bearingarms--2020-12-23--Why It's A "Record Year For Gun Violence"

For anti-gunners , the fact that gun violence has increased is a no-brainer .
After all , in their mind , the fact that gun sales have gone up is the only possible reason for an increase in violence .
And violence has increased significantly .
In fact , it ’ s apparently some kind of record .
Janet Foster lost two children this year .
One night in late July , she woke to the sound of gunfire outside her home on the East Side of Cleveland .
She rushed out the door to find her 22- and 26-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driveway .
They ’ d both been shot .
She shouted for help , but none came .
Her sons died before doctors could intervene .
In the months that followed , Foster struggled to cope with her loss .
“ Some days I can ’ t do nothing but be locked up in my room because the pain is so severe , ” she said .
“ I ’ ve been here eight years , and I ’ ve never seen violence so bad.
” Foster ’ s sons , Delvonte and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of people killed in Cleveland this year , making the city one of dozens that battled sharp increases in gun deaths .
From Oakland to Chicago to New York City , homicides and shootings crept toward — and sometimes exceeded — all-time highs .
The sudden upswing reversed decades of progress , and provides a prism for the intersecting crises that characterized 2020 .
While researchers are still picking over the causes , the consequences of the violence are plain : Thousands of communities , families , and parents like Foster forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the knowledge that at any moment , more gunfire could tear open new ones .
In some communities , violence was already soaring when the pandemic prompted statewide lockdowns .
Philadelphia , Houston , and Memphis tallied 10 percent more homicides between January and March than in the same period in 2019 .
The problem was even worse in Milwaukee , where killings doubled .
Now , the authors here link it to things like income inequality , housing insecurity , and unemployment , all of which are exacerbated by the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be contributing factors to this surge .
And the numbers are worse when you consider that we were locked down for a significant portion of the year , thus making violent crime almost non-existent for a time .
However , it ’ s not the totality by any stretch of the imagination .
2020 was also the year when legions of convicted criminals were released from prison .
While many may have been incarcerated for non-violent offenses , that shouldn ’ t be taken to mean they ’ re non-violent criminals .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a violent offense .
Further , this was also the year the court systems were horrendously bogged down because of the shutdown , meaning criminals out on bond were free for far longer than they should have been , opening up the opportunity for additional mayhem .
And let ’ s not overlook mask mandates and how they might have played a factor .
You see , once upon a time , wearing a mask in many places was considered suspicious , if not illegal .
Now , you ’ re more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re not wearing one .
What that means , though , is that a violent criminal may well feel emboldened to act violently .
After all , he can gun someone down , then walk away and never expose his face .
How are you supposed to do a lineup if everyone ’ s wearing a mask ?
So while socioeconomic factors may contribute to the violence , there are a ton of other possible reasons why violence has increased as well .
Let ’ s not pretend they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all .
Violence is far more complicated than that .

For anti-gunners, the fact that gun violence has increased is a no-brainer. After all, in their mind, the fact that gun sales have gone up is the only possible reason for an increase in violence.
And violence has increased significantly. In fact, it’s apparently some kind of record.
Janet Foster lost two children this year. One night in late July, she woke to the sound of gunfire outside her home on the East Side of Cleveland. She rushed out the door to find her 22- and 26-year-old sons lying in her neighbor’s driveway. They’d both been shot. She shouted for help, but none came. Her sons died before doctors could intervene. In the months that followed, Foster struggled to cope with her loss. “Some days I can’t do nothing but be locked up in my room because the pain is so severe,” she said. “I’ve been here eight years, and I’ve never seen violence so bad.” Foster’s sons, Delvonte and Domenique King, were among a record number of people killed in Cleveland this year, making the city one of dozens that battled sharp increases in gun deaths. From Oakland to Chicago to New York City, homicides and shootings crept toward — and sometimes exceeded — all-time highs. The sudden upswing reversed decades of progress, and provides a prism for the intersecting crises that characterized 2020. While researchers are still picking over the causes, the consequences of the violence are plain: Thousands of communities, families, and parents like Foster forced to manage terrible voids — and saddled with the knowledge that at any moment, more gunfire could tear open new ones. … In some communities, violence was already soaring when the pandemic prompted statewide lockdowns. Philadelphia, Houston, and Memphis tallied 10 percent more homicides between January and March than in the same period in 2019. The problem was even worse in Milwaukee, where killings doubled.
Now, the authors here link it to things like income inequality, housing insecurity, and unemployment, all of which are exacerbated by the pandemic. In truth, those may well be contributing factors to this surge. And the numbers are worse when you consider that we were locked down for a significant portion of the year, thus making violent crime almost non-existent for a time.
However, it’s not the totality by any stretch of the imagination.
2020 was also the year when legions of convicted criminals were released from prison. While many may have been incarcerated for non-violent offenses, that shouldn’t be taken to mean they’re non-violent criminals. It only means they weren’t arrested for a violent offense.
Further, this was also the year the court systems were horrendously bogged down because of the shutdown, meaning criminals out on bond were free for far longer than they should have been, opening up the opportunity for additional mayhem.
And let’s not overlook mask mandates and how they might have played a factor.
You see, once upon a time, wearing a mask in many places was considered suspicious, if not illegal. Now, you’re more likely to be hassled by police if you’re not wearing one.
What that means, though, is that a violent criminal may well feel emboldened to act violently. After all, he can gun someone down, then walk away and never expose his face. How are you supposed to do a lineup if everyone’s wearing a mask?
So while socioeconomic factors may contribute to the violence, there are a ton of other possible reasons why violence has increased as well. Let’s not pretend they’re only the left’s pet issues, after all. Violence is far more complicated than that.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--16 Attorneys General Join The NRA's Fight With NY AG Letitia James

As New York Attorney General Letitia James continues her quest to dissolve the National Rifle Association , the Second Amendment organization has gained more than a dozen allies in their legal battle .
Sixteen Attorneys General from across the country have now filed a friend of the court brief in support of the NRA , led by Arkansas AG Leslie Rutledge .
“ New York ’ s lawsuit is a political stunt by a liberal attorney general who promised in her campaign to go after the NRA .
It is designed to undermine our Second Amendment right , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me unpopular in places like New York , I stand committed to protecting the Constitution—particularly Arkansans ’ right to bear arms .
That is why I oppose the New York Attorney General ’ s political stunt and am proud to lead these 16 States in supporting the NRA ’ s lawsuit against New York .
I repeat my invitation to the NRA : The Natural State would happily welcome an organization that fights for the Second Amendment rights of Arkansans and all Americans.
” Rutledge has been joined in the amicus brief by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Idaho , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Mississippi , Missouri , Ohio , Oklahoma , South Carolina , South Dakota , Texas , Utah and West Virginia .
In the brief , Rutledge argues that James ’ actions “ threaten the civil rights of five million members ” and that the U.S. Constitution “ forbids her from taking these actions.
” While state Attorneys General have broad authority to enforce nonprofit governance laws , that authority must be tempered by the First Amendment ’ s prohibition of infringement of the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York AG can not be allowed to wield the power of her office to discriminate against the NRA simply because she doesn ’ t like its ’ members political views , advocacy , and defense of a fundamental constitutional right .
As the amicus brief goes on to argue , James claims that dissolving the NRA would somehow benefit its members ; that she ’ s acting in their interest in trying to shutter the organization as it enters its 150th year of operation .
That ’ s nonsense , assert the AGs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for election with promises to “ take down the NRA by any means possible , ” and now seems intent on fulfilling her campaign promise .
When government officials , like the New York AG in this case , target organizations for their members ’ political viewpoints , they subvert the very freedoms they are sworn to protect .
That is especially true here , as New York ’ s invasive firearms laws make it a frequent target for lawsuits brought by organizations like the NRA and its members .
If ever there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment protection from a government entity seeking to destroy it , this is it .
You can read the amicus brief for yourself right here , and I ’ d encourage you to do so , because it ’ s pretty powerful stuff .
Even if you think that the NRA is in need of a housecleaning and internal reforms , the idea of New York ’ s Attorney General dissolving the organization should leave you cold .
It ’ s not only conservatives or Republicans who ’ v objected to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of folks on the Left have said that James ’ attempt to kill off the NRA is legally dubious .
Let ’ s hope the federal courts agree , and allow the NRA ’ s challenge to James to proceed .
Dissolving the NRA would not only be an attack on millions of its members , but it would open up a Pandora ’ s Box that would likely lead to red-state Attorney Generals doing the same thing to groups on the Left like Planned Parenthood .
Lawfare isn ’ t just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James is intent on using her power to dissolve the oldest civil rights organization in the U.S. , she and other Democrats should know that some of their own favored institutions may soon be in the legal crosshairs of Republican Attorneys General .

As New York Attorney General Letitia James continues her quest to dissolve the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment organization has gained more than a dozen allies in their legal battle. Sixteen Attorneys General from across the country have now filed a friend of the court brief in support of the NRA, led by Arkansas AG Leslie Rutledge.
“New York’s lawsuit is a political stunt by a liberal attorney general who promised in her campaign to go after the NRA. It is designed to undermine our Second Amendment right,” said Rutledge. “Even if it makes me unpopular in places like New York, I stand committed to protecting the Constitution—particularly Arkansans’ right to bear arms. That is why I oppose the New York Attorney General’s political stunt and am proud to lead these 16 States in supporting the NRA’s lawsuit against New York. I repeat my invitation to the NRA: The Natural State would happily welcome an organization that fights for the Second Amendment rights of Arkansans and all Americans.”
Rutledge has been joined in the amicus brief by the Attorneys General of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
In the brief, Rutledge argues that James’ actions “threaten the civil rights of five million members” and that the U.S. Constitution “forbids her from taking these actions.”
While state Attorneys General have broad authority to enforce nonprofit governance laws, that authority must be tempered by the First Amendment’s prohibition of infringement of the rights to speech and association. The New York AG cannot be allowed to wield the power of her office to discriminate against the NRA simply because she doesn’t like its’ members political views, advocacy, and defense of a fundamental constitutional right.
As the amicus brief goes on to argue, James claims that dissolving the NRA would somehow benefit its members; that she’s acting in their interest in trying to shutter the organization as it enters its 150th year of operation. That’s nonsense, assert the AGs, who point out that James ran for election with promises to “take down the NRA by any means possible,” and now seems intent on fulfilling her campaign promise.
When government officials, like the New York AG in this case, target organizations for their members’ political viewpoints, they subvert the very freedoms they are sworn to protect. That is especially true here, as New York’s invasive firearms laws make it a frequent target for lawsuits brought by organizations like the NRA and its members. If ever there were a time that an organization required First Amendment protection from a government entity seeking to destroy it, this is it.
You can read the amicus brief for yourself right here, and I’d encourage you to do so, because it’s pretty powerful stuff. Even if you think that the NRA is in need of a housecleaning and internal reforms, the idea of New York’s Attorney General dissolving the organization should leave you cold. It’s not only conservatives or Republicans who’v objected to the idea, by the way. Plenty of folks on the Left have said that James’ attempt to kill off the NRA is legally dubious.
Let’s hope the federal courts agree, and allow the NRA’s challenge to James to proceed. Dissolving the NRA would not only be an attack on millions of its members, but it would open up a Pandora’s Box that would likely lead to red-state Attorney Generals doing the same thing to groups on the Left like Planned Parenthood. Lawfare isn’t just a tool of anti-gun Democrats, and if James is intent on using her power to dissolve the oldest civil rights organization in the U.S., she and other Democrats should know that some of their own favored institutions may soon be in the legal crosshairs of Republican Attorneys General.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Why Working With Democrats On Guns Is Impossible

Right now , political division is extremely high .
I don ’ t want to say it ’ s at an all-time high because , well , there was that little tiff back in the 1860s that suggests it might have been a tad worse back then .
I mean , 620,000 American lives lost is a bit worse than the rioting we ’ ve seen in the last few years .
Yet , anyone with eyes can see that it ’ s still pretty bad .
Many are issuing calls for unity , for us coming together and working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this comes after four years of # resistance and all that , but whatever .
The problem is , when you don ’ t really understand why some divisions exist , it ’ s easy to make light of the issues .
Take this one , for example .
If your dog won ’ t stop chewing on the furniture and you work with it to chew its toys are you suddenly on the level of your dog for still allowing the chewing ?
?
Of course not !
This is literally how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Capitol Hill are .
Let ’ s take gun rights for example : Democrats don ’ t want to see people get killed .
Republicans don ’ t want people ’ s rights infringed on .
So suddenly , any Republican who supports any kind of gun legislation wants to take everyone ’ s guns and any Democrat who wants to compromise is a murder-permitting disgrace .
This also works the other way though too .
This means that Democrats now must signal that they are okay with taking guns and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t support gun laws .
Which , of course , further contributes to the polarization because now each side has a reason to fear that extreme because it ’ s real now .
Not only that but , if anyone on our side is working with the other side , they must have switched viewpoints because there ’ s only two and they ’ re so different .
Get the picture ?
Sure , if you look at it through a microscope , it appears that way .
When you understand the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much .
See , when we say that anti-gunners want to take away our gun rights , it ’ s not based on fearmongering or a misunderstanding of their position , but a firm understanding of history .
Federal gun control was unheard of until the first half of the 20th Century .
Yet , following the St. Valentine ’ s Day Massacre and other gangland violence , people wanted something to be done .
The Thompson submachine gun was a favorite of the mob in those days , so that became the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if you went after the guns , you ’ d curb the violence , but don ’ t worry , they just wanted the machine guns .
So , they passed a law that tightly regulated full-automatic weapons and short-barreled rifles–another favorite of the mob–but didn ’ t take anything from anyone .
As time went on , though , other acts pushed them to regulate guns more .
They didn ’ t want to take away your right to buy a gun in 1968 , they simply wanted to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail .
With each and every new regulation , the anti-gunners were never satisfied .
They always wanted more and more .
A great analogy comes from my friend LawDog writing over at his blog where he compares gun rights to a cake and every anti-gunner wants to take the cake away .
So when the above-linked author looks at the politics of guns , all he sees is division and thinks that we should totally be able to get past that .
What he doesn ’ t see is that yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years that they want our guns .
All of them .
And yeah , we see any Republican who gets down there with them as trying to help them take away our guns .
After all , this whole simplistic nonsense is predicated on the idea that gun control is the best choice to reduce violence or even will reduce violence .
That ’ s not necessarily the case .
Democrats push gun control because they don ’ t like guns .
That ’ s been the case for decades .
During that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban anything and everything they thought they could get away with .
Anyone who doesn ’ t believe they ’ d ban everything if they could is simply deluding themselves .
There won ’ t be a compromise on guns because we ’ ve done it before and gotten nothing in return .
We ’ re tired of it and yeah , anyone Republican who wants to get down with anti-gun Democrats will be labeled as anti-gun themselves .
As they should be .

Right now, political division is extremely high. I don’t want to say it’s at an all-time high because, well, there was that little tiff back in the 1860s that suggests it might have been a tad worse back then. I mean, 620,000 American lives lost is a bit worse than the rioting we’ve seen in the last few years.
Yet, anyone with eyes can see that it’s still pretty bad.
Many are issuing calls for unity, for us coming together and working with one another. Of course, this comes after four years of #resistance and all that, but whatever.
The problem is, when you don’t really understand why some divisions exist, it’s easy to make light of the issues. Take this one, for example.
If your dog won’t stop chewing on the furniture and you work with it to chew its toys are you suddenly on the level of your dog for still allowing the chewing?? Of course not! This is literally how simple and idiotic the arguments that happen on Capitol Hill are. Let’s take gun rights for example: Democrats don’t want to see people get killed. Republicans don’t want people’s rights infringed on. So suddenly, any Republican who supports any kind of gun legislation wants to take everyone’s guns and any Democrat who wants to compromise is a murder-permitting disgrace. This also works the other way though too. This means that Democrats now must signal that they are okay with taking guns and that Republicans must signal that they don’t support gun laws. Which, of course, further contributes to the polarization because now each side has a reason to fear that extreme because it’s real now. Not only that but, if anyone on our side is working with the other side, they must have switched viewpoints because there’s only two and they’re so different. Get the picture?
Sure, if you look at it through a microscope, it appears that way.
When you understand the subject in totality, though, not so much.
See, when we say that anti-gunners want to take away our gun rights, it’s not based on fearmongering or a misunderstanding of their position, but a firm understanding of history.
Federal gun control was unheard of until the first half of the 20th Century. Yet, following the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre and other gangland violence, people wanted something to be done. The Thompson submachine gun was a favorite of the mob in those days, so that became the target. Anti-gunners of the day said that if you went after the guns, you’d curb the violence, but don’t worry, they just wanted the machine guns.
So, they passed a law that tightly regulated full-automatic weapons and short-barreled rifles–another favorite of the mob–but didn’t take anything from anyone.
As time went on, though, other acts pushed them to regulate guns more. They didn’t want to take away your right to buy a gun in 1968, they simply wanted to make it so assassins couldn’t get guns by mail.
With each and every new regulation, the anti-gunners were never satisfied. They always wanted more and more.
A great analogy comes from my friend LawDog writing over at his blog where he compares gun rights to a cake and every anti-gunner wants to take the cake away.
So when the above-linked author looks at the politics of guns, all he sees is division and thinks that we should totally be able to get past that. What he doesn’t see is that yes, anti-gun Democrats have illustrated through the years that they want our guns. All of them.
And yeah, we see any Republican who gets down there with them as trying to help them take away our guns.
After all, this whole simplistic nonsense is predicated on the idea that gun control is the best choice to reduce violence or even will reduce violence. That’s not necessarily the case.
Democrats push gun control because they don’t like guns. That’s been the case for decades. During that time, they’ve tried to ban anything and everything they thought they could get away with. Anyone who doesn’t believe they’d ban everything if they could is simply deluding themselves.
There won’t be a compromise on guns because we’ve done it before and gotten nothing in return. We’re tired of it and yeah, anyone Republican who wants to get down with anti-gun Democrats will be labeled as anti-gun themselves.
As they should be.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Northam, Virginia Dems Back Away From Their Gun Ban Plans

In the state ’ s 2019 elections , many Democrats in Virginia ran on gun control , and organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety credited anti-gun policies after Democrats took control of both chambers of the legislature .
In 2021 , though , when voters in the state will elect a governor and other statewide officeholders in addition to elections for the House of Delegates , those same Democrats look to be running away from the issue .
WRIC-TV in Richmond reports that Del .
Mark Levine , who was the chief sponsor of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ high capacity ” ammunition magazines ; and legally owned suppressors ( which was defeated in the state Senate earlier this year after passing the House of Delegates ) says he has no plans to re-introduce the measure in the session which is slated to begin in early January .
Now , Levine says he ’ s deferring action on the legislation , blaming a shortened and largely virtual session , as well as a new cap on the number of bills that can be introduced by each delegate .
“ Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are less controversial .
That doesn ’ t mean I ’ ve given up fighting for this cause , ” Levine told 8News in an interview on Tuesday .
“ The goal is to stop making it really easy to commit mass murder.
” Levine , who just announced his bid for Lieutenant Governor , said he doesn ’ t expect any of his Democratic colleagues to introduce the bill in 2021 either , though it can ’ t be ruled out .
Back in April , as he signed a half-dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam vowed that his failed gun ban would return in 2021 , telling gun control activists “ I will not stop and that piece of legislation will be introduced again to ban assault weapons [ from ] our streets.
” Now the governor is singing a different tune .
In an interview on Monday , 8News asked Gov .
Northam if waiting to revisit the issue is the right decision or if Democrats should be acting with more urgency to fulfill one of their top campaign promises .
“ It was a campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
I think it was a large reason why the House switched from Republican control to Democratic control , ” Northam said .
“ That one bill on assault weapons didn ’ t move forward but six other pieces of legislation did and I think because of that Virginia is a safer state.
” “ But I ’ ll leave that up to the discretion of the legislature and whatever they do I ’ ll be supportive of , ” Northam continued .
Northam said he ’ s not personally pushing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 .
First off , Northam ’ s wrong about Virginia being a safer state .
For years Virginia has been one of the safest states in the country , without any of Northam ’ s gun control laws in effect , but thanks to the COVID restrictions , court closures , and early release of inmates , as well as a pullback on proactive policing in many departments , 2020 will be one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of violent crime .
Still , there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about pushing their sweeping attack on the Second Amendment in an election year , despite Northam ’ s claims that gun control was a winning issue in 2019 .
If that were the case , Democrats would be doubling down on the issue instead of backing away from it .
They know that their election gains are likely to be short-lived if they continue their push for gun control , so they ’ ll try to keep as quiet as possible on the issue until after next November ’ s elections are over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to let them get away with it .
Every delegate and senator who voted for Northam ’ s failed gun ban in 2020 can expect that to be an issue in the 2021 elections , and frankly , running away from the ban now just makes Democrats look even more cynical and craven .
These gun control bills were supposed to be all about improving public safety , but Democrats are backing off of them after the crime rate has gone up ?
That makes no sense , at least from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of view , however , it makes perfect sense .
After a year of record-high gun sales in the state , the rise of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , and the lack of a blue wave in federal elections in Virginia in 2020 , Democrats know that gun control isn ’ t the winning issue they thought it would be .
So , they ’ ll try to lay low in terms of talking up their gun ban plans this year in hopes of maintaining control of state government .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state House , however , we all know that the gun ban will be back in 2022 .
Gun owners in Virginia know what ’ s at stake in these elections , even if Northam and his anti-gun allies in the legislature will do all they can to change the subject between now and November .
We ’ ll have more on this story this afternoon when Del .
Kirk Cox , who ’ s also running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Virginia , joins me on Bearing Arms ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to check out our conversation later today .

In the state’s 2019 elections, many Democrats in Virginia ran on gun control, and organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety credited anti-gun policies after Democrats took control of both chambers of the legislature.
In 2021, though, when voters in the state will elect a governor and other statewide officeholders in addition to elections for the House of Delegates, those same Democrats look to be running away from the issue.
WRIC-TV in Richmond reports that Del. Mark Levine, who was the chief sponsor of Gov. Ralph Northam’s attempted ban on modern sporting rifles; “high capacity” ammunition magazines; and legally owned suppressors (which was defeated in the state Senate earlier this year after passing the House of Delegates) says he has no plans to re-introduce the measure in the session which is slated to begin in early January.
Now, Levine says he’s deferring action on the legislation, blaming a shortened and largely virtual session, as well as a new cap on the number of bills that can be introduced by each delegate. “Most of the session will be devoted to things that are less controversial. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up fighting for this cause,” Levine told 8News in an interview on Tuesday. “The goal is to stop making it really easy to commit mass murder.” Levine, who just announced his bid for Lieutenant Governor, said he doesn’t expect any of his Democratic colleagues to introduce the bill in 2021 either, though it can’t be ruled out.
Back in April, as he signed a half-dozen new gun control bills into law, Northam vowed that his failed gun ban would return in 2021, telling gun control activists “I will not stop and that piece of legislation will be introduced again to ban assault weapons [from] our streets.”
Now the governor is singing a different tune.
In an interview on Monday, 8News asked Gov. Northam if waiting to revisit the issue is the right decision or if Democrats should be acting with more urgency to fulfill one of their top campaign promises. “It was a campaign promise that a lot of us ran on. I think it was a large reason why the House switched from Republican control to Democratic control,” Northam said. “That one bill on assault weapons didn’t move forward but six other pieces of legislation did and I think because of that Virginia is a safer state.” “But I’ll leave that up to the discretion of the legislature and whatever they do I’ll be supportive of,” Northam continued. Northam said he’s not personally pushing the General Assembly to address the measure in 2021.
First off, Northam’s wrong about Virginia being a safer state. For years Virginia has been one of the safest states in the country, without any of Northam’s gun control laws in effect, but thanks to the COVID restrictions, court closures, and early release of inmates, as well as a pullback on proactive policing in many departments, 2020 will be one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of violent crime.
Still, there’s no doubt that Northam and Democrats are gun-shy about pushing their sweeping attack on the Second Amendment in an election year, despite Northam’s claims that gun control was a winning issue in 2019. If that were the case, Democrats would be doubling down on the issue instead of backing away from it. They know that their election gains are likely to be short-lived if they continue their push for gun control, so they’ll try to keep as quiet as possible on the issue until after next November’s elections are over.
Virginia gun owners aren’t going to let them get away with it. Every delegate and senator who voted for Northam’s failed gun ban in 2020 can expect that to be an issue in the 2021 elections, and frankly, running away from the ban now just makes Democrats look even more cynical and craven. These gun control bills were supposed to be all about improving public safety, but Democrats are backing off of them after the crime rate has gone up? That makes no sense, at least from a public safety standpoint.
From a political point of view, however, it makes perfect sense. After a year of record-high gun sales in the state, the rise of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, and the lack of a blue wave in federal elections in Virginia in 2020, Democrats know that gun control isn’t the winning issue they thought it would be. So, they’ll try to lay low in terms of talking up their gun ban plans this year in hopes of maintaining control of state government.
If Democrats retake the governorship and keep control of the state House, however, we all know that the gun ban will be back in 2022. Gun owners in Virginia know what’s at stake in these elections, even if Northam and his anti-gun allies in the legislature will do all they can to change the subject between now and November.
We’ll have more on this story this afternoon when Del. Kirk Cox, who’s also running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Virginia, joins me on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, so be sure to check out our conversation later today.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Help Prevent Banks From Discriminating Against The Gun Industry

A proposed rule from the little-known Office of the Comptroller of the Currency could have a big impact on the firearms industry if it ’ s approved , and the National Shooting Sports Foundation is asking for help in making sure that happens .
The rule would , in essence , prevent banks from discriminating against the firearms industry as clients , as several major financial institutions have done in recent years as an example of their corporate wokeness .
Here ’ s how the NSSF describes how the rule would work .
The proposed rule provides the following requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 billion or more in total assets ) to provide fair access : • Make each financial service it offers available to all persons in the geographic market served by the covered bank on proportionally equal terms ; • Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers except to the extent justified by such person ’ s quantified and documented failure to meet quantitative , impartial risk-based standards established in advance by the covered bank ; • Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers when the effect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or otherwise disadvantage the person : ( i ) From entering or competing in a market or business segment ; or ( ii ) In such a way that benefits another person or business activity in which the covered bank has a financial interest ; and • Not deny , in coordination with others , any person a financial service the bank offers .
This would be a boon not only to the firearms industry , but to all those that “ have suffered politically-driven discrimination , ” in the words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , businesses as varied as your local gun store , makers of specialized accessories , startup gun companies , and heritage brands have all been shut out of doing business with the largest financial institutions in the country in recent years , and this rule would ensure that couldn ’ t happen ; at least not because of any anti-gun agenda .
Gun owners have been doing a great job of commenting on the ATF ’ s proposed guidance for pistol braces , with more than 4,000 comments being received each day since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency , on the other hand , has been open for comment since late November and has received less than 2,000 comments as of December 22nd .
Let ’ s change that , shall we ?
To submit your public comment before the deadline of January 4th , click the link below , then hit the green “ submit a formal comment button ” on the righthand side of the page .
While the proposed regulations for pistol braces allow you to also fax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some reason faxing your response isn ’ t an option with the proposed anti-discrimination rule .
If you want to mail your comment , here ’ s the address , but remember ; the letter must be received by midnight on January 4th , and we ’ ve got several holidays in addition to two Sundays between now and then , so the mail might be slower than normal .
Something else to keep in mind if you ’ re planning on mailing your response : You must include “ OCC ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OCC-2020-0042 ” in your comment .
In general , the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish the comments on the Regulations.gov website without change , including any business or personal information provided such as name and address information , email addresses , and phone numbers .
Comments , including attachments and other supporting materials , are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure .
Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of speaking out against ATF ’ s proposal for pistol braces , which are simply a push towards registration of millions of legally-owned firearms .
Now we need to use our voices to speak up in favor of this rule that would help businesses big and small throughout the firearms industry , ensuring we still have access to the arms that are our right to own and carry .

A proposed rule from the little-known Office of the Comptroller of the Currency could have a big impact on the firearms industry if it’s approved, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation is asking for help in making sure that happens.
The rule would, in essence, prevent banks from discriminating against the firearms industry as clients, as several major financial institutions have done in recent years as an example of their corporate wokeness. Here’s how the NSSF describes how the rule would work.
The proposed rule provides the following requirements for large, national banks ($100 billion or more in total assets) to provide fair access: Make each financial service it offers available to all persons in the geographic market served by the covered bank on proportionally equal terms; Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers except to the extent justified by such person’s quantified and documented failure to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards established in advance by the covered bank; Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers when the effect of the denial is to prevent, limit, or otherwise disadvantage the person: (i) From entering or competing in a market or business segment; or (ii) In such a way that benefits another person or business activity in which the covered bank has a financial interest; and Not deny, in coordination with others, any person a financial service the bank offers.
This would be a boon not only to the firearms industry, but to all those that “have suffered politically-driven discrimination,” in the words of the NSSF. Within the gun industry, businesses as varied as your local gun store, makers of specialized accessories, startup gun companies, and heritage brands have all been shut out of doing business with the largest financial institutions in the country in recent years, and this rule would ensure that couldn’t happen; at least not because of any anti-gun agenda.
Gun owners have been doing a great job of commenting on the ATF’s proposed guidance for pistol braces, with more than 4,000 comments being received each day since the comment period opened. This proposed rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, on the other hand, has been open for comment since late November and has received less than 2,000 comments as of December 22nd.
Let’s change that, shall we? To submit your public comment before the deadline of January 4th, click the link below, then hit the green “submit a formal comment button” on the righthand side of the page.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/25/2020-26067/fair-access-to-financial-services
While the proposed regulations for pistol braces allow you to also fax or mail in your comment, for some reason faxing your response isn’t an option with the proposed anti-discrimination rule. If you want to mail your comment, here’s the address, but remember; the letter must be received by midnight on January 4th, and we’ve got several holidays in addition to two Sundays between now and then, so the mail might be slower than normal.
Chief Counsel’s Office, Attention: Comment Processing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Something else to keep in mind if you’re planning on mailing your response:
You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2020-0042” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish the comments on the Regulations.gov website without change, including any business or personal information provided such as name and address information, email addresses, and phone numbers. Comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Gun owners have done a fantastic job of speaking out against ATF’s proposal for pistol braces, which are simply a push towards registration of millions of legally-owned firearms. Now we need to use our voices to speak up in favor of this rule that would help businesses big and small throughout the firearms industry, ensuring we still have access to the arms that are our right to own and carry.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--21 Million Guns Sold, But Over Concern, Not "Panic"

One of the tricks the media and activists like to use is in word choice .
Some words mean roughly the same thing but convey a different feel to that meaning .
For example , “ plan ” and “ scheme ” might roughly mean the same thing , but some folks feel “ scheme ” feels shadier , more underhanded .
After all , if someone plans well , we think of it as a positive , but if they ’ re scheming , it ’ s something different .
Sometimes , though , they just use a completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact they want it to make .
That ’ s precisely what happened in this piece .
Of course , it ’ s complete and utter male bovine excrement , but what a choice of words .
See , what Thomas is doing is trying to equate these gun buyers as irrational .
The term “ panic ” conveys fear-driven motivations completely devoid of any rationality .
People didn ’ t reach a decision to buy a gun this year because there was a pandemic , a potential economic meltdown , riots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it because they had an irrational reaction to events .
That ’ s right , folks , Giffords is calling millions of new gun buyers irrational .
In reality , though , buying a gun this year was anything but irrational .
It wasn ’ t driven by panic , but by concern .
Yes , fear might have played a factor , but not at the expense of rationality .
See , Giffords and their crowd don ’ t get to crow about how dangerous our streets have become with soaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding gun buyers panicking .
You ’ re basically contradicting yourself .
Then again , it ’ s not like was an unbiased report , either .
In addition to Thomas , they spoke with an activist at March For Our Lives and quoted the Gun Violence Archive .
On the pro-gun side , they didn ’ t really speak with anyone .
I assume the gun store owner they spoke with about sales was pro-gun , but they didn ’ t seem to ask him about anything other than sales .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a biased report from the start , which is hardly surprising in this day and age .
Then again , the media wants people to believe that all those new gun buyers were people who panicked .
They want them to believe the decision to purchase a firearm for the first time was driven by irrationality .
This is why they probably won ’ t talk about those first-time gun buyers saving their lives or someone else ’ s life by using that gun .
Heaven forbid peole realize that maybe it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .

One of the tricks the media and activists like to use is in word choice. Some words mean roughly the same thing but convey a different feel to that meaning. For example, “plan” and “scheme” might roughly mean the same thing, but some folks feel “scheme” feels shadier, more underhanded. After all, if someone plans well, we think of it as a positive, but if they’re scheming, it’s something different.
Sometimes, though, they just use a completely wrong word because it makes the emotional impact they want it to make.
That’s precisely what happened in this piece.
New data revealed that Americans have bought an estimated 21 million guns so far in 2020 as an unprecedented political and social climate sends gun retail rocketing. ABC News reports the figures from an FBI background check by The Trace, noting they mark a 73 per cent increase on the same period last year. The surge comes as the nation faced a year of unprecedented social and political unrest in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, economic recession, civil unrest, and a divisive presidential election. … Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center, described the reaction as an illustration of “panic” which he said is being fuelled by the gun industry, and the National Rifle Association, and the Trump administration.
Panic. What a choice of words.
Of course, it’s complete and utter male bovine excrement, but what a choice of words.
See, what Thomas is doing is trying to equate these gun buyers as irrational. The term “panic” conveys fear-driven motivations completely devoid of any rationality. People didn’t reach a decision to buy a gun this year because there was a pandemic, a potential economic meltdown, riots, or skyrocketing crime. No, they did it because they had an irrational reaction to events.
That’s right, folks, Giffords is calling millions of new gun buyers irrational.
In reality, though, buying a gun this year was anything but irrational. It wasn’t driven by panic, but by concern. Yes, fear might have played a factor, but not at the expense of rationality.
See, Giffords and their crowd don’t get to crow about how dangerous our streets have become with soaring violent crime and then complain that the law-abiding gun buyers panicking. You’re basically contradicting yourself.
Then again, it’s not like was an unbiased report, either. In addition to Thomas, they spoke with an activist at March For Our Lives and quoted the Gun Violence Archive. On the pro-gun side, they didn’t really speak with anyone. I assume the gun store owner they spoke with about sales was pro-gun, but they didn’t seem to ask him about anything other than sales.
In other words, this was shaped to be a biased report from the start, which is hardly surprising in this day and age.
Then again, the media wants people to believe that all those new gun buyers were people who panicked. They want them to believe the decision to purchase a firearm for the first time was driven by irrationality.
This is why they probably won’t talk about those first-time gun buyers saving their lives or someone else’s life by using that gun. Heaven forbid peole realize that maybe it wasn’t an irrational purchase after all.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--Canada's Gun Confiscation Effort Runs Into Resistance

It ’ s been nearly seven months since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms in Canada , including a mandate that existing gun owners hand them over to the government in a “ buyback ” , but Trudeau ’ s Liberal Party has yet to find a private company willing to oversee the compensated confiscation efforts .
When Trudeau ’ s public safety minister Bill Blair originally sent out a request for proposal , he received virtually no bids from any company .
Undeterred , Blair ended up reaching out to human resources company AltisHR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Canadian government in October to draft a plan for how the confiscation efforts would be managed .
The public didn ’ t become aware of the contract until December 7th , when the government responded to a question from a conservative member of Parliament .
Once the contract became public knowledge , the firm inundated with messages from polite missives to outright threats , and just a few days later AltisHR announced it was pulling out of the agreement .
That leaves Trudeau ’ s government in the same place it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun ban and compensated confiscation efforts , which are set to begin in mid-2022 ; the mandate has been issued , but the anti-gun administration hasn ’ t figured out a way to handle the confiscation efforts .
The astonishing series of events churned up Blair ’ s office , which confirmed to iPolitics it was preparing the third procurement offer to re-ignite the attempts to get the buyback off the ground .
In an email response to questions , a spokesperson for Blair seemed to suggest the department itself might take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time , leaders for the two most prominent gun control lobbies in Canada , Wendy Cukier at the Coalition for Gun Control in Toronto and Heidi Rathjen at PolySeSouvient in Montreal , did not respond to questions about next possible steps by Blair ’ s office – and whether the Public Safety department might establish the buyback program itself .
It ’ s pretty interesting that even Canada ’ s gun control groups don ’ t want to comment , at least publicly , on the mess that Bill Blair has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confiscation efforts or the resistance shown by both individual gun owners and provincial governments .
While they ’ re not issuing any press statements , the anti-gun activists at the Coalition for Gun Control are still hoping to help defend the gun ban in court .
There are multiple legal challenges to Trudeau ’ s actions , and the first federal court hearing is schedule to take place next month .
The six challenges , or cases , have so far only gone through a series of case-management conferences , with Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and setting schedules with Justice Department lawyers representing federal Attorney General David Lametti and counsel for the challengers .
Lawyers from several of Canada ’ s top law firms , as well as smaller ones , are representing a total of 27 gun owners , hunters , sport shooters , and businesses , including Rod Giltaca , the chief founder and CEO of the CCFR .
The Coalition for Gun Control , represented by its longtime president , Wendy Cukier , is registered to intervene , as is the head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the first full court hearing in January , to be focused on motions seeking an injunction from the court to suspend the effects of the May 1 prohibition until a ruling on the validity and legality of the cabinet order .
Gagné has set a series of deadlines from Oct. 23 to Dec. 21 , the final chance to submit arguments .
Canadian gun owners can ’ t claim protection under the Second Amendment , but they ’ re still putting up one heck of a fight against Trudeau ’ s gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal battles ahead , and I ’ m grateful that they ’ re not willing to roll over and accept the compensated confiscation of their legally-owned firearms .

It’s been nearly seven months since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms in Canada, including a mandate that existing gun owners hand them over to the government in a “buyback”, but Trudeau’s Liberal Party has yet to find a private company willing to oversee the compensated confiscation efforts.
When Trudeau’s public safety minister Bill Blair originally sent out a request for proposal, he received virtually no bids from any company. Undeterred, Blair ended up reaching out to human resources company AltisHR, which signed a $60,000 contract with the Canadian government in October to draft a plan for how the confiscation efforts would be managed.
The public didn’t become aware of the contract until December 7th, when the government responded to a question from a conservative member of Parliament. Once the contract became public knowledge, the firm inundated with messages from polite missives to outright threats, and just a few days later AltisHR announced it was pulling out of the agreement.
That leaves Trudeau’s government in the same place it was back in May when it announced the gun ban and compensated confiscation efforts, which are set to begin in mid-2022; the mandate has been issued, but the anti-gun administration hasn’t figured out a way to handle the confiscation efforts.
The astonishing series of events churned up Blair’s office, which confirmed to iPolitics it was preparing the third procurement offer to re-ignite the attempts to get the buyback off the ground. In an email response to questions, a spokesperson for Blair seemed to suggest the department itself might take charge of the buyback plan. For the first time, leaders for the two most prominent gun control lobbies in Canada, Wendy Cukier at the Coalition for Gun Control in Toronto and Heidi Rathjen at PolySeSouvient in Montreal, did not respond to questions about next possible steps by Blair’s office – and whether the Public Safety department might establish the buyback program itself.
It’s pretty interesting that even Canada’s gun control groups don’t want to comment, at least publicly, on the mess that Bill Blair has made of Trudeau’s gun ban and confiscation efforts or the resistance shown by both individual gun owners and provincial governments. While they’re not issuing any press statements, the anti-gun activists at the Coalition for Gun Control are still hoping to help defend the gun ban in court. There are multiple legal challenges to Trudeau’s actions, and the first federal court hearing is schedule to take place next month.
The six challenges, or cases, have so far only gone through a series of case-management conferences, with Federal Court Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné presiding, and setting schedules with Justice Department lawyers representing federal Attorney General David Lametti and counsel for the challengers. Lawyers from several of Canada’s top law firms, as well as smaller ones, are representing a total of 27 gun owners, hunters, sport shooters, and businesses, including Rod Giltaca, the chief founder and CEO of the CCFR. The Coalition for Gun Control, represented by its longtime president, Wendy Cukier, is registered to intervene, as is the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. In the lead-up to the first full court hearing in January, to be focused on motions seeking an injunction from the court to suspend the effects of the May 1 prohibition until a ruling on the validity and legality of the cabinet order. Gagné has set a series of deadlines from Oct. 23 to Dec. 21, the final chance to submit arguments.
Canadian gun owners can’t claim protection under the Second Amendment, but they’re still putting up one heck of a fight against Trudeau’s gun grab. I wish them well in the legal battles ahead, and I’m grateful that they’re not willing to roll over and accept the compensated confiscation of their legally-owned firearms.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--Police Seeking Hunter Whose Bullet Entered Private Home

One of the most basic rules for firearm safety is that you should not just know your target but what ’ s behind it .
That ’ s because bullets can travel a very long way after fired .
I mean , sniper legend Carlos Hathcock recorded a kill at just under a mile and a half during the Vietnam War and Navy SEAL Chris Kyle scored one at under one and a quarter miles in Iraq .
Neither of these was the longest sniper shots in history , either .
Yet if someone can hit a target at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s possible for a round to travel well beyond the range you ’ re going to be deer hunting .
Unfortunately , it seems not everyone accounts for what ’ s beyond their target , and now Connecticut police are looking for one hunter who failed to do just that .
So this guy was close to private homes , apparently close enough that the resident with a new bullet hole in her home to see , and was traipsing through people ’ s yards and firing far too close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how you get laws on the books .
It ’ s not the person who has to shoot out of some life or death situation that spurs lawmakers to ban people from doing things , it ’ s the idiots who pull things like this .
To be fair , though , I suspect that calling this person a hunter is far too generous .
If they were going through people ’ s private property like this , I suspect they ’ re more of a poacher than a hunter .
Maybe I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re definitely irresponsible and dangerous .
While no one was injured , that ’ s from luck more than anything .
That ’ s why we have rules for proper gun handling , to prevent things like this from happening and to prevent them from being far more tragic than a few home repairs .
Patching windows and holes in walls are easy .
Patching holes in people is a bit messier .
My hope is that police find the individual responsible and prosecute him for his carelessness if nothing else .
Someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and while I like venison as much as the next guy and more than a lot of folks , it ’ s not worth accidentally killing someone to get it .
These kinds of actions need to be called out and denounced , which I ’ m more than happy to do .
This is not how the hunting community acts and it ’ s not how gun owners should act .
With luck , the individual will be found , arrested , and prosecuted .
Then he ’ ll have the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law .
I also suspect he ’ ll be forking over some money for repairs should they find him , too .

One of the most basic rules for firearm safety is that you should not just know your target but what’s behind it. That’s because bullets can travel a very long way after fired. I mean, sniper legend Carlos Hathcock recorded a kill at just under a mile and a half during the Vietnam War and Navy SEAL Chris Kyle scored one at under one and a quarter miles in Iraq. Neither of these was the longest sniper shots in history, either.
Yet if someone can hit a target at that distance, you’d better believe that it’s possible for a round to travel well beyond the range you’re going to be deer hunting.
Unfortunately, it seems not everyone accounts for what’s beyond their target, and now Connecticut police are looking for one hunter who failed to do just that.
Investigators looking for a hunter who on Monday, while shooting at a deer, and trailing it through the yards of private homes, had his fired bullet smash through a window and land inside a resident’s home. … Guilford Police Department Chief Warren “Butch” Hyatt confirmed for Patch that his officers are working with state environmental police in trying to identify and locate the hunter.
So this guy was close to private homes, apparently close enough that the resident with a new bullet hole in her home to see, and was traipsing through people’s yards and firing far too close to homes.
Folks, this is how you get laws on the books. It’s not the person who has to shoot out of some life or death situation that spurs lawmakers to ban people from doing things, it’s the idiots who pull things like this.
To be fair, though, I suspect that calling this person a hunter is far too generous. If they were going through people’s private property like this, I suspect they’re more of a poacher than a hunter. Maybe I’m wrong, but they’re definitely irresponsible and dangerous.
While no one was injured, that’s from luck more than anything. That’s why we have rules for proper gun handling, to prevent things like this from happening and to prevent them from being far more tragic than a few home repairs. Patching windows and holes in walls are easy. Patching holes in people is a bit messier.
My hope is that police find the individual responsible and prosecute him for his carelessness if nothing else.
Someone could have been injured or killed, and while I like venison as much as the next guy and more than a lot of folks, it’s not worth accidentally killing someone to get it. These kinds of actions need to be called out and denounced, which I’m more than happy to do. This is not how the hunting community acts and it’s not how gun owners should act.
With luck, the individual will be found, arrested, and prosecuted. Then he’ll have the opportunity to tell his side in a court of law.
I also suspect he’ll be forking over some money for repairs should they find him, too.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--80-Year-Old Armed Citizen Teaches Carjackers Valuable Life Lesson

Humans don ’ t develop on a linear path .
We start out small and weak and slowly get bigger and stronger .
Then , around our 20s or 30s , we hit a peak and begin to degrade a bit as we age .
While some get stronger later in life through intense work , that ’ s the exception rather than the rule .
By the time we ’ re good and elderly , we ’ re nowhere near as physically strong as we used to be .
Luckily , we live in a world where firearms exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves .
That ’ s precisely what an 80-year-old man recently did .
Investigators said an 80-year-old Pensacola , Florida , man walked outside to lock his cars just after 11 p.m. Tuesday when two males approached him and demanded his car , WEAR-TV reported .
One of the suspects pulled a gun on the elderly victim , WKRG-TV reported .
But it turns out their target came prepared .
Police said the homeowner grabbed his concealed weapon — for which he has a permit — and opened fire , WEAR reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that one of the victims turned up at a house with a gunshot wound .
The second suspect got away , WEAR reported .
Well , it looks like both suspects have an opportunity to step back and evaluate their life choices , now doesn ’ t it ?
Now , don ’ t get me wrong .
I ’ d have loved it if the piece of filth with the gun had found himself planted in the local cemetery for his actions , but in a way , him being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for other criminals .
After all , bad guys are predators .
They like to look for easy prey , people like 80-year-old guys in Florida .
And that ’ s why owning and carrying a gun is so important .
Even an armed criminal is likely to run from an armed citizen defending themselves .
While I often point out that bad guys set the terms of engagement , the truth is that the armed citizen is likely the more tenacious side .
After all , escape is usually not really an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their lives to defend .
Putting up a fight really does seem to be the best option when faced with an armed criminal , and this gentleman did fight .
As a result , he went home that night and at least one of the thugs went to the hospital .
Sure , another got away , but he ’ s going to have that memory of damn near being lit up by some old guy who didn ’ t want to give up his cars or his life .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so important .
Some prosecutor after the fact can ’ t decide that no , the citizen could have escaped and should have tried first .
No , he ’ s protected from that kind of prosecutorial stupidity thanks to Florida ’ s much-maligned Stand Your Ground law , as he should be .
Personally , I love these kinds of stories .
Guns don ’ t make men evil .
They don ’ t create criminals where none existed previously .
They do , however , give people who may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edge that allows them to protect themselves .

Humans don’t develop on a linear path. We start out small and weak and slowly get bigger and stronger. Then, around our 20s or 30s, we hit a peak and begin to degrade a bit as we age. While some get stronger later in life through intense work, that’s the exception rather than the rule. By the time we’re good and elderly, we’re nowhere near as physically strong as we used to be.
Luckily, we live in a world where firearms exist and we can use them to defend ourselves. That’s precisely what an 80-year-old man recently did.
Investigators said an 80-year-old Pensacola, Florida, man walked outside to lock his cars just after 11 p.m. Tuesday when two males approached him and demanded his car, WEAR-TV reported. One of the suspects pulled a gun on the elderly victim, WKRG-TV reported. But it turns out their target came prepared. Police said the homeowner grabbed his concealed weapon — for which he has a permit — and opened fire, WEAR reported. Both suspects ran off, WKRG said, adding that one of the victims turned up at a house with a gunshot wound. The second suspect got away, WEAR reported.
Well, it looks like both suspects have an opportunity to step back and evaluate their life choices, now doesn’t it?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’d have loved it if the piece of filth with the gun had found himself planted in the local cemetery for his actions, but in a way, him being wounded can serve as a valuable lesson for other criminals. After all, bad guys are predators. They like to look for easy prey, people like 80-year-old guys in Florida.
And that’s why owning and carrying a gun is so important.
Even an armed criminal is likely to run from an armed citizen defending themselves. While I often point out that bad guys set the terms of engagement, the truth is that the armed citizen is likely the more tenacious side. After all, escape is usually not really an option for the armed citizen. They have their lives to defend.
Putting up a fight really does seem to be the best option when faced with an armed criminal, and this gentleman did fight. As a result, he went home that night and at least one of the thugs went to the hospital. Sure, another got away, but he’s going to have that memory of damn near being lit up by some old guy who didn’t want to give up his cars or his life.
This is also why Stand Your Ground laws are so important. Some prosecutor after the fact can’t decide that no, the citizen could have escaped and should have tried first. No, he’s protected from that kind of prosecutorial stupidity thanks to Florida’s much-maligned Stand Your Ground law, as he should be.
Personally, I love these kinds of stories. Guns don’t make men evil. They don’t create criminals where none existed previously. They do, however, give people who may not be physically able to meet physical threats an edge that allows them to protect themselves.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--Mayor Wants Officer Fired For Failing To Turn On Body Cam

2020 has not been a great year to be a police officer .
Not only have you been considered an essential worker , thus having to go out and deal with people during the worst of the pandemic , but then the actions of a small handful of police officers led to the biggest outpouring of anti-police sentiment I ’ ve ever seen .
However , there are things you need to do if you ’ re a police officer in such an environment .
First and foremost , you need to make damn sure you do everything by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be overly restrained in your use of force because in an era when everyone has a cell phone with a camera .
It also means that if your department has body cams , you damn sure need to use them to keep yourself out of hot water .
For a police officer in the Casey Goodson case , failing to do so might just cost him his job .
Police in Columbus , Ohio , fatally shot an unarmed Black man early Tuesday but did not have their body cameras turned on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call for the removal of the officer who opened fire .
Mayor Andrew Ginther said he was greatly disturbed by the fact that the cameras were not recording the incident and called it “ unacceptable ” on the part of the officers involved .
“ So let me be clear , if you ’ re not going to turn on your body-worn camera , you can not serve and protect the people of Columbus , ” Ginther said .
“ I have asked Chief Quinlan to remove the officer involved of duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The shooting happened in the 1000 block of Oberlin Drive and occurred more than two weeks after law enforcement fatally shot 23-year-old Black man Casey Goodson as he entered his grandmother ’ s home .
The investigation into his death , which drew national headlines , is ongoing .
Two officers in separate cars responded to a disturbance call about a running vehicle on Tuesday at around 1:30 a.m. , where they found the 47-year-old man in the garage .
Neither responding officer activated their body-worn cameras until immediately after the shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look back ” function , the shooting was captured on video , police said .
So , probably not the best move for either officer .
I ’ d think that turning on your body cam would become an automatic upon existing your vehicle , but apparently not .
Regardless , because they failed to , the mayor wants the officer ’ s badge .
I understand that .
However , the officer knew about the “ look back ” feature and turned the cam on just after the shooting , knowing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely grounds for disciplinary action , I ’ m not sure it warrants termination in and of itself .
After all , it ’ s clear that he wasn ’ t necessarily trying to hide his actions during the shooting .
Not if he did indeed know about the “ look back ” feature , anyway .
He knew it would be recorded and there would still be a record of his actions .
Now , that ’ s not to say any wrongdoing from the shooting shouldn ’ t be plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
That ’ s obvious in my mind .
I ’ m just not sure the mayor is right to call for his termination over this .
Then again , as I noted previously , I ’ d think turning on the body cam upon exiting the vehicle should be automatic .
Failing to do so is often suggestive of trying to hide one ’ s activities , so I don ’ t know .
Much of it really has to do with what the policies on the books say .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The police chief answers to the mayor , so he ’ s likely to do what the mayor says so long as Ohio ’ s employment laws don ’ t specifically prevent him from doing so .
It doesn ’ t really matter all that much whether the firing is warranted or not in such a case .
It looks like right or wrong , the officer is going to be out of a job before the investigation into the shooting is complete .

2020 has not been a great year to be a police officer. Not only have you been considered an essential worker, thus having to go out and deal with people during the worst of the pandemic, but then the actions of a small handful of police officers led to the biggest outpouring of anti-police sentiment I’ve ever seen.
However, there are things you need to do if you’re a police officer in such an environment. First and foremost, you need to make damn sure you do everything by the book. If anything, you need to be overly restrained in your use of force because in an era when everyone has a cell phone with a camera.
It also means that if your department has body cams, you damn sure need to use them to keep yourself out of hot water.
For a police officer in the Casey Goodson case, failing to do so might just cost him his job.
Police in Columbus, Ohio, fatally shot an unarmed Black man early Tuesday but did not have their body cameras turned on during the incident, leading the mayor to call for the removal of the officer who opened fire. Mayor Andrew Ginther said he was greatly disturbed by the fact that the cameras were not recording the incident and called it “unacceptable” on the part of the officers involved. “So let me be clear, if you’re not going to turn on your body-worn camera, you cannot serve and protect the people of Columbus,” Ginther said. “I have asked Chief Quinlan to remove the officer involved of duty and turn in his badge and gun.” The shooting happened in the 1000 block of Oberlin Drive and occurred more than two weeks after law enforcement fatally shot 23-year-old Black man Casey Goodson as he entered his grandmother’s home. The investigation into his death, which drew national headlines, is ongoing. Two officers in separate cars responded to a disturbance call about a running vehicle on Tuesday at around 1:30 a.m., where they found the 47-year-old man in the garage. … Neither responding officer activated their body-worn cameras until immediately after the shooting, but because of a 60-second “look back” function, the shooting was captured on video, police said.
So, probably not the best move for either officer. I’d think that turning on your body cam would become an automatic upon existing your vehicle, but apparently not.
Regardless, because they failed to, the mayor wants the officer’s badge.
I understand that. However, the officer knew about the “look back” feature and turned the cam on just after the shooting, knowing it would be recorded, so while this is likely grounds for disciplinary action, I’m not sure it warrants termination in and of itself.
After all, it’s clear that he wasn’t necessarily trying to hide his actions during the shooting. Not if he did indeed know about the “look back” feature, anyway. He knew it would be recorded and there would still be a record of his actions.
Now, that’s not to say any wrongdoing from the shooting shouldn’t be plenty to get him fired in the first place. That’s obvious in my mind. I’m just not sure the mayor is right to call for his termination over this.
Then again, as I noted previously, I’d think turning on the body cam upon exiting the vehicle should be automatic. Failing to do so is often suggestive of trying to hide one’s activities, so I don’t know.
Much of it really has to do with what the policies on the books say.
Of course, little of that matters. The police chief answers to the mayor, so he’s likely to do what the mayor says so long as Ohio’s employment laws don’t specifically prevent him from doing so. It doesn’t really matter all that much whether the firing is warranted or not in such a case.
It looks like right or wrong, the officer is going to be out of a job before the investigation into the shooting is complete.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--Chicago's Carjackings Leading To More Armed Citizens

2020 will go down as one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of crime in Chicago , which is saying a lot .
Homicides and shootings are soaring , and carjackings in the city have more than doubled compared to 2019 .
In one recent case , a man named Shuai Guan was shot and killed even though he handed over the keys to his Jeep .
Apparently angered by the fact that the car had a manual and not an automatic transmission , Guan was gunned down in cold blood .
His widow , Hongyu Bai @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell their 4-year old child that his father isn ’ t going to be here this Christmas .
The investigation reveals that Guan double-parked to check the mail .
Several gunmen pulled up in two stolen cars , demanding his Jeep .
He gave up the keys and the Jeep then backed away .
“ No , they didn ’ t take the car , ” Bai said .
“ They don ’ t know how to drive the car.
” Mad at that fact , the carjackers fired a single shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I don ’ t know what the police can do , ” Bai said .
According to Alderman Patrick Daley Thompson , who represents the neighborhood where Shuai Guan was murdered says the increase in crime is leading more residents to arm up in self-defense .
“ I know a lot of my neighbors and friends all are getting concealed carry , and you know , this will be like the Wild West soon – everyone ’ s going to have it , and people are going to start using it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what the scary point.
” The scary point is people exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense ?
It seems to me that the really scary thing is that innocent people are at the mercy of violent criminals , and they know that the Chicago PD isn ’ t likely to be right there if they ’ re accosted by a mugger or a carjacker on the streets .
In response to the rise in carjackings , the city ’ s police department is telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys and remember your vehicle is just property ; it ’ s not worth risking your safety or life.
” That ’ s no guarantee of survival .
Just ask Hongyu Bai or her son .
I can ’ t trust that the guy trying to rob me at gunpoint isn ’ t going to shoot me after he gets what he wants .
Compliance doesn ’ t guarantee survival any more than simply carrying a concealed firearm does .
Having a firearm for self-defense at least gives you options .
It gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to your spouse and child , instead of being taken to the morgue .
Contrary to what Ald .
Thompson says , Chicago won ’ t be like the Wild West soon .
It ’ s the Wild West right now , and the surge in demand for concealed carry licenses is a reaction to the lawlessness , not a cause .
Thompson shouldn ’ t be afraid of his friends and neighbors obtaining their carry license .
He should be ashamed that he and his colleagues haven ’ t been able or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago .

2020 will go down as one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of crime in Chicago, which is saying a lot. Homicides and shootings are soaring, and carjackings in the city have more than doubled compared to 2019. In one recent case, a man named Shuai Guan was shot and killed even though he handed over the keys to his Jeep. Apparently angered by the fact that the car had a manual and not an automatic transmission, Guan was gunned down in cold blood. His widow, Hongyu Bai, now has to figure out how to tell their 4-year old child that his father isn’t going to be here this Christmas.
The investigation reveals that Guan double-parked to check the mail. Several gunmen pulled up in two stolen cars, demanding his Jeep. He gave up the keys and the Jeep then backed away. “No, they didn’t take the car,” Bai said. “They don’t know how to drive the car.” Mad at that fact, the carjackers fired a single shot, leaving a 4-year-old without a father. “I don’t know what the police can do,” Bai said.
According to Alderman Patrick Daley Thompson, who represents the neighborhood where Shuai Guan was murdered says the increase in crime is leading more residents to arm up in self-defense.
“I know a lot of my neighbors and friends all are getting concealed carry, and you know, this will be like the Wild West soon – everyone’s going to have it, and people are going to start using it,” Thompson said, “and that’s what the scary point.”
The scary point is people exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense? It seems to me that the really scary thing is that innocent people are at the mercy of violent criminals, and they know that the Chicago PD isn’t likely to be right there if they’re accosted by a mugger or a carjacker on the streets.
In response to the rise in carjackings, the city’s police department is telling residents to “cooperate with the bad guys and remember your vehicle is just property; it’s not worth risking your safety or life.” That’s no guarantee of survival. Just ask Hongyu Bai or her son.
I can’t trust that the guy trying to rob me at gunpoint isn’t going to shoot me after he gets what he wants. Compliance doesn’t guarantee survival any more than simply carrying a concealed firearm does. Having a firearm for self-defense at least gives you options. It gives you a fighting chance to come home to your spouse and child, instead of being taken to the morgue.
Contrary to what Ald. Thompson says, Chicago won’t be like the Wild West soon. It’s the Wild West right now, and the surge in demand for concealed carry licenses is a reaction to the lawlessness, not a cause. Thompson shouldn’t be afraid of his friends and neighbors obtaining their carry license. He should be ashamed that he and his colleagues haven’t been able or willing to seriously address the growing violence in Chicago.


bearingarms--2020-12-24--After Presidential Pardon, Rickey Kanter Will Get His Gun Rights Back

If the name Rickey Kanter isn ’ t familiar to you , here ’ s a quick refresher .
Kanter was convicted of one count of mail fraud for selling shoe inserts that he falsely claimed were Medicaid compliant .
After serving a year in federal prison , Kanter sued to have his right to keep and bear arms restored , and then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him when the case came before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2019 .
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings , Barrett called the case one of the most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was on the losing side of the 2-1 decision that denied Kanter the relief he sought .
Barrett had argued that a felony conviction alone isn ’ t enough reason to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms , and that an examination of the text , history , and tradition of the Second Amendment shows us that the proper standard should be one of “ dangerousness.
” While Barrett may not have won the legal argument with her colleagues , the attention that she gave to Kanter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s eye , because on Wednesday Rickey Kanter received a full presidential pardon , restoring his Second Amendment rights in the process .
Mr. Kanter was the owner and CEO of Dr .
Comfort , a company which manufactures special shoes and inserts for diabetics .
Although there was no evidence that Dr.
Comfort ’ s customers were ever harmed by the company ’ s shoe inserts , the company and Mr. Kanter settled claims in civil court regarding shoe inserts that were technically non-compliant with Medicare regulations .
It was only after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a criminal action against Mr. Kanter .
Mr. Kanter pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and completed his sentence of one year and one day in 2012 .
Since his period of incarceration , Mr. Kanter has been a model member of his community .
There ’ s no way to know for sure whether Barrett ’ s opinion in the case and the attention she gave it during her confirmation hearings were the impetus for Trump ’ s pardon , but over at Reason , law professor Josh Blackmon spotted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s description of Kanter ’ s case .
the pardon statement for Kanter was missing something : almost every other pardon statement indicated who supported the pardon .
For example : • President Trump granted a full pardon to James Kassouf .
This pardon is supported by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , Representative David Joyce , Representative Darrell Issa , Pastor Darrell Scott , and many friends in Northeast Ohio .
• President Trump granted a full pardon to Christopher Wade .
Wade ’ s pardon is supported by Isaac Perlmutter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former law-enforcement officials .
• President Trump granted John Tate and Jesse Benton full pardons .
This action is supported by Senator Rand Paul and Lee Goodman , former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission But Kanter ’ s pardon did not indicate who supported it .
Only three other pardon statements did not indicate support .
And all of them were obvious political allies : Roger Stone , Paul Manafort , and Margaret Hunter ( Rep. Duncan Hunter ’ s wife ) .
Again , it ’ s not proof of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting that Kanter received a pardon without the White House indicating the request came from any specific individuals .
With the pardon in place Kanter should soon have his Second Amendment rights restored .
It may not have happened in the courts , but I do believe that justice has been done .
Now if we can only get a pardon for Lil Wayne…

If the name Rickey Kanter isn’t familiar to you, here’s a quick refresher. Kanter was convicted of one count of mail fraud for selling shoe inserts that he falsely claimed were Medicaid compliant. After serving a year in federal prison, Kanter sued to have his right to keep and bear arms restored, and then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him when the case came before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2019.
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Barrett called the case one of the most important in her career, even though she was on the losing side of the 2-1 decision that denied Kanter the relief he sought. Barrett had argued that a felony conviction alone isn’t enough reason to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms, and that an examination of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment shows us that the proper standard should be one of “dangerousness.”
While Barrett may not have won the legal argument with her colleagues, the attention that she gave to Kanter’s case apparently caught President Donald Trump’s eye, because on Wednesday Rickey Kanter received a full presidential pardon, restoring his Second Amendment rights in the process.
Mr. Kanter was the owner and CEO of Dr. Comfort, a company which manufactures special shoes and inserts for diabetics. Although there was no evidence that Dr. Comfort’s customers were ever harmed by the company’s shoe inserts, the company and Mr. Kanter settled claims in civil court regarding shoe inserts that were technically non-compliant with Medicare regulations. It was only after this point when the Federal Government filed a criminal action against Mr. Kanter. Mr. Kanter pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and completed his sentence of one year and one day in 2012. Since his period of incarceration, Mr. Kanter has been a model member of his community.
There’s no way to know for sure whether Barrett’s opinion in the case and the attention she gave it during her confirmation hearings were the impetus for Trump’s pardon, but over at Reason, law professor Josh Blackmon spotted something interesting about the White House’s description of Kanter’s case.
the pardon statement for Kanter was missing something: almost every other pardon statement indicated who supported the pardon. For example: President Trump granted a full pardon to James Kassouf. This pardon is supported by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Representative David Joyce, Representative Darrell Issa, Pastor Darrell Scott, and many friends in Northeast Ohio.
President Trump granted a full pardon to Christopher Wade. Wade’s pardon is supported by Isaac Perlmutter, Mark Templeton, and numerous current and former law-enforcement officials.
President Trump granted John Tate and Jesse Benton full pardons. This action is supported by Senator Rand Paul and Lee Goodman, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission But Kanter’s pardon did not indicate who supported it. Only three other pardon statements did not indicate support. And all of them were obvious political allies: Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Margaret Hunter (Rep. Duncan Hunter’s wife).
Again, it’s not proof of anything, but it’s pretty interesting that Kanter received a pardon without the White House indicating the request came from any specific individuals.
With the pardon in place Kanter should soon have his Second Amendment rights restored. It may not have happened in the courts, but I do believe that justice has been done. Now if we can only get a pardon for Lil Wayne…


bearingarms--2020-12-24--Is NYPD Slow-Walking Gun Permit Applications?

Is it short staffing or slow-walking of gun permit applications causing a backlog of gun permit applications in New York City ?
It could be combination of the two , but one this is for certain ; New Yorkers are being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms thanks to the long delays and low approval rates for the permit required to keep a gun in their home .
According to the New York Post , the number of permit applications has more than tripled this year compared to 2019 , with over 8,000 license applications filed since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on the other hand , has declined compared to last year .
In 2019 1,778 of the 2,562 of the applications were approved , but so far this year just 1,087 of the 8,088 applications have received an okay .
Recent weeks have also seen a series of disturbing incidents that led one police source to say that “ it ’ s not surprising more people want guns.
” “ People are getting pushed on the subway tracks .
People are getting robbed .
It ’ s because crime is going up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store owners said they ’ ve been hearing complaints from would-be customers whose applications seem to have disappeared into limbo at the NYPD ’ s License Division , which was rocked by a corruption scandal in 2017 .
“ They just stopped doing the investigations and the processing , ” said a city gun dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity .
“ It ’ s a slowdown across the board .
It ’ s every person that applies .
Every day , I ’ m speaking to frustrated people.
” One Long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s estimating an 18-month wait for approval for a premises license .
Think about that for a second .
The Supreme Court declared in Heller that the core purpose of our Second Amendment rights is self-defense in the home , but in New York City that right is simply off-limits to the average resident .
Even the chosen few have to wait for months on end for a government permission slip to exercise their right to keep a gun in the home , but the vast majority of applicants are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that right at all .
An NYPD source familiar with the situation said the License Division was too short-staffed to deal with the flood of new applications and also blamed an unofficial reluctance to process them .
“ The politicians are generally against giving licenses , to begin with , so it ’ s not a priority , ” the source said .
That hostility towards the Second Amendment on the part of politicians is nothing new , which is one of the reasons why , even though license applications have tripled this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low considering New York City ’ s population .
Most residents know darn well that even if they apply for permission to keep a gun in their home they ’ re not likely to get it .
The process itself involves turning over everything from tax returns to character witnesses , and since the NYPD had broad discretion to approve or deny applications for any reason or no reason at all , there ’ s a chilling effect on would-be applicants across the five boroughs .
Thankfully , there ’ s already a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ ll hopefully see some legal progress in that case in the new year .
For now , though , the city continues to do everything possible to stand between you and your right to keep and bear arms .

Is it short staffing or slow-walking of gun permit applications causing a backlog of gun permit applications in New York City? It could be combination of the two, but one this is for certain; New Yorkers are being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms thanks to the long delays and low approval rates for the permit required to keep a gun in their home.
According to the New York Post, the number of permit applications has more than tripled this year compared to 2019, with over 8,000 license applications filed since March. The number of permit approvals, on the other hand, has declined compared to last year.
In 2019 1,778 of the 2,562 of the applications were approved, but so far this year just 1,087 of the 8,088 applications have received an okay.
Recent weeks have also seen a series of disturbing incidents that led one police source to say that “it’s not surprising more people want guns.” “People are getting pushed on the subway tracks. People are getting robbed. It’s because crime is going up,” the cop said. “People want to protect themselves.” Gun store owners said they’ve been hearing complaints from would-be customers whose applications seem to have disappeared into limbo at the NYPD’s License Division, which was rocked by a corruption scandal in 2017. “They just stopped doing the investigations and the processing,” said a city gun dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s a slowdown across the board. It’s every person that applies. Every day, I’m speaking to frustrated people.”
One Long Island firearms retailer even told the Post that he’s estimating an 18-month wait for approval for a premises license.
Think about that for a second. The Supreme Court declared in Heller that the core purpose of our Second Amendment rights is self-defense in the home, but in New York City that right is simply off-limits to the average resident. Even the chosen few have to wait for months on end for a government permission slip to exercise their right to keep a gun in the home, but the vast majority of applicants are simply told they can’t exercise that right at all.
An NYPD source familiar with the situation said the License Division was too short-staffed to deal with the flood of new applications and also blamed an unofficial reluctance to process them. “The politicians are generally against giving licenses, to begin with, so it’s not a priority,” the source said.
That hostility towards the Second Amendment on the part of politicians is nothing new, which is one of the reasons why, even though license applications have tripled this year, they’re still pretty low considering New York City’s population. Most residents know darn well that even if they apply for permission to keep a gun in their home they’re not likely to get it.
The process itself involves turning over everything from tax returns to character witnesses, and since the NYPD had broad discretion to approve or deny applications for any reason or no reason at all, there’s a chilling effect on would-be applicants across the five boroughs.
Thankfully, there’s already a lawsuit underway challenging those licensing laws, and we’ll hopefully see some legal progress in that case in the new year. For now, though, the city continues to do everything possible to stand between you and your right to keep and bear arms.