brutality and gun violence” (how, exactly it would stop gun violence they never do say), all while pushing to empower the police to disarm Americans not accused of a crime and without any kind of mental health evaluation whatsoever. In fact, the judge who will decide whether or not there’s a reasonable suspicion that someone is a danger to themselves or others will never even see the subject of the petition before making their ruling.
It’s the height of hypocrisy for Everytown to be demanding police reform when it continues to push for Red Flag laws that don’t even have room for a psychiatrist to examine someone before the cops come to take their guns away. We’ve already seen how enforcement of these laws can have fatal consequences, and I haven’t seen any gun control groups demanding greater transparency when the subject of a red flag order is shot by police, as in the case of Duncan Lemp, who was shot and killed by police in Potomac, Maryland in March while serving a red flag order. As Montgomery Community Media recently reported:
It has been almost three months since a Potomac man was fatally shot by a member of the Montgomery County Police Department Tactical Unit, but many details surrounding the case still have not been made public. Since the March 12 death police-involved shooting of 21-year-old Duncan Lemp in his bedroom, the name of the officer who fired the fatal shots, autopsy results and any police camera video has yet to be released. MCPD used a special warrant that allowed its officers to enter the home in the 12200 block of St. James Road in Potomac without first knocking. The investigation has been turned over to the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office, as is the normal procedure, to avoid Montgomery County officials from investigating their own and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. When asked about the status of the case, Yolanda Vazquez, external affairs director at the Howard County’s SAO, only replied, “The Duncan Lemp case is currently under investigation by our office.”
Attorneys for Lemp’s family say the man was shot by officers while he was sleeping. The MCPD disputes that, saying that Lemp confronted officers and was shot. Release of the body cam footage would go a long way towards shedding some light on what really happened, but once again, the folks at Everytown seem strangely uninterested in getting any answers, despite their newfound appreciation for police reform and accountability.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--French Back Off On Chokehold Ban, Will It Impact American Activist Demands?

All over the United States , activists are demanding that police stop using chokeholds .
They argue that these can result in death if used improperly .
To be fair , they ’ re not wrong .
A chokehold has its place in people ’ s personal arsenal of moves , but if you don ’ t know what you ’ re doing , instead of knocking someone out , you could choke them to death .
Unless you practice these moves regularly–and many officers don ’ t–you may well kill someone rather than subdue them .
However , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems the French decided to ban chokeholds .
Then , they didn ’ t .
Less than a week after France announced it would abandon police chokeholds , the government responded to growing officer discontent by announcing it would test stun guns for wider use , adding to the ranks of European law enforcement agencies that have recently adopted the weapons that many in the U.S. equate with excess police violence .
Then , on Monday , the government backed away from a complete chokehold ban , saying it would no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow its use until a better alternative emerges .
For Johny Louise , it felt as though the 22 seconds of Taser pulses that led to his son ’ s death counted for nothing .
“ They need more death so that one day they understand , but it will be more pointless deaths and sufferings for families , ” Louise said .
Gendarmes in Orléans responding to a drunken brawl tried to arrest his son , Loïc .
One officer , Noham Cardoso , fired his Taser for the first time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the twin darts and jolting him for a full 17 seconds , rather than the usual 5-second cycle , then hitting him again less than a minute later with another 5 seconds , according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press .
Loïc Louis , who was black , passed out and was later pronounced dead at the hospital .
Cardoso was charged last year with involuntary homicide in the Nov. 3 , 2013 , death .
He has said Loïc Louise was aggressive and appeared ready to attack .
The officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can ’ t fathom why France would replace an immobilization technique with a weapon .
He said it would make more sense to invent another technique to replace chokeholds .
“ It ’ s a bad sign to say , ‘ You can ’ t strangle , but here are Tasers for you to use , ’ ” de Villèle said .
First , understand that chokeholds can be used relatively safely and effectively .
They ’ re used in MMA all the time and people aren ’ t dying from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MMA fighters train on this technique all the time , and police generally don ’ t .
However , that doesn ’ t mean it can ’ t be used appropriately .
Tasers , however , are kind of a one-trick pony .
They zap you and you either survive it or you don ’ t .
While tasers are classified as a less-lethal tool , that doesn ’ t mean they ’ re non-lethal .
They can still kill people .
The problem is that there ’ s no way to train @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to kill anyone .
While chokeholds can be deployed safely , tasers are what they are .
If you have the kind of issues that can lead to you being killed by a taser , no amount of training given to an officer will alleviate that .
It seems that the French decided to go to a method that required a bit less training , but didn ’ t account for the fact that these methods can still kill .
Unfortunately , thems just the breaks .
That ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-trained personnel .
That ’ s because resisting subjects are going to be the ones initiating determining how the confrontation goes .
Sure , police can and should try to de-escalate a situation if they can , but at some point , they ’ re going to have to make uncooperative people do things they don ’ t want to do .
That process may well result in death for any number of reasons .
At some point , all law enforcement , both in this country and overseas , are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police for doing what they have to do in order to successfully do their jobs .

All over the United States, activists are demanding that police stop using chokeholds. They argue that these can result in death if used improperly. To be fair, they’re not wrong. A chokehold has its place in people’s personal arsenal of moves, but if you don’t know what you’re doing, instead of knocking someone out, you could choke them to death. Unless you practice these moves regularly–and many officers don’t–you may well kill someone rather than subdue them.
However, this isn’t just an American thing. It seems the French decided to ban chokeholds. Then, they didn’t.
Less than a week after France announced it would abandon police chokeholds, the government responded to growing officer discontent by announcing it would test stun guns for wider use, adding to the ranks of European law enforcement agencies that have recently adopted the weapons that many in the U.S. equate with excess police violence. Then, on Monday, the government backed away from a complete chokehold ban, saying it would no longer teach the maneuver to recruits but allow its use until a better alternative emerges. For Johny Louise, it felt as though the 22 seconds of Taser pulses that led to his son’s death counted for nothing. “They need more death so that one day they understand, but it will be more pointless deaths and sufferings for families,” Louise said. Gendarmes in Orléans responding to a drunken brawl tried to arrest his son, Loïc. One officer, Noham Cardoso, fired his Taser for the first time, hitting Loïc Louise in the chest with the twin darts and jolting him for a full 17 seconds, rather than the usual 5-second cycle, then hitting him again less than a minute later with another 5 seconds, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press. Loïc Louis, who was black, passed out and was later pronounced dead at the hospital. Cardoso was charged last year with involuntary homicide in the Nov. 3, 2013, death. He has said Loïc Louise was aggressive and appeared ready to attack. The officer’s lawyer, Ludovic de Villèle, can’t fathom why France would replace an immobilization technique with a weapon. He said it would make more sense to invent another technique to replace chokeholds. “It’s a bad sign to say, ‘You can’t strangle, but here are Tasers for you to use,’” de Villèle said.
It’s a fair point.
First, understand that chokeholds can be used relatively safely and effectively. They’re used in MMA all the time and people aren’t dying from the rear-naked choke.
The difference is that MMA fighters train on this technique all the time, and police generally don’t. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be used appropriately.
Tasers, however, are kind of a one-trick pony. They zap you and you either survive it or you don’t.
While tasers are classified as a less-lethal tool, that doesn’t mean they’re non-lethal. They can still kill people. The problem is that there’s no way to train people enough so that tasers aren’t going to kill anyone. While chokeholds can be deployed safely, tasers are what they are. If you have the kind of issues that can lead to you being killed by a taser, no amount of training given to an officer will alleviate that.
It seems that the French decided to go to a method that required a bit less training, but didn’t account for the fact that these methods can still kill.
Unfortunately, thems just the breaks. That’s just how things go sometimes, even with well-trained personnel.
That’s because resisting subjects are going to be the ones initiating determining how the confrontation goes. Sure, police can and should try to de-escalate a situation if they can, but at some point, they’re going to have to make uncooperative people do things they don’t want to do. That process may well result in death for any number of reasons.
At some point, all law enforcement, both in this country and overseas, are going to have to understand that and stop blaming police for doing what they have to do in order to successfully do their jobs.