bearingarms--2020-04-17--Crime In Detroit Down Amid COVID-19, But It Means Nothing

Detroit has a reputation for being one of the roughest cities in America .
It ’ s fairly depressed economically with high poverty and high crime .
Parts of the city are abandoned and much of it looks like a dystopian nightmare .
Yet , it seems that out of the darkness of COVID-19 , there is some good news .
Local 4 Defenders are taking a close look at crime in Detroit neighborhoods before and after the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) outbreak hit the city .
Before the pandemic reached Michigan , Detroit violent crime was up 13 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent crime is still up 5 % from last year — but down a considerable amount from a few weeks ago , when COVID-19 took over the city .
Detroit police tells Local 4 Defenders that they see about 590 violent and property crimes each week .
Since mid-March when the COVID-19 outbreak intensified , however , that number has decreased by about 20 % to around 480 crimes each week .
Fantastic news , but not surprising , right ?
Well , not overly surprising , but it also doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago isn ’ t exactly down .
While the two cities aren ’ t exactly twins , it does suggest that maybe this is a bit more complicated than we ’ d like to make it .
Then again , crime usually is .
While crime being down due to COVID-19 makes some degree of sense , it also suggests that the very people who normally ignore rules and regulations as their usual course are now suddenly complying with them .
That strains the imagination something fierce .
More likely , variations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are complying are compounded with how easy it is for a criminal to disappear on the streets and many other potential factors all contribute to complicate an already complicated problem .
Further , we can ’ t be 100 percent certain that the slow-down in Detriot and other places is because of COVID-19 .
We ’ re pretty sure , of course , but we can ’ t be certain .
Then , of course , there ’ s the fact that while crime statistics show it ’ s down , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still being victimized and will keep being victimized , unfortunately .
Worse , they ’ re being victimized at a time when they already feel powerless .
That makes the potential impact worse for them .
So , the long and the short of is it , as usual , no one really knows anything and you still need to watch yourself .
The police have a lot more to worry about than trying to protect you , which they can ’ t do anyway .
It ’ s on you to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more uncertain .
For all the platitudes about how we ’ re all in this together , we ’ re not .
We ’ re each going through this either alone or with our families .
More to the point , though , the criminals have always been out for themselves .
This virus didn ’ t change that .
No virus will .
While crime statistics may suggest fewer violent crimes , don ’ t let yourself get lulled into believing all is safe except for the virus .
Nothing could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bad guys probably wouldn ’ t mind you believing otherwise .

Detroit has a reputation for being one of the roughest cities in America. It’s fairly depressed economically with high poverty and high crime. Parts of the city are abandoned and much of it looks like a dystopian nightmare.
Yet, it seems that out of the darkness of COVID-19, there is some good news.
Local 4 Defenders are taking a close look at crime in Detroit neighborhoods before and after the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak hit the city. Before the pandemic reached Michigan, Detroit violent crime was up 13% compared to last year. Now, violent crime is still up 5% from last year — but down a considerable amount from a few weeks ago, when COVID-19 took over the city. … Detroit police tells Local 4 Defenders that they see about 590 violent and property crimes each week. Since mid-March when the COVID-19 outbreak intensified, however, that number has decreased by about 20% to around 480 crimes each week.
Fantastic news, but not surprising, right?
Well, not overly surprising, but it also doesn’t really mean anything.
Violent crime in Chicago isn’t exactly down. While the two cities aren’t exactly twins, it does suggest that maybe this is a bit more complicated than we’d like to make it.
Then again, crime usually is.
While crime being down due to COVID-19 makes some degree of sense, it also suggests that the very people who normally ignore rules and regulations as their usual course are now suddenly complying with them. That strains the imagination something fierce.
More likely, variations in how the rules are worded and how people are complying are compounded with how easy it is for a criminal to disappear on the streets and many other potential factors all contribute to complicate an already complicated problem.
Further, we can’t be 100 percent certain that the slow-down in Detriot and other places is because of COVID-19. We’re pretty sure, of course, but we can’t be certain.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that while crime statistics show it’s down, it’s not gone. People are still being victimized and will keep being victimized, unfortunately. Worse, they’re being victimized at a time when they already feel powerless. That makes the potential impact worse for them.
So, the long and the short of is it, as usual, no one really knows anything and you still need to watch yourself. The police have a lot more to worry about than trying to protect you, which they can’t do anyway. It’s on you to look out for yourself as uncertain times become even more uncertain.
For all the platitudes about how we’re all in this together, we’re not. We’re each going through this either alone or with our families. More to the point, though, the criminals have always been out for themselves. This virus didn’t change that. No virus will.
While crime statistics may suggest fewer violent crimes, don’t let yourself get lulled into believing all is safe except for the virus. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the bad guys probably wouldn’t mind you believing otherwise.


bearingarms--2020-04-17--Report Details Major Problems In Baltimore PD Homicide Unit

Baltimore , Maryland ’ s homicide rate has been going in the wrong direction for years now , and a report recently obtained by the Baltimore Sun reveals that , as far back as 2016 police officials were aware of issues in the Baltimore Police ’ s homicide unit that led to dozens of criminals getting away with murder .
The report came from the Police Executive Research Forum , and according to the Sun it detailed the problems that were plaguing the unit and preventing it from operating effectively .
Rather than act on the report ’ s recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brass in the police department ignored them , even as the city ’ s clearance rate for homicides continued to drop , and the murder rates continued to climb .
Keep in mind that Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country .
Back in 2013 , then-governor Martin O ’ Malley signed the Firearms Safety Act into law and promised that the “ common sense ” legislation would save lives .
Instead , Baltimore street criminals ignored the new laws requiring background checks for all gun sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other restrictions aimed at legal gun owners , and by 2015 the city saw the number of murders reach more than 300 for the first time in several years .
They ’ ve stayed above that level ever since , and the city ’ s per capita homicide rate is now as high as it was during the late 1980s and early 1990s , at the height of the crack cocaine-fueled drug wars .
As it turns out , gun control wasn ’ t the magic solution that O ’ Malley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
When criminals believe they can get away with murder , it tends to lead to more murders , and that ’ s exactly what ’ s happened in Baltimore .
The city ’ s latest police commissioner says he ’ s planning on implementing some of the changes recommended in the PERF report , and hopefully those changes will be effective in improving the abysmal clearance rate for homicides .
Unfortunately too many lawmakers in Annapolis are still convinced that the way to reduce violent crime is to reduce the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as that mentality still holds sway the good people in the city ’ s worst neighborhoods are going to continue to suffer .

Baltimore, Maryland’s homicide rate has been going in the wrong direction for years now, and a report recently obtained by the Baltimore Sun reveals that, as far back as 2016 police officials were aware of issues in the Baltimore Police’s homicide unit that led to dozens of criminals getting away with murder.
The report came from the Police Executive Research Forum, and according to the Sun it detailed the problems that were plaguing the unit and preventing it from operating effectively.
There were too few detectives with too little training, supervision and equipment. And they had more cases than they could handle. Instead of catching killers, they were placing unsolved investigations on the back burner within a matter of weeks, with no effective process for dealing with the cold cases that inevitably piled up. “Given Baltimore’s recent rise in homicides, it is more important than ever that these crimes be investigated thoroughly and according to best practices,” the report read. Solving cases was critical, it said, not only to bring perpetrators to justice but to “help prevent future homicides by eliminating repeat offenders and reducing retaliation killings.”
Rather than act on the report’s recommendations, the Sun reports that the top brass in the police department ignored them, even as the city’s clearance rate for homicides continued to drop, and the murder rates continued to climb.
From 2015 to 2019, a stunning 1,660 people were killed in Baltimore. Just 654 cases were solved, a five-year clearance rate of less than 40%. The average clearance rate for similarly sized cities in 2018 was nearly 58%, according to the most recent FBI data. Baltimore’s was less than 43% that year. And last year Baltimore’s clearance rate was a dismal 31%. The rate includes cases cleared for reasons other than arrests, such as when suspects are killed themselves. Only 89 people were actually arrested for homicide last year, when Baltimore had 348 homicides.
Keep in mind that Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Back in 2013, then-governor Martin O’Malley signed the Firearms Safety Act into law and promised that the “common sense” legislation would save lives. Instead, Baltimore street criminals ignored the new laws requiring background checks for all gun sales, a ban on so-called assault weapons, and other restrictions aimed at legal gun owners, and by 2015 the city saw the number of murders reach more than 300 for the first time in several years. They’ve stayed above that level ever since, and the city’s per capita homicide rate is now as high as it was during the late 1980s and early 1990s, at the height of the crack cocaine-fueled drug wars.
As it turns out, gun control wasn’t the magic solution that O’Malley and other anti-gun politicians claimed it would be. When criminals believe they can get away with murder, it tends to lead to more murders, and that’s exactly what’s happened in Baltimore.
The city’s latest police commissioner says he’s planning on implementing some of the changes recommended in the PERF report, and hopefully those changes will be effective in improving the abysmal clearance rate for homicides. Unfortunately too many lawmakers in Annapolis are still convinced that the way to reduce violent crime is to reduce the number of legal gun owners, and as long as that mentality still holds sway the good people in the city’s worst neighborhoods are going to continue to suffer.


bearingarms--2020-04-17--COVID-19 May Threaten Constitutional Carry In Tennessee

For a while , it looked like constitutional carry was a slam dunk in Tennessee .
The governor wasn ’ t just on board , he was pushing for it .
His party controlled both chambers of the legislature .
The people of Tennessee were cool with it .
It was a perfect storm of what was needed to make constitutional carry a reality in the Volunteer State .
Then COVID-19 reached the shores of our fair nation .
While the virus has managed to spike a number of gun control bills , there ’ s a chance it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry in Tennessee .
In the 2020 legislative session in Tennessee , several bills were submitted , with considerable differences .
Then , the Covid-19 virus , or Wuhan Flu , caught the attention of the legacy media and federal , state , and local governments .
On 19 March , 2020 , the Tennessee legislature temporarily recessed , stopping legislative action .
Constitutional Carry , which had been endorsed by the Governor , the majority leader in the House , and the Majority leader in the Senate , is dead in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the session on 1 June .
From tenessean.com : Although lawmakers hope to return as early as June 1 , the continued uncertainty of coronavirus has led some members to wonder when it might be safe to return to Nashville to continue their business for the year .
The Tennesee legislature was scheduled to be in session from 14 January , 2020 , to 1 May , 2020 .
It is unknown how long the legislature may be in session after resuming the session on 1 June .
The legislature passed the budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentive for them to take up much work .
2020 is an election year , and legislators will wish to get out and campaign .
Republicans hold supermajorities in both houses , so Democrats have incentive to limit the session as much as possible .
Actions on HB2817 , and SB2671 were put on hold as of 18 and 17 of March , respectively .
This shows how events can derail the best laid plans .
No one planned for a pandemic to shut down the legislature for over two months .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to the legislature is unknown .
If it had been a priority , it could have been passed rather quickly .
And that is the real question .
If it ’ s a high enough priority , this could still happen for Tennesseans .
The thing is , it ’ s not overly likely .
To be sure , this is likely to be one of the least productive legislative sessions for every state in ages .
After all , just how many bills are actually going to be passed with legislatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills will get passed .
It just remains to be seen whether constitutional carry will be one of them .
However , the governor came out and acknowledged his desire to see this become law .
That suggests it may be a rather high priority , especially if it can be passed with minimal fuss .
So not all hope is gone .
Yet a lot of attention may also be focused on restoring the economy , which may draw attention away from something like constitutional carry .
At this point , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen a lot of gun control bills fall apart due to the virus , it ’ s not all roses on that front either .

For a while, it looked like constitutional carry was a slam dunk in Tennessee. The governor wasn’t just on board, he was pushing for it. His party controlled both chambers of the legislature. The people of Tennessee were cool with it. It was a perfect storm of what was needed to make constitutional carry a reality in the Volunteer State.
Then COVID-19 reached the shores of our fair nation.
While the virus has managed to spike a number of gun control bills, there’s a chance it might well do the same thing to constitutional carry in Tennessee.
In the 2020 legislative session in Tennessee, several bills were submitted, with considerable differences. Then, the Covid-19 virus, or Wuhan Flu, caught the attention of the legacy media and federal, state, and local governments. On 19 March, 2020, the Tennessee legislature temporarily recessed, stopping legislative action. Constitutional Carry, which had been endorsed by the Governor, the majority leader in the House, and the Majority leader in the Senate, is dead in the water. The legislature hopes to resume the session on 1 June. From tenessean.com: Although lawmakers hope to return as early as June 1, the continued uncertainty of coronavirus has led some members to wonder when it might be safe to return to Nashville to continue their business for the year. The Tennesee legislature was scheduled to be in session from 14 January, 2020, to 1 May, 2020. It is unknown how long the legislature may be in session after resuming the session on 1 June. The legislature passed the budget on 19 March; there is little incentive for them to take up much work. 2020 is an election year, and legislators will wish to get out and campaign. Republicans hold supermajorities in both houses, so Democrats have incentive to limit the session as much as possible. Actions on HB2817, and SB2671 were put on hold as of 18 and 17 of March, respectively. This shows how events can derail the best laid plans. No one planned for a pandemic to shut down the legislature for over two months. How high a priority passage of Constitutional Carry was to the legislature is unknown. If it had been a priority, it could have been passed rather quickly.
And that is the real question.
If it’s a high enough priority, this could still happen for Tennesseans. The thing is, it’s not overly likely.
To be sure, this is likely to be one of the least productive legislative sessions for every state in ages. After all, just how many bills are actually going to be passed with legislatures having such abbreviated sessions?
But some bills will get passed. It just remains to be seen whether constitutional carry will be one of them.
However, the governor came out and acknowledged his desire to see this become law. That suggests it may be a rather high priority, especially if it can be passed with minimal fuss. So not all hope is gone.
Yet a lot of attention may also be focused on restoring the economy, which may draw attention away from something like constitutional carry. At this point, it could go either way.
So while we’ve seen a lot of gun control bills fall apart due to the virus, it’s not all roses on that front either.


bearingarms--2020-04-17--California Mayor Urges Newsom To Keep Gun Stores Open

The mayor of Clovis , California has a message to Gov .
Gavin Newsom : hands off our gun stores .
In a new letter to Newsom , Mayor Drew Bessinger says that a statewide order closing gun stores would “ embolden criminals and frighten an already stressed citizenry , ” and urges the governor to reject calls for a statewide shutdown of firearms retailers coming from lawmakers like Assemblyman Miguel Santiago .
In his one-page letter , Bessinger expressed concern about the number of prisoners released from Fresno County jail under a state Judicial Council mandate .
Hundreds have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released because of the Judicial Council ’ s $ 0 bail order for many offenses .
“ These releases , coupled with the recent releases from California State Prison , will dramatically increase the potential that our citizens will be victimized by these criminals , ” Bessinger wrote .
“ These people have already shown an inability to live amongst their fellow citizens in a peaceful and lawful manner .
“ Taking our citizens ’ right to purchase firearms and ammunition under the guise of an emergency order would embolden criminals and frighten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Bessinger , who ’ s also the chief of police for Fresno Yosemite International Airport , says the city has been following the current COVID-19 emergency orders , but adds he has an “ ethical and moral responsibility to oppose any order that endangered the citizens ” he is sworn to protect .
During a Wednesday press conference , Newsom was asked about Santiago ’ s push to close gun stores , but reiterated that the decision to do so remain in the hands of local sheriffs and law enforcement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in southern California and the San Francisco area to order stores closed , though the closures have been met with lawsuits filed by a coalition of Second Amendment organizations including the National Rifle Association , Second Amendment Foundation , and the Firearms Policy Council .
In Clovis and the surrounding Fresno County area , gun stores remain open , and Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims told local website GV Wire that she has no plans to tell gun shops to shut down .
Thankfully , Sheriff Mims ’ attitude is shared by most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several judges have disagreed .
Earlier this week a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the city ’ s designation of gun stores as “ non-essential ” doesn ’ t violate the Second Amendment rights of city residents , and on April 6th a federal judge ruled that Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva could order gun shops to close .
Another U.S. District judge issued a similar ruling upholding the closure of gun stores in Ventura County .
For the time being , the right to acquire a firearm for self-defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you live in .
I suppose that , practically speaking , that ’ s slightly better than a statewide shutdown of gun stores , but it still leaves millions of Americans without the ability to acquire a firearm in order to exercise their right to keep and bear it .

The mayor of Clovis, California has a message to Gov. Gavin Newsom: hands off our gun stores. In a new letter to Newsom, Mayor Drew Bessinger says that a statewide order closing gun stores would “embolden criminals and frighten an already stressed citizenry,” and urges the governor to reject calls for a statewide shutdown of firearms retailers coming from lawmakers like Assemblyman Miguel Santiago.
In his one-page letter, Bessinger expressed concern about the number of prisoners released from Fresno County jail under a state Judicial Council mandate. Hundreds have either been cut loose or will be released because of the Judicial Council’s $0 bail order for many offenses. “These releases, coupled with the recent releases from California State Prison, will dramatically increase the potential that our citizens will be victimized by these criminals,” Bessinger wrote. “These people have already shown an inability to live amongst their fellow citizens in a peaceful and lawful manner. “Taking our citizens’ right to purchase firearms and ammunition under the guise of an emergency order would embolden criminals and frighten an already stressed citizenry,” Bessinger said.
Bessinger, who’s also the chief of police for Fresno Yosemite International Airport, says the city has been following the current COVID-19 emergency orders, but adds he has an “ethical and moral responsibility to oppose any order that endangered the citizens” he is sworn to protect.
During a Wednesday press conference, Newsom was asked about Santiago’s push to close gun stores, but reiterated that the decision to do so remain in the hands of local sheriffs and law enforcement. That patchwork approach has enabled some jurisdictions in southern California and the San Francisco area to order stores closed, though the closures have been met with lawsuits filed by a coalition of Second Amendment organizations including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Council.
In Clovis and the surrounding Fresno County area, gun stores remain open, and Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims told local website GV Wire that she has no plans to tell gun shops to shut down.
“I appreciate the governor deferring to local control on making these decisions. I believe businesses that sell weapons and ammunition to qualified community members are essential service businesses,” Mims told GV Wire.
Thankfully, Sheriff Mims’ attitude is shared by most sheriffs across the state, but unfortunately several judges have disagreed. Earlier this week a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the city’s designation of gun stores as “non-essential” doesn’t violate the Second Amendment rights of city residents, and on April 6th a federal judge ruled that Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva could order gun shops to close. Another U.S. District judge issued a similar ruling upholding the closure of gun stores in Ventura County.
For the time being, the right to acquire a firearm for self-defense in California is contingent on what county you live in. I suppose that, practically speaking, that’s slightly better than a statewide shutdown of gun stores, but it still leaves millions of Americans without the ability to acquire a firearm in order to exercise their right to keep and bear it.


bearingarms--2020-04-17--Retired CT Cop Sues State Over Gun License Revocation

A retired police officer in Connecticut is suing to get his gun license back , arguing that his right to keep and bear arms is being denied by the state ’ s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection .
John Brenner had his gun license revoked in 2019 after he was arrested on charges of breach of peace and impersonating a police officer in an incident at a Walgreens .
Those charges were ultimately dismissed a few months later , but Brenner was told he would have to wait years before he could apply to have his license returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , Brenner states he appealed the revocation of his gun permit after his criminal case was dismissed but was told his appeal would be subject to a review by the firearms licensing unit and would not be heard until May 2021 .
The hearing has since been moved to July 9 of this year .
Brenner , in his suit , claims his permit should immediately returned to him .
In the lawsuit , Brenner , who is now a nurse , argues that his work takes him into high crime neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to be able to protect himself while he ’ s on the job , especially now that the coronavirus pandemic is causing many law enforcement agencies to release inmates back on to the streets .
Given the fact that Brenner had all charges filed against him dismissed , it should be a no-brainer for his gun license to be restored .
The issue seems to be over the timing of the appeal , and it ’ s unclear why Brenner didn ’ t file suit earlier .
May of 2021 is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even July is a long time away when we ’ re talking about restoring a constitutional right , but the state will likely argue that , given the chaos caused by the coronavirus and Gov .
Ned Lamont ’ s stay-at-home order , a delay of several months is reasonable under the circumstances .
The state ’ s court system is already operating under limited hours , and many non-essential services have been curtailed .
Of course Brenner doesn ’ t consider his right to bear arms non-essential , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By the time Brenner gets his decision , there ’ s a good chance his July hearing will have already taken place .
Even if the judge hearing the case rules in Brenner ’ s favor , the state could always drag out an appeal .
I think Brenner has a pretty good case , but I ’ m not sure he ’ s going to get the relief he ’ s asking for , at least from the court system .

A retired police officer in Connecticut is suing to get his gun license back, arguing that his right to keep and bear arms is being denied by the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
John Brenner had his gun license revoked in 2019 after he was arrested on charges of breach of peace and impersonating a police officer in an incident at a Walgreens. Those charges were ultimately dismissed a few months later, but Brenner was told he would have to wait years before he could apply to have his license returned to him.
In the lawsuit filed Thursday, Brenner states he appealed the revocation of his gun permit after his criminal case was dismissed but was told his appeal would be subject to a review by the firearms licensing unit and would not be heard until May 2021. The hearing has since been moved to July 9 of this year. Brenner, in his suit, claims his permit should immediately returned to him.
In the lawsuit, Brenner, who is now a nurse, argues that his work takes him into high crime neighborhoods in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and he wants to be able to protect himself while he’s on the job, especially now that the coronavirus pandemic is causing many law enforcement agencies to release inmates back on to the streets.
“The deprivation of the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights is occurring at a time when law enforcement is only arresting for the most serious crimes and prisoners are being released due to COVID-19 health concerns,” the lawsuit states.
Given the fact that Brenner had all charges filed against him dismissed, it should be a no-brainer for his gun license to be restored. The issue seems to be over the timing of the appeal, and it’s unclear why Brenner didn’t file suit earlier. May of 2021 is a long time to wait for an appeal, and even July is a long time away when we’re talking about restoring a constitutional right, but the state will likely argue that, given the chaos caused by the coronavirus and Gov. Ned Lamont’s stay-at-home order, a delay of several months is reasonable under the circumstances.
The state’s court system is already operating under limited hours, and many non-essential services have been curtailed. Of course Brenner doesn’t consider his right to bear arms non-essential, but the question is whether a judge will agree. By the time Brenner gets his decision, there’s a good chance his July hearing will have already taken place. Even if the judge hearing the case rules in Brenner’s favor, the state could always drag out an appeal. I think Brenner has a pretty good case, but I’m not sure he’s going to get the relief he’s asking for, at least from the court system.


bearingarms--2020-04-17--Pelosi Delays "Violence Against Women" Act Reauthorization

The Violence Against Women Act is one of those things you expect the Democrats to back .
They always have in the past and they ’ re the ones who have been pushing to reauthorize it this time around .
It ’ s not difficult to understand why , either .
Most people really only know bills by their names , if that , and they don ’ t look deeper , which means something called the “ Violence Against Women Act ” is a slam dunk with the public .
However , there are things in these bills which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
The title isn ’ t everything .
The thing is , a lack of things in a bill can be a problem , too , apparently .
That ’ s why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is sitting on the Violence Against Women Act for the time being ; because of what ’ s not in there .
Stay-at-home orders to help contain the spread of the novel coronavirus have spurred fears about a wave of domestic violence , but the Violence Against Women Act , a key federal law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year ago during a gun control debate .
Senate Republicans wanted to renew the law as-is , but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , California Democrat , insisted that any reauthorization add “ boyfriend ” language that would strip gun rights from dating partners accused of domestic violence in a relationship .
Republicans said the idea needed more study , and the law lapsed during the stalemate .
“ Simply put , Republicans are willing to almost unanimously approve a clean reauthorization .
Democrats want to load it up with all kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass on their own , ” said Thomas Jipping , deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation .
Democrats said Republicans blocked a bill that had bipartisan support without offering an alternative .
Which they actually did .
They supported keeping the law as is .
For Democrats , though , that ’ s the same as not offering an alternative .
Then again , in their minds , they ’ re the ones calling all the shots and the Republicans just need to roll over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called “ boyfriend ” provision is that it opens a can of worms that has no business being opened .
For example , when is someone a boyfriend or not ?
What if , on a first date , a girl gets angry and begins acting out .
The guy tries to restrain her–maybe he ’ s worried about her hurting herself or him–but now he ’ s charged with assault for grabbing her .
Does he count as a boyfriend ?
If so , this one date has ruined his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ plan .
So no , that provision isn ’ t needed , and the fact that Pelosi isn ’ t willing to reauthorize the bill as is tells us that it ’ s not really about violence against women .
It ’ s about adding gun control provisions and expanding the list of people who are prohibited from buying guns .
She doesn ’ t care about women , she cares about eroding our Second Amendment protections to the point they ’ re non-existent .
Meanwhile , folks like me want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they not be abused by their partners , but by criminals or anyone else who would want to hurt them .
Tell me again who is being anti-woman ?

The Violence Against Women Act is one of those things you expect the Democrats to back. They always have in the past and they’re the ones who have been pushing to reauthorize it this time around. It’s not difficult to understand why, either. Most people really only know bills by their names, if that, and they don’t look deeper, which means something called the “Violence Against Women Act” is a slam dunk with the public.
However, there are things in these bills which can be problematic for a lot of people. The title isn’t everything.
The thing is, a lack of things in a bill can be a problem, too, apparently. That’s why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is sitting on the Violence Against Women Act for the time being; because of what’s not in there.
Stay-at-home orders to help contain the spread of the novel coronavirus have spurred fears about a wave of domestic violence, but the Violence Against Women Act, a key federal law on the matter, lapsed more than a year ago during a gun control debate. Senate Republicans wanted to renew the law as-is, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, insisted that any reauthorization add “boyfriend” language that would strip gun rights from dating partners accused of domestic violence in a relationship. Republicans said the idea needed more study, and the law lapsed during the stalemate. “Simply put, Republicans are willing to almost unanimously approve a clean reauthorization. Democrats want to load it up with all kinds of controversial provisions that probably couldn’t pass on their own,” said Thomas Jipping, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Democrats said Republicans blocked a bill that had bipartisan support without offering an alternative.
Which they actually did. They supported keeping the law as is.
For Democrats, though, that’s the same as not offering an alternative. Then again, in their minds, they’re the ones calling all the shots and the Republicans just need to roll over and take it.
No, that’s not projecting.
“Our calculation was that we’re in charge now, we can pass a bill that we think is a comprehensive bill to protect all women,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. “I’m hopeful that the Senate will take it up or ask to go to conference on it.”
One problem with the so-called “boyfriend” provision is that it opens a can of worms that has no business being opened. For example, when is someone a boyfriend or not? What if, on a first date, a girl gets angry and begins acting out. The guy tries to restrain her–maybe he’s worried about her hurting herself or him–but now he’s charged with assault for grabbing her. Does he count as a boyfriend?
If so, this one date has ruined his ability to own a firearm forever under the Democrats’ plan.
So no, that provision isn’t needed, and the fact that Pelosi isn’t willing to reauthorize the bill as is tells us that it’s not really about violence against women. It’s about adding gun control provisions and expanding the list of people who are prohibited from buying guns. She doesn’t care about women, she cares about eroding our Second Amendment protections to the point they’re non-existent.
Meanwhile, folks like me want these women armed so not only will they not be abused by their partners, but by criminals or anyone else who would want to hurt them.
Tell me again who is being anti-woman?


bearingarms--2020-04-18--CA Top Cop: Of Course Rights Can Be Curtailed In Times Of Emergency

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is defending stay-at-home orders that impact the constitutional rights of residents , including their ability to purchase a firearm .
In an interview with the Associated Press on Friday , Becerra said the U.S. and state constitution gives authorities broad leeway to “ take actions which protect our communities and the individuals in those communities.
” A lawsuit last month by libertarian economist and actor Ben Stein argues that California ’ s unprecedented stay-at-home orders have effectively created a “ soft police state ” that put 40 million residents under the equivalent of indefinite house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly .
And several groups representing gun owners or buyers have filed multiple lawsuits alleging that some officials are restricting Second Amendment and other constitutional rights .
People still have the right to practice their religion , Becerra said , but “ no one is entitled to endanger the life of someone else simply so that he can extend the exercise of his or her religion beyond means that would now start to imperil the health and life of another person.
” Becerra is right that state governments typically enjoy broad powers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers are still limited by the U.S. Constitution .
Becerra claims that people in California still have the ability to practice their religion , even if they can ’ t attend a church service in person , but that ’ s not the case when it comes to purchasing a firearm in some jurisdictions in California at the moment .
Church services can be moved online , and many congregations have shifted to drive-in services , allowing congregants to remain in their cars and listen to services through their car radio or speakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who ’ s litigating a freedom of religion challenge in California , says the state can mandate social distancing measures for those attending church , but simply shutting down services is beyond the constitutional scope of California ’ s police powers .
The violation is even more egregious when it comes the shutting down of gun stores in California .
In those cases , it ’ s impossible for gun owners to substitute a trip to the gun store by shopping online .
Even if they find a gun that they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s website , actually buying the firearm requires an in-person trip to the store to fill out the required paperwork and go through the NICS check .
California gun buyers must then return to the store ten days later in order to pick up the firearm that they ’ ve purchased .
There is simply no legal way for the average California resident to legally acquire a firearm without making a couple of trips to a gun store , so ordering gun stores closed goes beyond a mere regulation of the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringes on the rights of Californians hoping to keep and bear arms .
Unfortunately , judges hearing Second Amendment challenges to the stay-at-home orders that have declared gun stores “ non-essential ” in California have disagreed , stating that the temporary nature of the orders and the severity of the public health crisis the orders are meant to address outweigh any constitutional concerns .
Eventually , the decisions by those judges may be overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court , but that may be too late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of which may not be able to re-open once they ’ re given the green light to do so .

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is defending stay-at-home orders that impact the constitutional rights of residents, including their ability to purchase a firearm. In an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, Becerra said the U.S. and state constitution gives authorities broad leeway to “take actions which protect our communities and the individuals in those communities.”
A lawsuit last month by libertarian economist and actor Ben Stein argues that California’s unprecedented stay-at-home orders have effectively created a “soft police state” that put 40 million residents under the equivalent of indefinite house arrest, violating guarantees of freedom of assembly. And several groups representing gun owners or buyers have filed multiple lawsuits alleging that some officials are restricting Second Amendment and other constitutional rights. People still have the right to practice their religion, Becerra said, but “no one is entitled to endanger the life of someone else simply so that he can extend the exercise of his or her religion beyond means that would now start to imperil the health and life of another person.”
Becerra is right that state governments typically enjoy broad powers to address public health emergencies, but those powers are still limited by the U.S. Constitution. Becerra claims that people in California still have the ability to practice their religion, even if they can’t attend a church service in person, but that’s not the case when it comes to purchasing a firearm in some jurisdictions in California at the moment.
Church services can be moved online, and many congregations have shifted to drive-in services, allowing congregants to remain in their cars and listen to services through their car radio or speakers outside the church. Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, who’s litigating a freedom of religion challenge in California, says the state can mandate social distancing measures for those attending church, but simply shutting down services is beyond the constitutional scope of California’s police powers.
The violation is even more egregious when it comes the shutting down of gun stores in California. In those cases, it’s impossible for gun owners to substitute a trip to the gun store by shopping online. Even if they find a gun that they want to purchase by browsing a store’s website, actually buying the firearm requires an in-person trip to the store to fill out the required paperwork and go through the NICS check. California gun buyers must then return to the store ten days later in order to pick up the firearm that they’ve purchased. There is simply no legal way for the average California resident to legally acquire a firearm without making a couple of trips to a gun store, so ordering gun stores closed goes beyond a mere regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. It absolutely infringes on the rights of Californians hoping to keep and bear arms.
Unfortunately, judges hearing Second Amendment challenges to the stay-at-home orders that have declared gun stores “non-essential” in California have disagreed, stating that the temporary nature of the orders and the severity of the public health crisis the orders are meant to address outweigh any constitutional concerns. Eventually, the decisions by those judges may be overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court, but that may be too late for stores forced to shut down, many of which may not be able to re-open once they’re given the green light to do so.


bearingarms--2020-04-18--AL Appeal Denial Undermines "Stand Your Ground" Criticisms

When opponents to Stand Your Ground laws talk about the measures , they accuse them of essentially legalizing murder .
They argue that if all you need to do is say you ’ re scared , then you can kill anyone for anything and walk away free and clear .
They love to point to George Zimmerman as evidence of that .
Of course , Zimmerman never used a Stand Your Ground defense in his trial , but far too few people actually know that .
Further , a case in Alabama recently proved you can ’ t just claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder .
The Alabama woman who claims she acted in self-defense when she fatally shot her alleged rapist has lost her appeal based on the state ’ s Stand Your Ground law in her murder case .
Brittany Smith , 32 , was denied her appeal seeking immunity from prosecution and the dismissal of her case in an unanimous decision by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Thursday , according to AL.com .
Smith claims she was brutally raped and beaten by Todd Smith ( no relation ) at her home in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She says she shot Todd dead as he choked her brother , Chris McCallie – but her claim of self defense was denied in court .
Now her case is likely headed to trial where she faces a life in prison sentence .
Smith had filed to drop the charges under Alabama ’ s Stand Your Ground Law which states that one may use physical force against another in the name of defense and to defend a third person from unlawful force .
In February this year Jackson County Judge Jenifer Holt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges and said Brittany failed to show how she could be granted immunity for killing Smith .
‘ Upon consideration of all the evidence , the court finds that the defendant has given inconsistent accounts of the events surrounding Todd ’ s death , beginning with the 911 call … and has attempted to alter or destroy evidence , ’ the judge wrote at the time , according to AL.com .
In other words , despite her claims that she was afraid the victim was about to kill someone , she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The reason was that her claim just wasn ’ t credible to the judge .
And , to be fair , if she kept giving inconsistent accounts and tried to tamper with evidence , then yeah , she ’ s simply not credible .
That ’ s the thing about Stand Your Ground laws .
They ’ re not free passes .
It ’ s basically just a valid defense that means you don ’ t have to seek escape from a situation before acting .
That ’ s it .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who isn ’ t hurting anyone else .
It doesn ’ t allow you to shoot someone and then act like a guilty person , only to claim you ’ ve done nothing wrong later .
In one fell swoop , this case has completely destroyed the nonsensical claims by anti-gun and anti-self-defense activists who have tried to claim this simply allows murder to take place in our nation with the perpetrators never facing trial .
Brittany Smith , a 32-year-old white woman–her race matters since some claim only white people can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder , despite her claims of standing her ground .
If that doesn ’ t settle the matter , what will ?

When opponents to Stand Your Ground laws talk about the measures, they accuse them of essentially legalizing murder. They argue that if all you need to do is say you’re scared, then you can kill anyone for anything and walk away free and clear. They love to point to George Zimmerman as evidence of that.
Of course, Zimmerman never used a Stand Your Ground defense in his trial, but far too few people actually know that.
Further, a case in Alabama recently proved you can’t just claim you were scared and get away with murder.
The Alabama woman who claims she acted in self-defense when she fatally shot her alleged rapist has lost her appeal based on the state’s Stand Your Ground law in her murder case. Brittany Smith, 32, was denied her appeal seeking immunity from prosecution and the dismissal of her case in an unanimous decision by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Thursday, according to AL.com. Smith claims she was brutally raped and beaten by Todd Smith (no relation) at her home in Stevenson, Alabama, in January 2018. She says she shot Todd dead as he choked her brother, Chris McCallie – but her claim of self defense was denied in court. Now her case is likely headed to trial where she faces a life in prison sentence. Smith had filed to drop the charges under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground Law which states that one may use physical force against another in the name of defense and to defend a third person from unlawful force. In February this year Jackson County Judge Jenifer Holt declined to dismiss Brittany’s murder charges and said Brittany failed to show how she could be granted immunity for killing Smith. ‘Upon consideration of all the evidence, the court finds that the defendant has given inconsistent accounts of the events surrounding Todd’s death, beginning with the 911 call … and has attempted to alter or destroy evidence,’ the judge wrote at the time, according to AL.com.
In other words, despite her claims that she was afraid the victim was about to kill someone, she’s still having to face trial for murder. The reason was that her claim just wasn’t credible to the judge.
And, to be fair, if she kept giving inconsistent accounts and tried to tamper with evidence, then yeah, she’s simply not credible.
That’s the thing about Stand Your Ground laws. They’re not free passes. It’s basically just a valid defense that means you don’t have to seek escape from a situation before acting. That’s it.
It doesn’t allow you to kill someone who isn’t hurting anyone else. It doesn’t allow you to shoot someone and then act like a guilty person, only to claim you’ve done nothing wrong later.
In one fell swoop, this case has completely destroyed the nonsensical claims by anti-gun and anti-self-defense activists who have tried to claim this simply allows murder to take place in our nation with the perpetrators never facing trial.
Brittany Smith, a 32-year-old white woman–her race matters since some claim only white people can use the law effectively–will face trial for murder, despite her claims of standing her ground. If that doesn’t settle the matter, what will?


bearingarms--2020-04-19--Dems Claim Trump Pushing Violence With "Liberate" Tweets

What did President Donald Trump mean with his Friday tweets to “ liberate ” states like Michigan , Minnesota , and Virginia ?
Was it a call to re-open the economies of those states and begin to relax the stay-at-home orders that have shut down thousands of businesses declared non-essential , or was it a literal call to arms and insurrection ?
Given the fact that the president ’ s tweets came shortly after a segment on Fox News featuring a group called Liberate Michigan , which is all about re-opening the state ’ s economy as soon as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president was referring to the shut down orders in these states , though his reference to Virginia ’ s newly-signed gun control laws added a little twist .
During Friday ’ s COVID-19 press briefing at the White House , Trump was asked about his comments referenced the new gun control laws in the state , though gun stores ( but not indoor ranges ) remain open in Virginia , thanks in large part to legislation approved by lawmakers back in 2012 that curtails the ability of the governor to infringe on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a state of emergency .
At no time , however , did the president call for any type of violence or insurrection , despite the claims by many Democrats like Gov .
Jay Inslee of Washington .
One-time presidential candidate Robert Francis O ’ Rourke , now Joe Biden ’ s point man on gun control , also claimed that Trump was trying to kick off a civil war with his tweets .
This is the new narrative from anti-gun Democrats : President Trump is encouraging Americans to wage war on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheap and cynical ploy , but not surprising , given the fact that even in the face of a crisis the likes of which our nation hasn ’ t seen in at least 100 years , most politicians are still stuck in the pre-pandemic paradigm of pointing fingers and trying to demonize the other party ( and that goes for Republicans as well as Democrats ) .
Personally , I don ’ t think that the president ’ s tweets were all that helpful to the cause of re-opening the economy , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dishonest .
The media jumped in to help advance the narrative that Trump was calling for violence as well , with NBC reporting on the protests popping up across the country urging an end to the lockdowns .
One host of the “ Liberate Minnesota ” event on Facebook , Don Huizenga , posted a link to the Facebook event Monday , urging peaceful protest .
“ I hope to see you all there !
We ’ ll be nice , respectful and well dressed .
Bring your signs and your passion for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of us understand what is happening .
The rest of the sheep do not .
But , it was designed that way…which is why we ’ re speaking out and acting out , ” he wrote .
“ Wait for the violence .
It will happen .
People in our culture are NOT designed to obey these kinds of orders.
” Huizenga said in a phone interview that he worked in the 6th Congressional District for Trump ’ s campaign .
He said that he and event co-host Michele Even , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” came up with the idea .
He said that while “ people are really energized and Trump is an attachment to that energy , ” he was more concerned about ending the lockdown because of the “ precedent it sets.
” He added that the violence he anticipated in his Facebook post would not be part of the rally .
“ We ’ re gon na do everything we can to clean up our mess when we leave , to make sure people are respectful .
This is a conservative rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be chaotic .
People here really don ’ t want it to be chaotic , ” he said .
But Huizenga reiterated his warning about violence .
“ The message here that I had : Violence will happen and it will happen in two weeks when people literally don ’ t have any food , ” he said .
“ When we ’ re pitting neighbor against neighbor , people are going to be angry .
Humans aren ’ t designed to act like this , especially American humans aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re gon na rub people the wrong way .
There will be violence .
People are dying from the side effects of all this legislative action.
” Clearly Huizenga wasn ’ t talking about conservatives getting violent , but was instead talking about the potential for civil unrest by those hit hardest by the economic shutdowns .
I hate to break it to NBC News , but it ’ s not just guys in Trump hats who are concerned about that possibility .
“ What will likely prompt looting , rioting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Andrew Bringuel II , a retired supervisory special agent at the FBI ’ s Behavioral Analysis Unit and executive director of the Behavioral Science Unit , wrote in an email .
“ If people lose their public trust in the confidence that the police can maintain social order , they will begin to defend themselves against those who don ’ t recognize the rule of law .
Thomas Hobb [ e ] s described this as a breakdown of the social contract , and it ’ s really an imbalance in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broad-base concern in terms of people being out of work , maybe neighborhood stores closing , people being concerned about assistance and unemployment benefits running out , ” said Bill Johnson , executive director for the National Association of Police Organizations .
“ Not so much because of the virus but because of the downturn in the economy , people being out of work , and that sort of thing , typically you ’ re going to see an uptick first in property crime and , hopefully , it won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increase in other types of crime as well.
” Both sides in the open it up/keep it shut down debate have valid points to be made , but neither side seems particularly interested in making them .
Instead , we ’ re stuck in a cycle of stupidity , where our only options get boiled down to “ keep the economy shut down until there ’ s a vaccine ” and “ return to normal right now.
” Neither are likely to happen , and both would be disastrous in their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , what we ’ re going to see is a soft re-opening of the economy , and even in states like Michigan , Minnesota , and Virginia , I suspect that the re-opening will begin sooner rather than later .
We ’ re walking a tightrope at the moment , trying to get people back to work as quickly as possible without causing hospitals and public health systems to be overwhelmed .
So far , we ’ ve been far more successful with the latter than the former , and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on the economy and their desire to get back to work , given that the most dire predictions of just a few weeks ago haven ’ t come to pass .
At the same time , as we re-open the economy , we can ’ t be stupid about it .
The coronavirus is real , and while we ’ re still trying to figure out just how contagious and deadly the disease is , there are genuine reasons to continue to guard against the unchecked spread of the coronavirus .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s up to us as individuals to act responsibly .
For folks with high risk factors , that means continuing to limit our time in stores and other enclosed areas , and to practice social distancing measures .
Americans who live close together in urban areas or who use public transportation may need to practice social distancing measures for longer periods of time than those who live in rural America .
There simply isn ’ t a one-size-fits-all solution for fighting the coronavirus .
Despite talk on social media about the Boogaloo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a serious possibility .
I suspect what will happen is an increasing amount of non-violent civil and civic disobedience , from stores re-opening in defiance of proclamations by governors to sheriffs announcing that they ’ ll use discretion in enforcing stay-at-home orders .
Disobedience is in our cultural DNA , and the more governors try to crack down on things like buying seeds or organizing a political protest , the more pushback they will see from Americans who view their government as a bigger threat to their rights than the coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus hasn ’ t brought the nation together , but instead has shined a spotlight on the deep divides in the United States .
I suspect those divides may make our recovery more messy and chaotic than in more authoritarian nations , but like Thomas Jefferson , I too prefer the boisterous sea of liberty to the waveless waters of despotism .

What did President Donald Trump mean with his Friday tweets to “liberate” states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia? Was it a call to re-open the economies of those states and begin to relax the stay-at-home orders that have shut down thousands of businesses declared non-essential, or was it a literal call to arms and insurrection?
LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
Given the fact that the president’s tweets came shortly after a segment on Fox News featuring a group called Liberate Michigan, which is all about re-opening the state’s economy as soon as possible, it seems obvious to me that the president was referring to the shut down orders in these states, though his reference to Virginia’s newly-signed gun control laws added a little twist. During Friday’s COVID-19 press briefing at the White House, Trump was asked about his comments referenced the new gun control laws in the state, though gun stores (but not indoor ranges) remain open in Virginia, thanks in large part to legislation approved by lawmakers back in 2012 that curtails the ability of the governor to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms in a state of emergency.
At no time, however, did the president call for any type of violence or insurrection, despite the claims by many Democrats like Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington.
The president is fomenting domestic rebellion and spreading lies – even while his own administration says the virus is real, it is deadly and we have a long way to go before restrictions can be lifted. 2/7 — Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) April 17, 2020
One-time presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke, now Joe Biden’s point man on gun control, also claimed that Trump was trying to kick off a civil war with his tweets.
Republicans will turn a blind eye & too many in the press will focus on “tone.” But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s. pic.twitter.com/44slncrsey — Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) April 17, 2020
This is the new narrative from anti-gun Democrats: President Trump is encouraging Americans to wage war on their state governments. It’s a cheap and cynical ploy, but not surprising, given the fact that even in the face of a crisis the likes of which our nation hasn’t seen in at least 100 years, most politicians are still stuck in the pre-pandemic paradigm of pointing fingers and trying to demonize the other party (and that goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Personally, I don’t think that the president’s tweets were all that helpful to the cause of re-opening the economy, but the response by many Democrats was breathtakingly dishonest. The media jumped in to help advance the narrative that Trump was calling for violence as well, with NBC reporting on the protests popping up across the country urging an end to the lockdowns.
One host of the “Liberate Minnesota” event on Facebook, Don Huizenga, posted a link to the Facebook event Monday, urging peaceful protest. “I hope to see you all there! We’ll be nice, respectful and well dressed. Bring your signs and your passion for America!” he wrote. By Thursday, Huizenga struck a different tone. “Some of us understand what is happening. The rest of the sheep do not. But, it was designed that way…which is why we’re speaking out and acting out,” he wrote. “Wait for the violence. It will happen. People in our culture are NOT designed to obey these kinds of orders.” Huizenga said in a phone interview that he worked in the 6th Congressional District for Trump’s campaign. He said that he and event co-host Michele Even, who he said was a “fellow activist,” came up with the idea. He said that while “people are really energized and Trump is an attachment to that energy,” he was more concerned about ending the lockdown because of the “precedent it sets.” He added that the violence he anticipated in his Facebook post would not be part of the rally. “We’re gonna do everything we can to clean up our mess when we leave, to make sure people are respectful. This is a conservative rally. I don’t expect it to be chaotic. People here really don’t want it to be chaotic,” he said. But Huizenga reiterated his warning about violence. “The message here that I had: Violence will happen and it will happen in two weeks when people literally don’t have any food,” he said. “When we’re pitting neighbor against neighbor, people are going to be angry. Humans aren’t designed to act like this, especially American humans aren’t used to this at all. You’re gonna rub people the wrong way. There will be violence. People are dying from the side effects of all this legislative action.”
Clearly Huizenga wasn’t talking about conservatives getting violent, but was instead talking about the potential for civil unrest by those hit hardest by the economic shutdowns. I hate to break it to NBC News, but it’s not just guys in Trump hats who are concerned about that possibility.
“What will likely prompt looting, rioting, civil unrest will beif public servicesare overloaded,” Andrew Bringuel II, a retired supervisory special agent at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and executive director of the Behavioral Science Unit, wrote in an email. “If people lose their public trust in the confidence that the police can maintain social order, they will begin to defend themselves against those who don’t recognize the rule of law. Thomas Hobb[e]s described this as a breakdown of the social contract, and it’s really an imbalance in social equilibrium.” “It’s a broad-base concern in terms of people being out of work, maybe neighborhood stores closing, people being concerned about assistance and unemployment benefits running out,” said Bill Johnson, executive director for the National Association of Police Organizations. “Not so much because of the virus but because of the downturn in the economy, people being out of work, and that sort of thing, typically you’re going to see an uptick first in property crime and, hopefully, it won’t happen, but you’ll have an increase in other types of crime as well.”
Both sides in the open it up/keep it shut down debate have valid points to be made, but neither side seems particularly interested in making them. Instead, we’re stuck in a cycle of stupidity, where our only options get boiled down to “keep the economy shut down until there’s a vaccine” and “return to normal right now.” Neither are likely to happen, and both would be disastrous in their own way if either did come to pass.
Instead, what we’re going to see is a soft re-opening of the economy, and even in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, I suspect that the re-opening will begin sooner rather than later. We’re walking a tightrope at the moment, trying to get people back to work as quickly as possible without causing hospitals and public health systems to be overwhelmed. So far, we’ve been far more successful with the latter than the former, and its only natural for many Americans to be focused on the economy and their desire to get back to work, given that the most dire predictions of just a few weeks ago haven’t come to pass.
At the same time, as we re-open the economy, we can’t be stupid about it. The coronavirus is real, and while we’re still trying to figure out just how contagious and deadly the disease is, there are genuine reasons to continue to guard against the unchecked spread of the coronavirus. Even as stores re-open for business, it’s up to us as individuals to act responsibly. For folks with high risk factors, that means continuing to limit our time in stores and other enclosed areas, and to practice social distancing measures. Americans who live close together in urban areas or who use public transportation may need to practice social distancing measures for longer periods of time than those who live in rural America. There simply isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution for fighting the coronavirus.
Despite talk on social media about the Boogaloo, I don’t see that as a serious possibility. I suspect what will happen is an increasing amount of non-violent civil and civic disobedience, from stores re-opening in defiance of proclamations by governors to sheriffs announcing that they’ll use discretion in enforcing stay-at-home orders. Disobedience is in our cultural DNA, and the more governors try to crack down on things like buying seeds or organizing a political protest, the more pushback they will see from Americans who view their government as a bigger threat to their rights than the coronavirus is to their health.
So far the coronavirus hasn’t brought the nation together, but instead has shined a spotlight on the deep divides in the United States. I suspect those divides may make our recovery more messy and chaotic than in more authoritarian nations, but like Thomas Jefferson, I too prefer the boisterous sea of liberty to the waveless waters of despotism.


bearingarms--2020-04-20--In Attempt To Avoid Lawsuit, DC Says Police Now Acting As FFL

Washington , D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Monday that the city ’ s Metropolitan Police Department will temporarily serve as a federal firearms licensee for city residents who want to purchase a firearm during the coronavirus closures .
The sole FFL in Washington , D.C. “ abruptly ” stopped accepting new customers last month , according to the mayor , and there was concern that if residents had no way to acquire a firearm during the city ’ s declared emergency , Washington D.C. was going to be sued over the violation of the Second Amendment .
“ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any constitutional issues or open ourselves up to meddling in our gun laws from outside groups , ” the mayor told the press at a Monday briefing , “ MPD and the deputy mayor immediately started working on alternatives .
The solution that we came up with was to delegate to MPD the authority to operate as the District ’ s federal firearms licensee while there is no other commercial alternative.
” Once there is a viable commercial alternative , Bowser says the MPD will cease conducting firearms transfers .
I love how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second Amendment rights of Washington , D.C. residents aren ’ t being violated “ meddling.
” If it weren ’ t for “ meddling ” by pro-2A organizations , Washington , D.C. ’ s ban on handguns would still be in place , concealed carry would still be forbidden , and the right to keep and bear arms wouldn ’ t exist in our nation ’ s capitol .
As it is , more than a decade after D.C. handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opened for business in Washington , D.C .
Would-be gun owners are still going to have to go to Maryland or Virginia to purchase their firearms , and then have them transferred over to the Metropolitan Police before they can actually take ownership of them .
The city does offer its required training course for new gun owners online , but those hoping to obtain a concealed carry license in the District may be out of luck , since training courses have been largely shut down in Virginia and Maryland along with private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowser ’ s concern for the right to keep and bear arms was what prompted the decision to allow the Metropolitan Police Department to serve as an FFL , but even if its for the wrong reasons , the city is doing the right thing in continuing to allow firearms to be transferred during the current emergency .
It would be even better , of course , if the city actually had gun stores for residents to visit instead of having to leave the confines of the federal district to get to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a court challenge for another day .

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Monday that the city’s Metropolitan Police Department will temporarily serve as a federal firearms licensee for city residents who want to purchase a firearm during the coronavirus closures. The sole FFL in Washington, D.C. “abruptly” stopped accepting new customers last month, according to the mayor, and there was concern that if residents had no way to acquire a firearm during the city’s declared emergency, Washington D.C. was going to be sued over the violation of the Second Amendment.
“So that we wouldn’t run into any constitutional issues or open ourselves up to meddling in our gun laws from outside groups,” the mayor told the press at a Monday briefing, “MPD and the deputy mayor immediately started working on alternatives. The solution that we came up with was to delegate to MPD the authority to operate as the District’s federal firearms licensee while there is no other commercial alternative.”
Once there is a viable commercial alternative, Bowser says the MPD will cease conducting firearms transfers.
I love how the mayor calls attempts to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents aren’t being violated “meddling.” If it weren’t for “meddling” by pro-2A organizations, Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns would still be in place, concealed carry would still be forbidden, and the right to keep and bear arms wouldn’t exist in our nation’s capitol. As it is, more than a decade after D.C. handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller, not a single gun store or range has opened for business in Washington, D.C.
Would-be gun owners are still going to have to go to Maryland or Virginia to purchase their firearms, and then have them transferred over to the Metropolitan Police before they can actually take ownership of them. The city does offer its required training course for new gun owners online, but those hoping to obtain a concealed carry license in the District may be out of luck, since training courses have been largely shut down in Virginia and Maryland along with private ranges.
I’m skeptical that Bowser’s concern for the right to keep and bear arms was what prompted the decision to allow the Metropolitan Police Department to serve as an FFL, but even if its for the wrong reasons, the city is doing the right thing in continuing to allow firearms to be transferred during the current emergency. It would be even better, of course, if the city actually had gun stores for residents to visit instead of having to leave the confines of the federal district to get to a gun shop, but that’s a court challenge for another day.


bearingarms--2020-04-20--Nashville Police Bust Convicted Felon With Guns, Drugs

One of the most universally accepted bits of gun control is that convicted felons shouldn ’ t have guns .
While there are those who argue otherwise , they ’ re a distinct minority even in the firearm community .
Most are fine with felons not being able to exercise their gun rights , at least not without all their other rights being restored too .
Yet time and time again , felons do us a favor in a way .
They routinely demonstrate how gun control doesn ’ t actually work worth a damn , even if almost everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a convicted felon out of Nashville , Tennessee .
Officials said it all started when they pulled over a driver on North 5th Street for having an expired license plate .
They said the driver was 41-year-old Delbert Porter .
They said Porter jumped out of the driver ’ s seat and smelled of marijuana .
He admitted to officers that he had a baggie of marijuana on him .
Officers also found 1.5 grams of cocaine and an empty gun holster .
Authorities found a revolver just outside the truck in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it only had a few bullets in it .
Officials said the revolver was stolen from Clifton , Tennessee .
Porter was convicted of felony cocaine , marijuana and gun possession in 2004 .
He admitted that there were additional guns in his nearby residence .
The police found three more firearms at his home , two of which had been reported stolen .
The third was likely reported , but not with a serial number and thus couldn ’ t be traced .
So , a total of four guns with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s likely the fourth was as well .
I mean , it ’ s almost like convicted felons buy guns off the black market instead of at law-abiding gun stores or even through face-to-face transfers which are still legal in Tennessee .
Of course , that ’ s precisely what happened .
Stolen guns are often sold for well below retail value , which makes them very attractive to criminals .
Hell , it ’ ll make them attractive to anyone .
The difference is , law-abiding citizens don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , that ’ s illegal .
That whole “ law-abiding ” thing really gets in the way , doesn ’ t it ?
The thing about black markets , though ?
They don ’ t go away because you passed a couple of new laws .
They don ’ t stop existing because you now require background checks on every firearm sale .
They just don ’ t .
Criminals like Porter don ’ t work within the system .
Oh , they might if they had to and could , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so in ages .
So , they go around the system .
This is a man who got his hands on four firearms despite the laws in place to prevent it .
The fact that they were stolen tells us that at least three of them weren ’ t otherwise lawful sales .
It ’ s well beyond time to stop pretending that these matters can be solved with a couple of laws .
People like Porter will always be armed .
The thing to keep in mind is that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us can be armed to meet the threat these people represent .

One of the most universally accepted bits of gun control is that convicted felons shouldn’t have guns. While there are those who argue otherwise, they’re a distinct minority even in the firearm community. Most are fine with felons not being able to exercise their gun rights, at least not without all their other rights being restored too.
Yet time and time again, felons do us a favor in a way. They routinely demonstrate how gun control doesn’t actually work worth a damn, even if almost everyone supports it.
The latest example is a convicted felon out of Nashville, Tennessee.
Officials said it all started when they pulled over a driver on North 5th Street for having an expired license plate. They said the driver was 41-year-old Delbert Porter. They said Porter jumped out of the driver’s seat and smelled of marijuana. He admitted to officers that he had a baggie of marijuana on him. Officers also found 1.5 grams of cocaine and an empty gun holster. Authorities found a revolver just outside the truck in the grass. Porter said it was his and it only had a few bullets in it. Officials said the revolver was stolen from Clifton, Tennessee. Porter was convicted of felony cocaine, marijuana and gun possession in 2004. He admitted that there were additional guns in his nearby residence.
The police found three more firearms at his home, two of which had been reported stolen. The third was likely reported, but not with a serial number and thus couldn’t be traced.
So, a total of four guns with at least three being stolen. It’s likely the fourth was as well.
I mean, it’s almost like convicted felons buy guns off the black market instead of at law-abiding gun stores or even through face-to-face transfers which are still legal in Tennessee.
Of course, that’s precisely what happened. Stolen guns are often sold for well below retail value, which makes them very attractive to criminals. Hell, it’ll make them attractive to anyone. The difference is, law-abiding citizens don’t want to buy a stolen gun because, well, that’s illegal. That whole “law-abiding” thing really gets in the way, doesn’t it?
The thing about black markets, though? They don’t go away because you passed a couple of new laws. They don’t stop existing because you now require background checks on every firearm sale. They just don’t.
Criminals like Porter don’t work within the system. Oh, they might if they had to and could, but they haven’t been able to do so in ages. So, they go around the system.
This is a man who got his hands on four firearms despite the laws in place to prevent it. The fact that they were stolen tells us that at least three of them weren’t otherwise lawful sales. It’s well beyond time to stop pretending that these matters can be solved with a couple of laws.
People like Porter will always be armed. The thing to keep in mind is that it’s vitally important that the rest of us can be armed to meet the threat these people represent.


bearingarms--2020-04-20--Gun Shops On Front Lines Of Stay-At-Home Debate

After a weekend of demonstrations across the nation , protests in favor of re-opening businesses are continuing today .
In Harrisburg , Pennsylvania , hundreds if not thousands of Pennsylvanians have descended on the state capitol to call for an end to Gov .
Tom Wolf ’ s stay-at-home order .
On foot and in cars , those attending the rally heard from several Republican lawmakers who ventured onto the closed grounds of the state capitol building in support of the cause .
Speaking on the steps of the Capitol , state Rep. Aaron Bernstine ( R. , Lawrence ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf to sign a bill aimed at reopening some businesses closed amid the government-ordered shutdowns .
Wolf has said he will veto the legislation , which Health Secretary Rachel Levine said would put “ more lives at risk.
” “ These leaders must not focus on just the lives at risk from the horrible virus , ” he said .
“ Many lives like yours are in danger from a shuttered business , the hunger and homelessness .
State Rep. Russ Diamond ( R. , Lebanon ) also spoke to the crowd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every one of you is essential and that every one of your businesses and jobs is life-sustaining.
” State Sen. Judy Ward ( R. , Blair ) questioned government mandates , saying : “ Do we need the government to mandate that certain business close ?
No .
… Do we need the government to mandate that we must wear a face mask ?
Or how about businesses that have to provide face masks that aren ’ t available ?
” Around the country gun shops and 2A organizations have been leading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including a rolling protest in front of several Massachusetts gun stores that took place on Friday .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Jim Geraghty of National Review joined me to talk about the growing movement , and how nanny state governors are making things worse .
In Pennsylvania , for instance , Gov .
Tom Wolf originally declared that gun shops had to close , but reversed his decision after several justices on the state Supreme Court indicated in an opinion that open-ended orders like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights of residents .
Bowing to common sense , Wolf revised his stay-at-home order to include gun stores in the list of essential businesses , though they ’ re operating with limited hours and by appointment only .
Unfortunately , Wolf has declared that businesses that aren ’ t “ life sustaining ” must remain closed , and has vowed to veto a bill approved by the Republican-controlled legislature that would allow businesses to begin to re-open , as long as they followed CDC guidelines to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other governors can actually explain why these decisions make sense from a public health standpoint , as opposed to simply dictating orders to the people of their states , they should expect growing discontent and disobedience .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and stick around for an update on a possible self-defense shooting in Philadelphia , an Arkansas man accused of a drive-by shooting who was out on bond after being arrested last month for another drive-by shooting , and a Wisconsin police officer who decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .
Make sure you never miss a show by following Townhall Media on YouTube , or by subscribing to the Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co podcast on Apple Podcasts .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

After a weekend of demonstrations across the nation, protests in favor of re-opening businesses are continuing today. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, hundreds if not thousands of Pennsylvanians have descended on the state capitol to call for an end to Gov. Tom Wolf’s stay-at-home order. On foot and in cars, those attending the rally heard from several Republican lawmakers who ventured onto the closed grounds of the state capitol building in support of the cause.
Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, state Rep. Aaron Bernstine (R., Lawrence) led chants and asked protesters to tell Wolf to sign a bill aimed at reopening some businesses closed amid the government-ordered shutdowns. Wolf has said he will veto the legislation, which Health Secretary Rachel Levine said would put “more lives at risk.” “These leaders must not focus on just the lives at risk from the horrible virus,” he said. “Many lives like yours are in danger from a shuttered business, the hunger and homelessness. State Rep. Russ Diamond (R., Lebanon) also spoke to the crowd, telling them, “I believe that every one of you is essential and that every one of your businesses and jobs is life-sustaining.” State Sen. Judy Ward (R., Blair) questioned government mandates, saying: “Do we need the government to mandate that certain business close? No. … Do we need the government to mandate that we must wear a face mask? Or how about businesses that have to provide face masks that aren’t available?”
Around the country gun shops and 2A organizations have been leading the way in the debate over stay-at-home orders, including a rolling protest in front of several Massachusetts gun stores that took place on Friday. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Jim Geraghty of National Review joined me to talk about the growing movement, and how nanny state governors are making things worse.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, Gov. Tom Wolf originally declared that gun shops had to close, but reversed his decision after several justices on the state Supreme Court indicated in an opinion that open-ended orders like the governor’s would violate the Second Amendment rights of residents. Bowing to common sense, Wolf revised his stay-at-home order to include gun stores in the list of essential businesses, though they’re operating with limited hours and by appointment only.
Unfortunately, Wolf has declared that businesses that aren’t “life sustaining” must remain closed, and has vowed to veto a bill approved by the Republican-controlled legislature that would allow businesses to begin to re-open, as long as they followed CDC guidelines to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. As Geraghty explains, unless Wolf and other governors can actually explain why these decisions make sense from a public health standpoint, as opposed to simply dictating orders to the people of their states, they should expect growing discontent and disobedience.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stick around for an update on a possible self-defense shooting in Philadelphia, an Arkansas man accused of a drive-by shooting who was out on bond after being arrested last month for another drive-by shooting, and a Wisconsin police officer who decided to donate his stimulus check to those in need.
Make sure you never miss a show by following Townhall Media on YouTube, or by subscribing to the Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co podcast on Apple Podcasts. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-04-20--MMA Gym Pushes For Self-Defense Classes To Be Labeled 'Essential'

In the course of human events , the right to defend yourself is an essential right .
Few would argue against it and even fewer could do so persuasively .
It ’ s not right to expect people to become victims because you ’ ve hamstrung their ability to protect themselves .
It ’ s not just un-American , it ’ s inhuman .
However , does training in self-defense come under the category of an essential activity in the era of COVID-19 ?
To be sure , people will likely come down on various sides of the issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t matter ; we should be free to do whatever we want regardless .
Others will argue that no , it doesn ’ t .
Still , others will fall somewhere in between .
For a Florida MMA gym , though , the answer is clear .
An Orlando MMA gym is appealing to be made part of the essential business list , citing how the stay-at-home orders mandated by the state of Florida has apparently caused a spike in domestic violence incidents .
The concern was raised by The Jungle MMA and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have different ideas about martial arts and gyms but staying healthy and being able to defend yourself is a great empowering feeling , both physically and mentally , ” Lee said told WESH , Orlando ’ s NBC-affiliated network .
“ Self-defense is paramount , yeah .
It ’ s just , no matter what you believe in self-defense or different levels of it , you need to protect yourself , you need to defend your loved ones , ” Lee told the station .
He also argued that social distancing would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks at the door and using dummies instead of grappling with a human opponent .
The question is , though , is Lee right ?
The health concerns are outside my wheelhouse .
While I was a Navy corpsman , that was almost a quarter of a century ago and I don ’ t feel qualified anymore to make commentary on that .
However , self-defense is a human right , and learning how to defend yourself should be as well .
However , if Lee ’ s school and other martial arts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then there should be no limit to self-defense learning .
After all , unlike something like MMA , firearms training can be conducted from six feet away without any real issue most of the time .
If martial arts schools are going to get the all-clear , then we ’ d best not hear anything about a firearms training course not being able to hold a class due to the coronavirus or concerns about its spread .
Of course , we also have to acknowledge that at least part of this push stems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and looking for any reason to get out and do something .
While no one wants to get sick and possibly endanger other lives , the truth is that many are willing to take other steps to mitigate the risks to get outside and interact with other people .
Make no mistake , that ’ s legitimate , too .
Man is a social animal .
We need interaction with others and it ’ s not good for us to be so isolated .
So the truth is that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had about whether this is wise or not , but it ’ s time to at least have the conversation , especially regarding firearm training .

In the course of human events, the right to defend yourself is an essential right. Few would argue against it and even fewer could do so persuasively. It’s not right to expect people to become victims because you’ve hamstrung their ability to protect themselves. It’s not just un-American, it’s inhuman.
However, does training in self-defense come under the category of an essential activity in the era of COVID-19?
To be sure, people will likely come down on various sides of the issue. Some will argue that it doesn’t matter; we should be free to do whatever we want regardless. Others will argue that no, it doesn’t. Still, others will fall somewhere in between.
For a Florida MMA gym, though, the answer is clear.
An Orlando MMA gym is appealing to be made part of the essential business list, citing how the stay-at-home orders mandated by the state of Florida has apparently caused a spike in domestic violence incidents. The concern was raised by The Jungle MMA and Fitness owner Mike Lee. “People have different ideas about martial arts and gyms but staying healthy and being able to defend yourself is a great empowering feeling, both physically and mentally,” Lee said told WESH, Orlando’s NBC-affiliated network.
“Self-defense is paramount, yeah. It’s just, no matter what you believe in self-defense or different levels of it, you need to protect yourself, you need to defend your loved ones,” Lee told the station. He also argued that social distancing would be observed along with other precautions like temperature checks at the door and using dummies instead of grappling with a human opponent.
The question is, though, is Lee right?
The health concerns are outside my wheelhouse. While I was a Navy corpsman, that was almost a quarter of a century ago and I don’t feel qualified anymore to make commentary on that.
However, self-defense is a human right, and learning how to defend yourself should be as well. However, if Lee’s school and other martial arts schools are free to open up, then there should be no limit to self-defense learning. After all, unlike something like MMA, firearms training can be conducted from six feet away without any real issue most of the time.
If martial arts schools are going to get the all-clear, then we’d best not hear anything about a firearms training course not being able to hold a class due to the coronavirus or concerns about its spread.
Of course, we also have to acknowledge that at least part of this push stems from people being sick of being cooped up and looking for any reason to get out and do something. While no one wants to get sick and possibly endanger other lives, the truth is that many are willing to take other steps to mitigate the risks to get outside and interact with other people.
Make no mistake, that’s legitimate, too. Man is a social animal. We need interaction with others and it’s not good for us to be so isolated.
So the truth is that there’s still a lot of discussion to be had about whether this is wise or not, but it’s time to at least have the conversation, especially regarding firearm training.