bearingarms--2020-03-04--Georgia "Brandishing" Bill Passed By Panel

Brandishing a firearm is generally considered a crime , and there ’ s a reason for that .
People shouldn ’ t just flash their guns around at the least provocation .
The appearance of a gun can cause panic , after all .
Well , maybe .
There are times , though , when pulling a firearm is enough to end a potential threat before that threat becomes too bad .
Yet the law usually doesn ’ t make that distinction .
Now , in Georgia , a bill that would legalize “ brandishing ” has made it through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn ’ t “ aim it offensively ” at someone .
State Sen. Tyler Harper , an Ocilla Republican , said the legislation addresses a variety of issues gun rights advocates have with the state ’ s carry laws .
The bill , which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 5-3 party-line vote , also would allow licensed gun owners to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts when there are no judicial proceedings .
Under current law , a person who pulls a gun on someone faces a felony aggravated assault charge , which carries up to 20 years in prison .
“ My argument is : just because I have a weapon on my person and I show that weapon , I should not be charged with a felony — a 20-year felony — for simply brandishing my firearm in my attempt to de-escalate what I consider a situation where I felt threatened , ” Harper said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ displays or pulls a gun to aim that weapon at the person — or otherwise use it “ in a threatening manner ” — before he or she could be charged with felony aggravated assault .
Of course , one downside of the bill is that if it ’ s just you and the other guy with his buddies , it ’ s your word against theirs and you could still end up with an aggravated assault charge .
Not everyone is in favor of the bill , either .
State Sen. Harold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer , said under current law prosecutors must prove murder is the intent of someone showing or pulling a gun before he or she can be found guilty of aggravated assault .
“ A person who pulls their gun out and has it at their side — at their side — would not fit this new definition of aggravated assault , ” Jones said .
“ I just don ’ t think we need to be doing that.
” If the law already allows someone to display a gun in a non-threatening manner–say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem ?
Why not just pass the bill so that the law explicitly says what Jones claims is already the case ?
Well , the problem is that the ambiguity in the law stays hands .
It keeps people from showing they have a gun , an act which may allow a situation to escalate to the point where that gun has to be shown .
People like Jones don ’ t see it that way , though .
He ’ s arguing how the law is used , but not how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law is applied can change .
For example , Stand Your Ground was how Georgia ’ s self-defense law was interpreted for decades before anyone bothered to codify it .
Yet now we have tons of people who want to repeal the law in so many states .
If that law were repealed , would the old interpretation be allowed to stand ?
Look , no one thinks pointing a gun at someone else over nothing is a good idea .
It ’ s a bad way to go about things and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re armed ends a confrontation before anyone gets hurt , that ’ s a big win .
Change the damn law so it protects people who save lives , even if it ’ s the life of the jackwagon trying to start something .

Brandishing a firearm is generally considered a crime, and there’s a reason for that. People shouldn’t just flash their guns around at the least provocation. The appearance of a gun can cause panic, after all.
Right?
Well, maybe. There are times, though, when pulling a firearm is enough to end a potential threat before that threat becomes too bad. Yet the law usually doesn’t make that distinction.
Now, in Georgia, a bill that would legalize “brandishing” has made it through its first hurdle.
A Georgia Senate panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn’t “aim it offensively” at someone. State Sen. Tyler Harper, an Ocilla Republican, said the legislation addresses a variety of issues gun rights advocates have with the state’s carry laws. The bill, which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 5-3 party-line vote, also would allow licensed gun owners to carry their weapons in churches and in courts when there are no judicial proceedings. Under current law, a person who pulls a gun on someone faces a felony aggravated assault charge, which carries up to 20 years in prison. “My argument is: just because I have a weapon on my person and I show that weapon, I should not be charged with a felony — a 20-year felony — for simply brandishing my firearm in my attempt to de-escalate what I consider a situation where I felt threatened,” Harper said. Senate Bill 224 would require someone who displays or pulls a gun to aim that weapon at the person — or otherwise use it “in a threatening manner” — before he or she could be charged with felony aggravated assault.
Of course, one downside of the bill is that if it’s just you and the other guy with his buddies, it’s your word against theirs and you could still end up with an aggravated assault charge.
Not everyone is in favor of the bill, either.
State Sen. Harold Jones, an Augusta Democrat and a lawyer, said under current law prosecutors must prove murder is the intent of someone showing or pulling a gun before he or she can be found guilty of aggravated assault. “A person who pulls their gun out and has it at their side — at their side — would not fit this new definition of aggravated assault,” Jones said. “I just don’t think we need to be doing that.”
If the law already allows someone to display a gun in a non-threatening manner–say, at their side–then what’s the problem? Why not just pass the bill so that the law explicitly says what Jones claims is already the case?
Well, the problem is that the ambiguity in the law stays hands. It keeps people from showing they have a gun, an act which may allow a situation to escalate to the point where that gun has to be shown. People like Jones don’t see it that way, though. He’s arguing how the law is used, but not how it was written.
Yet how a law is applied can change.
For example, Stand Your Ground was how Georgia’s self-defense law was interpreted for decades before anyone bothered to codify it. Yet now we have tons of people who want to repeal the law in so many states. If that law were repealed, would the old interpretation be allowed to stand?
Look, no one thinks pointing a gun at someone else over nothing is a good idea. It’s a bad way to go about things and we all recognize that.
But if showing you’re armed ends a confrontation before anyone gets hurt, that’s a big win.
Change the damn law so it protects people who save lives, even if it’s the life of the jackwagon trying to start something.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--Streamer Discharges Gun During Livestream, Hilarity Does Not Ensue

After drunkenly discharging a handgun during a livestream , Twitch streamer and esports player Carl Reimer has now been banned from the streaming service and dismissed from the esports company SoaR .
As the video below clearly shows , Reimer was breaking several of the cardinal rules of gun safety , including treating every firearm as if it ’ s loaded and not mixing alcohol and firearms .
There ’ s a good reason those are the rules , and bad things happen when you break them .
As a result of Reimer ’ s drunken stupidity , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a streamer , and could be potentially facing firearms charges in Colorado , where he lives .
Reimer released a video on Thursday apologizing for his actions , and worrying about what his future holds .
I ’ m glad no one was hurt by Reimer ’ s mistake , and I ’ m sure he truly feels remorseful about what happened .
Presumably he ’ d still feel the same way even if his idiocy and recklessness hadn ’ t been streamed live for all the world to see , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say he has a little extra incentive to own up to his behavior .
Reimer ’ s actions should be shown in every basic pistol course in the country as an example of what not to do and how not to behave around a firearm .
Firearms instructor Karen Hunter was incensed after watching the clip of Reimer ’ s drunken discharge .
In subsequent tweets , Hunter outlined all of the ways that Reimer screwed up .
I enjoy a drink as much as anyone else , but I can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Reimer ’ s trouble came from mixing alcohol and his gun .
You want to get drunk and silly on your livestream ?
Great , but leave your gun out of it .
Want to go to the range and shoot ?
Fantastic , but save your drinking for after you ’ re done .
This isn ’ t a difficult concept to grasp , but apparently it was beyond Reimer ’ s comprehension .
Now his career is on hold , at best , and he could be facing legal repercussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautionary tale , and if anything good comes from Reimer ’ s buffoonery , it will be that a lot of folks received a compelling reminder of why you treat every gun as if it ’ s loaded , you don ’ t keep your finger on the trigger , and you don ’ t drink and handle firearms , and you don ’ t treat guns as if they ’ re toys in the first place .
I will say that beyond the obvious idiocy , one of the things that bothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s going to get a lot more attention than the injustice being done to another gun owner , Roosevelt Twyne , who could frankly use all the attention he can get .
A viral video of a drunk guy shooting his desk is simply more interesting to most people than a story of a guy who was arrested for transporting his firearm ( even with a concealed carry license ) and “ illegal ” ammunition that ’ s legal to own .
Yes , I ’ m doing my small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infamous ) , but I ’ m trying to mitigate that by spreading the news about Roosevelt Twyne ’ s case here as well .
I hope that you ’ ll help generate interest in Roosevelt Twyne ’ s case by clicking the link above and sharing his story .
Maybe a little good can come from Reimer ’ s bad decisions .

After drunkenly discharging a handgun during a livestream, Twitch streamer and esports player Carl Reimer has now been banned from the streaming service and dismissed from the esports company SoaR. As the video below clearly shows, Reimer was breaking several of the cardinal rules of gun safety, including treating every firearm as if it’s loaded and not mixing alcohol and firearms.
There’s a good reason those are the rules, and bad things happen when you break them.
Guns are not toys. Always assume they’re loaded even if you “swear [you] just emptied the mag” and never pull the trigger unless you’re aiming at a target. pic.twitter.com/5s3fi2OZ3j — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 5, 2020
As a result of Reimer’s drunken stupidity, he’s now lost access to his career as a streamer, and could be potentially facing firearms charges in Colorado, where he lives.
Reimer released a video on Thursday apologizing for his actions, and worrying about what his future holds.
Don’t do what I did. Ever. Literally everything was going perfectly in life and one mistake ruined everything I’ve been doing for year. I cannot put into words how sorry I am and how dangerous what I did last night was. pic.twitter.com/O781ecXxJN — Carl Riemer (@SoaRCarl_) March 5, 2020
I’m glad no one was hurt by Reimer’s mistake, and I’m sure he truly feels remorseful about what happened. Presumably he’d still feel the same way even if his idiocy and recklessness hadn’t been streamed live for all the world to see, but I think it’s fair to say he has a little extra incentive to own up to his behavior.
Reimer’s actions should be shown in every basic pistol course in the country as an example of what not to do and how not to behave around a firearm. Firearms instructor Karen Hunter was incensed after watching the clip of Reimer’s drunken discharge.
This guy is very dangerous! Anyone is with his mentality. It’s not a toy and he’s treating it as such. Know you’re target foreground and background, don’t muzzle anything you don’t wish to kill, TREAT THE GUN AS IF ITS ALWAYS LOADED! YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE FIREARM! — Karen Hunter (@klhunter42) March 5, 2020
In subsequent tweets, Hunter outlined all of the ways that Reimer screwed up.
Also this guy has zero idea of how a gun works No trigger finger discipline. He emptied the chamber and because he has that round he’s assuming it’s empty. He never unloaded the mag, so he just chambered a new round and pulled the trigger on what he thought was empty but… nope — Karen Hunter (@klhunter42) March 5, 2020
I enjoy a drink as much as anyone else, but I can’t help but think that a big part of Reimer’s trouble came from mixing alcohol and his gun. You want to get drunk and silly on your livestream? Great, but leave your gun out of it. Want to go to the range and shoot? Fantastic, but save your drinking for after you’re done.
This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently it was beyond Reimer’s comprehension. Now his career is on hold, at best, and he could be facing legal repercussions as well.
It’s a cautionary tale, and if anything good comes from Reimer’s buffoonery, it will be that a lot of folks received a compelling reminder of why you treat every gun as if it’s loaded, you don’t keep your finger on the trigger, and you don’t drink and handle firearms, and you don’t treat guns as if they’re toys in the first place.
I will say that beyond the obvious idiocy, one of the things that bothers me about Reimer’s story is that it’s going to get a lot more attention than the injustice being done to another gun owner, Roosevelt Twyne, who could frankly use all the attention he can get. A viral video of a drunk guy shooting his desk is simply more interesting to most people than a story of a guy who was arrested for transporting his firearm (even with a concealed carry license) and “illegal” ammunition that’s legal to own.
Yes, I’m doing my small part to make Reimer famous (or infamous), but I’m trying to mitigate that by spreading the news about Roosevelt Twyne’s case here as well. I hope that you’ll help generate interest in Roosevelt Twyne’s case by clicking the link above and sharing his story. Maybe a little good can come from Reimer’s bad decisions.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--Only Matter Of Time Before NZ ThoughtCrime Gun Ban Arrives Here

If you adhere to the idea of individual liberty , then you have to acknowledge that people are free to believe whatever they want to believe , no matter how abhorrent those beliefs may be .
I mean , some people put pineapple on pizza , for crying out loud , but we still have to accept that it ’ s their right to do so .
Of course , there are other beliefs that are far more repugnant than pineapple in places it doesn ’ t belong .
In New Zealand , which used to have fairly liberal gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems lawmakers want to punish people for holding the wrong opinions and the media is taking issue with those not quite ready to go that far .
The National Party wants to water down a proposal to restrict extremists from obtaining a firearms licence .
In a Supplementary Order Paper submitted on the Government ’ s Arms Legislation Bill , National ’ s Police spokesperson Brett Hudson proposes that a test for violent and extremist tendencies should only be applied to people who have been “ convicted of an offence under the Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communications Act 2015 relating to violent , hateful , or extremist speech or behaviour ” .
However , Gun Control NZ ’ s Nik Green says this would allow many extremists to obtain a firearms licence , pointing to the fact that no one in New Zealand has been convicted of such an offense under the Human Rights Act .
Police Minister Stuart Nash said Hudson ’ s SOP was “ very concerning .
I do not know why the Nats are not supporting this because it takes guns off gangs and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime.
” So despite no one being convicted of anything , holding the wrong beliefs is somehow grounds to deny them a permit ?
Look , this is New Zealand .
Their laws have little direct impact on you and me and we all know it .
What their gun laws can do , however , is spur on our local gun grabbers to try and implement similar such restrictions .
At the end of the day , though , this measure seeks to control what opinions people hold .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
There are two problems with this .
The first is that extremist views will always be with us , but if you make it feel impossible to express them , you simply drive them underground .
There they can fester and infect others , always beneath the surface where it can ’ t be seen or addressed .
You don ’ t kill these ideas by driving them into the shadows .
That ’ s how you make them grow .
No , you kill them by debating them and revealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an immature mind that they always have been .
The second , though , is just how many times are people labeled extremists because they hold a particular belief that ’ s not even all that extreme ?
I ’ ve been called such a thing more than once .
Most gun rights supporters have , as has anyone on the right of any given political issue .
It ’ s not hard to see such a ban existing just to target us .

If you adhere to the idea of individual liberty, then you have to acknowledge that people are free to believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how abhorrent those beliefs may be. I mean, some people put pineapple on pizza, for crying out loud, but we still have to accept that it’s their right to do so.
Of course, there are other beliefs that are far more repugnant than pineapple in places it doesn’t belong.
In New Zealand, which used to have fairly liberal gun laws before the Christchurch Massacre, it seems lawmakers want to punish people for holding the wrong opinions and the media is taking issue with those not quite ready to go that far.
The National Party wants to water down a proposal to restrict extremists from obtaining a firearms licence. In a Supplementary Order Paper submitted on the Government’s Arms Legislation Bill, National’s Police spokesperson Brett Hudson proposes that a test for violent and extremist tendencies should only be applied to people who have been “convicted of an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993 or the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 relating to violent, hateful, or extremist speech or behaviour”. However, Gun Control NZ’s Nik Green says this would allow many extremists to obtain a firearms licence, pointing to the fact that no one in New Zealand has been convicted of such an offense under the Human Rights Act. Police Minister Stuart Nash said Hudson’s SOP was “very concerning. I do not know why the Nats are not supporting this because it takes guns off gangs and it’s much tougher penalties for gun crime.”
So despite no one being convicted of anything, holding the wrong beliefs is somehow grounds to deny them a permit?
Look, this is New Zealand. Their laws have little direct impact on you and me and we all know it. What their gun laws can do, however, is spur on our local gun grabbers to try and implement similar such restrictions.
At the end of the day, though, this measure seeks to control what opinions people hold. It’s ThoughtCrime legislation pretending to just be gun control.
There are two problems with this. The first is that extremist views will always be with us, but if you make it feel impossible to express them, you simply drive them underground. There they can fester and infect others, always beneath the surface where it can’t be seen or addressed. You don’t kill these ideas by driving them into the shadows. That’s how you make them grow.
No, you kill them by debating them and revealing them to be the morally bankrupt prattlings of an immature mind that they always have been.
The second, though, is just how many times are people labeled extremists because they hold a particular belief that’s not even all that extreme? I’ve been called such a thing more than once. Most gun rights supporters have, as has anyone on the right of any given political issue. It’s not hard to see such a ban existing just to target us.
Sorry, but that’s a no-go.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--AL Senate Approves Concealed Carry Permit Plan

Alabama has had concealed carry for a while .
Unfortunately , there were…issues with it .
Now , those are some pretty serious issues which , frankly , shouldn ’ t matter , but they do .
While no one is going to stop someone from carrying under the current system , it is a bit of a let down to not be able to use your permit to skip the NICS check .
Don ’ t get me wrong , the vast majority of people , if not everyone , who got permits under the current system can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ruled otherwise and that ’ s just kind of how it is .
For now , anyway .
On Wednesday , the Alabama state senate approved a new plan that should change all of that .
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would create a statewide system concealed carry permit system .
The bill , sponsored by Sen. Randy Price , R-Opelika , would authorize the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency ( ALEA ) to create the system .
Individuals would be able to apply for one-year , five-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sheriff would have 30 days to decide on an application .
A sheriff would run a criminal background check on applicants and would have the power to deny an application .
Upon granting a permit , the sheriff would notify ALEA .
Lifetime permits would expire after an individual moved out of state .
Price described the bill as a public safety measure .
“ The most important thing we bring out of this is information and uniformity of this information , ” he said .
“ Bringing all 67 counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Some gun rights activists took issue with putting all of this information into a central database , which is understandable .
Such a database can be used to some degree as gun registration , even if particular firearms are never mentioned .
After all , people who apply for carry permits tend to have something to carry , right ?
However , it ’ s clear something needed to be done for poor Alabamans to be able to use that permit to skip the NICS check .
For many , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you ’ ve had a delay for some reason that took days to settle out , you begin to understand just how annoying that background check can be .
No one should have to go through that .
Unfortunately , Alabama can ’ t really make those background checks just disappear .
What they can do , though , is comply with the rules in place to allow those who can pass a check but would rather not to have some means to bypass those checks lawfully .
That means cleaning up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Alabama has toyed with the idea of going to constitutional carry , which some might argue makes this a moot point , but it doesn ’ t .
Even in constitutional carry states , the issued permit may still allow you to skip the NICS check .
Besides , they ’ re not a constitutional carry state yet .
Best to cover all your basis while you can .
Otherwise , you may end up sorely disappointed in the long run .

Alabama has had concealed carry for a while. Unfortunately, there were…issues with it. Now, those are some pretty serious issues which, frankly, shouldn’t matter, but they do. While no one is going to stop someone from carrying under the current system, it is a bit of a let down to not be able to use your permit to skip the NICS check.
Don’t get me wrong, the vast majority of people, if not everyone, who got permits under the current system can still pass the check, but the ATF has ruled otherwise and that’s just kind of how it is. For now, anyway.
On Wednesday, the Alabama state senate approved a new plan that should change all of that.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would create a statewide system concealed carry permit system. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Randy Price, R-Opelika, would authorize the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) to create the system. Individuals would be able to apply for one-year, five-year or lifetime permits with their local sheriff. The sheriff would have 30 days to decide on an application. A sheriff would run a criminal background check on applicants and would have the power to deny an application. Upon granting a permit, the sheriff would notify ALEA. Lifetime permits would expire after an individual moved out of state. Price described the bill as a public safety measure. “The most important thing we bring out of this is information and uniformity of this information,” he said. “Bringing all 67 counties together will bring safety to our officers.”
Some gun rights activists took issue with putting all of this information into a central database, which is understandable. Such a database can be used to some degree as gun registration, even if particular firearms are never mentioned. After all, people who apply for carry permits tend to have something to carry, right?
However, it’s clear something needed to be done for poor Alabamans to be able to use that permit to skip the NICS check.
For many, that’s not a big thing, but if you’ve had a delay for some reason that took days to settle out, you begin to understand just how annoying that background check can be. No one should have to go through that.
Unfortunately, Alabama can’t really make those background checks just disappear. What they can do, though, is comply with the rules in place to allow those who can pass a check but would rather not to have some means to bypass those checks lawfully. That means cleaning up their concealed carry system.
Of course, Alabama has toyed with the idea of going to constitutional carry, which some might argue makes this a moot point, but it doesn’t. Even in constitutional carry states, the issued permit may still allow you to skip the NICS check. Besides, they’re not a constitutional carry state yet. Best to cover all your basis while you can. Otherwise, you may end up sorely disappointed in the long run.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--The Troubling Case Of Roosevelt Twyne

The Troubling Case Of Roosevelt Twyne

Roosevelt Twyne is a legal gun owner in New Jersey .
In fact , not only has he jumped through all of the hoops to become a legal gun owner , he actually managed to obtain a rare concealed carry license in the state , thanks in part to his job as armored car security guard .
None of that mattered when Twyne was stopped by police in Roselle Park , New Jersey back on February 8th just a block from his home , allegedly for having illegal window tint on his vehicle .
When Twyne informed the officers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , in fact , have his firearm on him , police searched him and ultimately arrested him on two felony charges ; possession of hollow-point ammunition and illegal transportation of a firearm .
The problem , according to Twyne ’ s attorney Evan Nappen , is that the ammunition in Twyne ’ s firearm is legal in New Jersey , as was his transportation of a firearm .
Twyne ’ s Permit to Carry a Handgun specifies the Smith & Wesson handgun that he was carrying at the time of the stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Officer Registration Act ) Card , a New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card , and lawfully purchased/registered his handgun with a New Jersey permit to purchase .
“ Ammunition lacking a hollow cavity at the tip , such as those with polymer filling , are not considered to be hollow point ammunition .
An example of this can be seen with the Hornaday Critical Defense / Critical Duty , Car-Bon PowRball / Glaser Safety Slug and Nosler Inc. Defense ammunition.
” ( Emphasis added . )
Despite following all of New Jersey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s now facing felony charges and has been suspended from his job , in addition to having his firearm seized and his gun licenses suspended .
Nappen is my guest on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , and I appreciate him taking the time to delve into the specifics of Twyne ’ s case and what happens next .
Nappen is hopeful that prosecutors will drop Twyne ’ s charges , but to date they ’ ve exhibited no interest in doing so , and for now the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make his first court appearance .
Nappen says under New Jersey law , Twyne would have to be indicted before he can make the argument that he wasn ’ t in violation of any of the state statutes involving firearms , and in the meantime he ’ s out of a job and looking at the possibility of becoming a felon , spending time in prison , losing his career , and his right to keep and bear arms .
You can donate to Twyne ’ s legal defense fund here : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of cases in New Jersey over the years where legal gun owners have run afoul of the state ’ s gun laws and faced similar consequences , from Shaneen Allen to Steffon Josey , but what makes the case of Roosevelt Twyne even more egregious is the fact that he hadn ’ t even accidentally broken any of the state ’ s laws .
According to Nappen , Twyne never should have faced arrest to begin with .
Roosevelt Twyne isn ’ t a criminal .
He ’ s been vetted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed worthy of receiving permission to exercise his right to keep and bear arms .
He was carrying company-issued ammunition that is specifically mentioned on the New Jersey State Police website as an example of ammunition that is legal to possess in the state .
He was transporting his firearm lawfully .
Yet the police in Roselle Park , New Jersey apparently decided to make an example of Twyne , perhaps assuming that the world wouldn ’ t take notice .
They were wrong .
As I told Evan , I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courthouse if prosecutors actually proceed with this case , and I won ’ t let this drop .
Roosevelt Twyne ’ s case is a prime example of how the state of New Jersey continues to ignore the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and it ’ s also a clear demonstration of how that hostility towards the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms makes it dangerous to even attempt to exercise that right under the state ’ s draconian gun laws .
Roosevelt Twyne needs to get back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , but in order to do that prosecutors have to do the right thing and drop this case as soon as possible .
That is the only way that justice can be served here , and I am hopeful , though hardly confident , that Mr. Twyne will not have to wait a moment longer than necessary to receive the justice that he is due .
We ’ ll continue to follow Roosevelt Twyne ’ s case and bring you any updates as they become available , and I appreciate Evan Nappen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word about his client and the injustice that ’ s been done .
Also on today ’ s program , we have the story of a Memphis man with multiple kidnapping charges in his past who stands accused of a double murder , a North Carolina man forced to defend himself after a stranger attacked him outside of his home , and a Wisconsin police officer who risked his life to rescue a disabled man trapped inside a burning apartment building .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Roosevelt Twyne is a legal gun owner in New Jersey. In fact, not only has he jumped through all of the hoops to become a legal gun owner, he actually managed to obtain a rare concealed carry license in the state, thanks in part to his job as armored car security guard.
None of that mattered when Twyne was stopped by police in Roselle Park, New Jersey back on February 8th just a block from his home, allegedly for having illegal window tint on his vehicle. When Twyne informed the officers that he was a concealed carry holder and did, in fact, have his firearm on him, police searched him and ultimately arrested him on two felony charges; possession of hollow-point ammunition and illegal transportation of a firearm.
The problem, according to Twyne’s attorney Evan Nappen, is that the ammunition in Twyne’s firearm is legal in New Jersey, as was his transportation of a firearm.
Twyne’s Permit to Carry a Handgun specifies the Smith & Wesson handgun that he was carrying at the time of the stop. Twyne also possesses a SORA (Security Officer Registration Act) Card, a New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, and lawfully purchased/registered his handgun with a New Jersey permit to purchase. The New Jersey State Police Firearms Information FAQ website specifically states: “Ammunition lacking a hollow cavity at the tip, such as those with polymer filling, are not considered to be hollow point ammunition. An example of this can be seen with the Hornaday Critical Defense / Critical Duty, Car-Bon PowRball / Glaser Safety Slug and Nosler Inc. Defense ammunition.” (Emphasis added.)
Despite following all of New Jersey’s gun laws, Twyne’s now facing felony charges and has been suspended from his job, in addition to having his firearm seized and his gun licenses suspended.
Nappen is my guest on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and I appreciate him taking the time to delve into the specifics of Twyne’s case and what happens next. Nappen is hopeful that prosecutors will drop Twyne’s charges, but to date they’ve exhibited no interest in doing so, and for now the case is proceeding, though Twyne has yet to make his first court appearance.
Nappen says under New Jersey law, Twyne would have to be indicted before he can make the argument that he wasn’t in violation of any of the state statutes involving firearms, and in the meantime he’s out of a job and looking at the possibility of becoming a felon, spending time in prison, losing his career, and his right to keep and bear arms. You can donate to Twyne’s legal defense fund here: https://gogetfunding.com/roosevelt-twyne-legal-defense-fund/
I’ve covered a number of cases in New Jersey over the years where legal gun owners have run afoul of the state’s gun laws and faced similar consequences, from Shaneen Allen to Steffon Josey, but what makes the case of Roosevelt Twyne even more egregious is the fact that he hadn’t even accidentally broken any of the state’s laws. According to Nappen, Twyne never should have faced arrest to begin with.
“Mr. Twyne is innocent of these charges as a matter of law, and never should have been arrested. The information regarding the legality of his ammunition is easily available to the public and law enforcement on the New Jersey State Police website. Three white officers stopping a black, law-abiding, licensed, armored car security guard coming home from work is extremely dubious. His subsequent arrest was unjustifiable.”
Roosevelt Twyne isn’t a criminal. He’s been vetted by the state of New Jersey and deemed worthy of receiving permission to exercise his right to keep and bear arms. He was carrying company-issued ammunition that is specifically mentioned on the New Jersey State Police website as an example of ammunition that is legal to possess in the state. He was transporting his firearm lawfully. Yet the police in Roselle Park, New Jersey apparently decided to make an example of Twyne, perhaps assuming that the world wouldn’t take notice. They were wrong.
As I told Evan, I’m ready to hold a #RallyForRoosevelt outside the courthouse if prosecutors actually proceed with this case, and I won’t let this drop. Roosevelt Twyne’s case is a prime example of how the state of New Jersey continues to ignore the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and it’s also a clear demonstration of how that hostility towards the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms makes it dangerous to even attempt to exercise that right under the state’s draconian gun laws.
Roosevelt Twyne needs to get back to work and get on with his life, but in order to do that prosecutors have to do the right thing and drop this case as soon as possible. That is the only way that justice can be served here, and I am hopeful, though hardly confident, that Mr. Twyne will not have to wait a moment longer than necessary to receive the justice that he is due.
We’ll continue to follow Roosevelt Twyne’s case and bring you any updates as they become available, and I appreciate Evan Nappen joining me today to help spread the word about his client and the injustice that’s been done.
Also on today’s program, we have the story of a Memphis man with multiple kidnapping charges in his past who stands accused of a double murder, a North Carolina man forced to defend himself after a stranger attacked him outside of his home, and a Wisconsin police officer who risked his life to rescue a disabled man trapped inside a burning apartment building.
Don’t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or to Apple Podcasts, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-03-05--"Gun Safety" Resolution Transformed Into Something Different

No matter the state , gun control supporters are going to try to be a pain in the backside and try to make everything about gun control they can .
In many states , they don ’ t really accomplish much .
They look good for the gun grabbers back home and maybe get an attaboy from a state-level gun control group that didn ’ t really expect to accomplish anything anyway .
Yet it ’ s hilarious when they try something and it gets hijacked and turned into something else .
Kind of like what happened in South Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Dakota Democrat asking the Legislature to acknowledge the issue of gun deaths in the state was transformed by Senate Republicans on Tuesday to highlight reductions in accidental gun deaths .
Sen. Reynold Nesiba , a Sioux Falls Democrat , said he brought the resolution to “ start a conversation ” about deaths from guns in the state , but he found the conservative-dominated Senate a tough audience .
The South Dakota Legislature has often moved in recent years to protect and expand gun rights .
Instead of passing Nesiba ’ s resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicides in the state involve guns and outnumber deaths from opioids , the Senate rewrote his proposal to point out statistics underscored by the National Rifle Association on dramatic reductions in accidental firearm deaths .
The resolution called for gun owners to safely handle and store firearms .
Nesiba was less than thrilled about what happened to his proposal , but I ’ m tickled to death .
Look , suicide is a problem , but Nesiba sought to use suicides to push for regulation on the means of suicide .
That doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people shift to other methods and kill themselves that way .
In the end , it doesn ’ t stop suicides at all .
Meanwhile , safely handling and securing your weapons is just smart .
It ’ s how you prevent your guns from being stolen or otherwise ending up in the wrong hands , even from a family member .
A secured gun is less likely to be used for something you ’ ll have to ask yourself questions about later .
But this isn ’ t about suicides or securing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanting to try to find the way in under the pro-gun armor of his fellow lawmakers .
The original proposal included language that might have looked to some as if it gave support to the Second Amendment , but how often do we hear , “ I support the Second Amendment but… ” anyway ?
Nesiba ’ s goal wasn ’ t to address what he sees as an issue .
His goal was to use this as a wedge .
He could tell otherwise pro-gun lawmakers that his next bit of gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the resolution they backed , which may push some into backing it .
It ’ s a pathetic attempt at manipulation and anyone with a brain can see it .
And they did .
Now , the resolution actually contributes something meaningful to the conversation .
It takes a position that can and should be fairly universal across the board , all without pressuring anyone into backing any new regulations .
The fact that they did it by hijacking an anti-gunners resolution is just icing on the cake .

No matter the state, gun control supporters are going to try to be a pain in the backside and try to make everything about gun control they can. In many states, they don’t really accomplish much. They look good for the gun grabbers back home and maybe get an attaboy from a state-level gun control group that didn’t really expect to accomplish anything anyway.
Yet it’s hilarious when they try something and it gets hijacked and turned into something else.
Kind of like what happened in South Dakota recently.
A proposal brought by a South Dakota Democrat asking the Legislature to acknowledge the issue of gun deaths in the state was transformed by Senate Republicans on Tuesday to highlight reductions in accidental gun deaths. Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Sioux Falls Democrat, said he brought the resolution to “start a conversation” about deaths from guns in the state, but he found the conservative-dominated Senate a tough audience. The South Dakota Legislature has often moved in recent years to protect and expand gun rights. Instead of passing Nesiba’s resolution that pointed out that the majority of suicides in the state involve guns and outnumber deaths from opioids, the Senate rewrote his proposal to point out statistics underscored by the National Rifle Association on dramatic reductions in accidental firearm deaths. The resolution called for gun owners to safely handle and store firearms.
Nesiba was less than thrilled about what happened to his proposal, but I’m tickled to death.
Look, suicide is a problem, but Nesiba sought to use suicides to push for regulation on the means of suicide. That doesn’t work. At best, people shift to other methods and kill themselves that way. In the end, it doesn’t stop suicides at all.
Meanwhile, safely handling and securing your weapons is just smart. It’s how you prevent your guns from being stolen or otherwise ending up in the wrong hands, even from a family member. A secured gun is less likely to be used for something you’ll have to ask yourself questions about later.
But this isn’t about suicides or securing firearms. This is about an anti-gunner wanting to try to find the way in under the pro-gun armor of his fellow lawmakers. The original proposal included language that might have looked to some as if it gave support to the Second Amendment, but how often do we hear, “I support the Second Amendment but…” anyway?
Nesiba’s goal wasn’t to address what he sees as an issue. His goal was to use this as a wedge. He could tell otherwise pro-gun lawmakers that his next bit of gun control legislation wasn’t that different from the resolution they backed, which may push some into backing it. It’s a pathetic attempt at manipulation and anyone with a brain can see it.
And they did.
Now, the resolution actually contributes something meaningful to the conversation. It takes a position that can and should be fairly universal across the board, all without pressuring anyone into backing any new regulations.
The fact that they did it by hijacking an anti-gunners resolution is just icing on the cake.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--ATF Declares MI Carry Permits No Longer Good For Background Checks

In many states , if you have a valid carry permit , you can present that and skip the NICS check .
The reasoning is simple .
If you have a permit , you ’ ve already undergone the relevant check .
It ’ s not rocket surgery or anything .
However , the ATF is who gets to decide which states ’ permits are good for background checks and which aren ’ t .
Some states lose that status from time to time .
Most famously is Alabama , which lost theirs when it became known that some sheriffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
That ’ s not the only reason that can happen , either .
Just ask Michigan , apparently .
Like a number of states , concealed pistol license holders in Michigan are exempted from the requirement to undergo a NICS background check every time they purchase a new firearm .
That ’ s because permit holders have already undergone an extensive background check and fingerprinting in order to be issued a permit in the first place .
Michigan has had that exemption from the ATF since 2006 , but yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because recreational marijuana is now legal in the state .
Voters approved legalization in 2018 and retail sales started December 1 , 2019 .
Now , because the state of Michigan is issuing CPLs to people who use marijuana , the ATF sent the following letter yesterday notifying all of the state ’ s FFLs that Michigan CPL holders are no longer exempted from the background check requirement .
Unfortunately , this is kind of what happens when a state legalizes something that ’ s still illegal at the federal level .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ATF ’ s decision , this kind of conflict isn ’ t new .
Not too long ago , the city of Honolulu demanded those with medical marijuana cards turn in their guns .
That wasn ’ t even the first example .
To make matter worse , the courts typically find that governments can infringe on the rights of people using “ legal ” marijuana since it ’ s still prohibited at the federal level .
The only way to solve this and prevent future conflicts is for the federal government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least be considered on a state-by-state basis .
While that ’ s the status quo in all but law , that lack of law is where the problems are coming from .
It allows governmental entities to hammer people who may be using marijuana in accordance with state law and may also want to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
It ’ s enough to make a libertarian feel targeted , truth be told .
Oh , it ’ s not anything that nefarious , but I can see why someone might feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important point is being missed by the ATF in all of this .
Those who only use marijuana in states where that drug is legal are usually not the ones who represent some kind of a major problem for public safety .
Hell , your typical marijuana user is really only a threat to the snack food aisle at the local stop-and-rob .
They ’ re going to devour all the Doritos then focus on the Ruffles .
They ’ re not going to rob anyone or anything of the sort .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So yeah , it ’ s well past time for the law to change at the federal level to end this kind of stupid .
It ’ s only too bad that it won ’ t happen .

In many states, if you have a valid carry permit, you can present that and skip the NICS check. The reasoning is simple. If you have a permit, you’ve already undergone the relevant check. It’s not rocket surgery or anything.
However, the ATF is who gets to decide which states’ permits are good for background checks and which aren’t.
Some states lose that status from time to time. Most famously is Alabama, which lost theirs when it became known that some sheriffs were issuing permits without any background check at all.
That’s not the only reason that can happen, either. Just ask Michigan, apparently.
Like a number of states, concealed pistol license holders in Michigan are exempted from the requirement to undergo a NICS background check every time they purchase a new firearm. That’s because permit holders have already undergone an extensive background check and fingerprinting in order to be issued a permit in the first place. Michigan has had that exemption from the ATF since 2006, but yesterday the ATF rescinded it. Why? Because recreational marijuana is now legal in the state. Voters approved legalization in 2018 and retail sales started December 1, 2019. … Now, because the state of Michigan is issuing CPLs to people who use marijuana, the ATF sent the following letter yesterday notifying all of the state’s FFLs that Michigan CPL holders are no longer exempted from the background check requirement.
Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens when a state legalizes something that’s still illegal at the federal level. While I don’t agree with the ATF’s decision, this kind of conflict isn’t new. Not too long ago, the city of Honolulu demanded those with medical marijuana cards turn in their guns. That wasn’t even the first example.
To make matter worse, the courts typically find that governments can infringe on the rights of people using “legal” marijuana since it’s still prohibited at the federal level.
The only way to solve this and prevent future conflicts is for the federal government to change the law so marijuana can at least be considered on a state-by-state basis. While that’s the status quo in all but law, that lack of law is where the problems are coming from. It allows governmental entities to hammer people who may be using marijuana in accordance with state law and may also want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
It’s enough to make a libertarian feel targeted, truth be told.
Oh, it’s not anything that nefarious, but I can see why someone might feel obliged to wonder otherwise. Yet one important point is being missed by the ATF in all of this. Those who only use marijuana in states where that drug is legal are usually not the ones who represent some kind of a major problem for public safety.
Hell, your typical marijuana user is really only a threat to the snack food aisle at the local stop-and-rob. They’re going to devour all the Doritos then focus on the Ruffles. They’re not going to rob anyone or anything of the sort. They’re too stoned for that.
So yeah, it’s well past time for the law to change at the federal level to end this kind of stupid. It’s only too bad that it won’t happen.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--Teens Charged With Murder After Home Invasion Leads To Self-Defense Shooting

Two teenagers in Enid , Oklahoma are facing murder charges in a home invasion robbery that left one suspect dead .
The pair aren ’ t accused of pulling the trigger , but rather engaging in criminal activity that directly led to the death of Ezavier Condit .
19-year old Damon Lee Robinson and 17-year old Rico Lamar Stennis are accused of breaking down the front door of a home along with Condit back on January 31st .
The trio were apparently unaware that one of the women inside the home was armed , and she was forced to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , at least two of suspects had actually tried to break into the home the day before as well .
The woman said there was a knock at the door , and her roommate answered to a young man asking if “ Aunt Marie ” was there , according to the affidavit .
She said her roommate shut the door , and a few seconds later the door was kicked open .
She said there were two people during the first burglary .
The woman said the second time three people kicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affidavit .
She said she and her roommate were on the couch , and she was armed with her pistol .
She said when the first kick happened , her roommate ran toward the bedroom and she ran toward the door .
The woman said she was not familiar with handguns , so she made a motion with her hands as if she was working the slide on a semi automatic pistol , according to the affidavit .
She said she did this and fired one round while standing in her doorway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as she was stepping out of the doorway and fired a second shot , according to the affidavit .
She said the three were running north and she worked the action again , firing a third shot at the three who still were running .
She said there were two running fast and one running slower .
She said she did not think she hit any of them .
According to police , the woman in question works for a marijuana farm nearby , and police believe the woman was targeted at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featuring medical marijuana products and large amounts of cash that were filmed at her home .
Text messages from Condit to a 14-year old girl shortly before the home invasion took place indicates that the trio were hoping to rob the victims of two pounds of marijuana .
Under Oklahoma law , valid holders of medical marijuana cards can possess , purchase , and carry firearms lawfully .
However , it ’ s still illegal under federal law to do so , which means while the victim in question won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense , it ’ s entirely possible that the U.S. Attorney ’ s office could pursue federal charges against the woman .
We ’ ll try to keep our eyes on this story and bring you any updates as they become available .

Two teenagers in Enid, Oklahoma are facing murder charges in a home invasion robbery that left one suspect dead. The pair aren’t accused of pulling the trigger, but rather engaging in criminal activity that directly led to the death of Ezavier Condit.
19-year old Damon Lee Robinson and 17-year old Rico Lamar Stennis are accused of breaking down the front door of a home along with Condit back on January 31st. The trio were apparently unaware that one of the women inside the home was armed, and she was forced to defend herself from the intruders. According to police, at least two of suspects had actually tried to break into the home the day before as well.
The woman said there was a knock at the door, and her roommate answered to a young man asking if “Aunt Marie” was there, according to the affidavit. She said her roommate shut the door, and a few seconds later the door was kicked open. She said there were two people during the first burglary. The woman said the second time three people kicked in the door, according to the affidavit. She said she and her roommate were on the couch, and she was armed with her pistol. She said when the first kick happened, her roommate ran toward the bedroom and she ran toward the door. The woman said she was not familiar with handguns, so she made a motion with her hands as if she was working the slide on a semi automatic pistol, according to the affidavit. She said she did this and fired one round while standing in her doorway. She said she worked the action again as she was stepping out of the doorway and fired a second shot, according to the affidavit. She said the three were running north and she worked the action again, firing a third shot at the three who still were running. She said there were two running fast and one running slower. She said she did not think she hit any of them.
According to police, the woman in question works for a marijuana farm nearby, and police believe the woman was targeted at least in part because of social media postings featuring medical marijuana products and large amounts of cash that were filmed at her home. Text messages from Condit to a 14-year old girl shortly before the home invasion took place indicates that the trio were hoping to rob the victims of two pounds of marijuana.
Under Oklahoma law, valid holders of medical marijuana cards can possess, purchase, and carry firearms lawfully. However, it’s still illegal under federal law to do so, which means while the victim in question won’t be facing any state charges for acting in self-defense, it’s entirely possible that the U.S. Attorney’s office could pursue federal charges against the woman. We’ll try to keep our eyes on this story and bring you any updates as they become available.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--CA Community Cracks Down On Legal Gun Owners

City council members in Alameda , California voted unanimously on Tuesday to require all legal gun owners in the Bay-area city to store their firearms in a locked container or with a trigger lock , unless the firearm is being physically carried in the home .
The new law is ostensibly meant to crack down on firearms thefts , according to one city council member .
What they ’ re actually trying to do is wrap the Second Amendment up tight in red tape , making it more difficult for people to use a firearm for self-defense inside their home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only change coming to Alameda .
The town ’ s sole gun store will also have to abide by draconian new requirements that will force the business to purchase thousands of dollars in video surveillance equipment if it ’ s going to continue to operate in Alameda .
Among other things , the ordinance requires firearms dealers to videotape sales transactions and gun owners whose weapons are stolen or lost to report them missing within 24 hours to avoid criminal prosecution .
State law requires a missing firearm be reported within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loss sooner could help law enforcement track and more quickly recover the gun , according to Deputy City Attorney Montague Hung .
As we reported before the vote was taken , the new rules allow for Alameda ’ s police chief to decide how many cameras the Big 5 Sporting Goods must have .
The store will be required to keep a year ’ s worth of video footage from each camera on site , available for police to access at any time .
One city council member wants to impose even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , by compelling them to move their firearms to another part of the store .
Councilman Tony Daysog said he was disappointed the proposed ordinance doesn ’ t mandate that guns within a store be placed away from other merchandise .
“ The issue is that , when Big 5 at the South Shore shopping center displays rows and rows of firearms right next to the check-out area in clear view by people of all ages , it sends the wrong message that the brute force that guns represent is normal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tennis rackets and running shoes at Big 5 , ” Daysog said Friday .
“ Even if Big 5 isn ’ t selling military assault-style weapons , it ’ s the normalization of the brute force of guns that worries me.
” That ’ s really what this new ordinance is about : de-normalizing gun ownership , and council members aren ’ t done yet .
According to the East Bay Times , the Alameda City Council is still investigating how they can require all gun owners in the city to undergo mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code for “ an anti-gun lecture about the dangers of gun ownership.
” That requirement was part of the original ordinance introduced by the council , but was pulled as the elected officials try to “ figure out how such a requirement could be enforced and aligned with state and federal laws.
” I don ’ t know why they ’ re so concerned about following state or federal laws , especially since their storage requirement is likely to be challenged in court .
Keep your eyes on what ’ s going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re a California gun owner , don ’ t be surprised if your own city council follows suit before long .

City council members in Alameda, California voted unanimously on Tuesday to require all legal gun owners in the Bay-area city to store their firearms in a locked container or with a trigger lock, unless the firearm is being physically carried in the home. The new law is ostensibly meant to crack down on firearms thefts, according to one city council member.
“We’re not trying to criminalize the legal possession of firearms,” Councilman Jim Oddie said Tuesday when the council unanimously approved an ordinances regulating gun use. “What we are trying to do is to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of people who should not possess them.”
What they’re actually trying to do is wrap the Second Amendment up tight in red tape, making it more difficult for people to use a firearm for self-defense inside their home.
That new local law isn’t the only change coming to Alameda. The town’s sole gun store will also have to abide by draconian new requirements that will force the business to purchase thousands of dollars in video surveillance equipment if it’s going to continue to operate in Alameda.
Among other things, the ordinance requires firearms dealers to videotape sales transactions and gun owners whose weapons are stolen or lost to report them missing within 24 hours to avoid criminal prosecution. State law requires a missing firearm be reported within five days. Encouraging victims to report the loss sooner could help law enforcement track and more quickly recover the gun, according to Deputy City Attorney Montague Hung.
As we reported before the vote was taken, the new rules allow for Alameda’s police chief to decide how many cameras the Big 5 Sporting Goods must have. The store will be required to keep a year’s worth of video footage from each camera on site, available for police to access at any time. One city council member wants to impose even more restrictions on the gun store as well, by compelling them to move their firearms to another part of the store.
Councilman Tony Daysog said he was disappointed the proposed ordinance doesn’t mandate that guns within a store be placed away from other merchandise. “The issue is that, when Big 5 at the South Shore shopping center displays rows and rows of firearms right next to the check-out area in clear view by people of all ages, it sends the wrong message that the brute force that guns represent is normal, or as normal as soccer balls, tennis rackets and running shoes at Big 5,” Daysog said Friday. “Even if Big 5 isn’t selling military assault-style weapons, it’s the normalization of the brute force of guns that worries me.”
That’s really what this new ordinance is about: de-normalizing gun ownership, and council members aren’t done yet. According to the East Bay Times, the Alameda City Council is still investigating how they can require all gun owners in the city to undergo mandatory “safety training”, which is code for “an anti-gun lecture about the dangers of gun ownership.” That requirement was part of the original ordinance introduced by the council, but was pulled as the elected officials try to “figure out how such a requirement could be enforced and aligned with state and federal laws.”
I don’t know why they’re so concerned about following state or federal laws, especially since their storage requirement is likely to be challenged in court. Keep your eyes on what’s going on in Alameda, and if you’re a California gun owner, don’t be surprised if your own city council follows suit before long.


bearingarms--2020-03-05--Bill Seeks To Expand State's Red Flag Law

Red flag laws are one of the most egregious bits of gun control floating around anti-gun cesspools you might care to think of .
Not only are they violations of the Second Amendment , but also of due process .
The idea that someone can just have their guns taken from them despite not being enough of a threat to be locked up is the very antithesis of “ shall not be infringed.
” And yet , some states not only love the idea , but they also want to make their own red flag laws even worse .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state like Connecticut .
To be fair , Connecticut ’ s current law is far from the worst red flag law we ’ ve seen .
It ’ s extremely limited as to who can request the order and it ’ s a temporary order .
Far from ideal , I ’ ll grant you , but also far from the worst .
Yet this bill seeks to change that .
It ’ s important to remember that red flag orders are typically issued without the accused being able to face their accusers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual isn ’ t there as are based entirely on the testimony of those seeking the order in the first place .
Now , Connecticut wants the order to be in place indefinitely and place the onus on the accused to illustrate they ’ re not a threat .
That goes against everything our justice system is supposed to stand for .
What ’ s next ?
Throw someone in the water and if they float , they ’ re a danger and should be deprived of their guns , but if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you kidding me ?
The kicker is who would be hurt the worst in a scheme like that .
That ’ s right , the economically disadvantaged .
The poorer members of the community would be far less likely to have the means to fight for their rights to be restored ever 180 days .
They ’ re also more likely to be attacked while disarmed .
Unfortunately , this is Connecticut .
For all the progressive blathering about the poor we hear , they never stop to consider that group when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of constitutionally-protected rights .
Connecticut is among the worst offenders in this regard , so that means there ’ s a very good chance of this passing .
Unless , of course , folks in Connecticut rally and make it clear that supporting such a measure is career suicide .

Red flag laws are one of the most egregious bits of gun control floating around anti-gun cesspools you might care to think of. Not only are they violations of the Second Amendment, but also of due process. The idea that someone can just have their guns taken from them despite not being enough of a threat to be locked up is the very antithesis of “shall not be infringed.”
And yet, some states not only love the idea, but they also want to make their own red flag laws even worse.
That’s not surprising coming from a state like Connecticut.
Connecticut lawmakers are seeking to expand a state law that allows police to seize firearms or ammunition from a person they believe poses a risk to themselves or others. The changes to the state’s so-called red flag law are the judiciary committee’s “big gun safety” proposal of the legislative session, inspired by the “best practices,” of legislation passed in other states, said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat and co-chair of the committee. Under Connecticut’s current statute, also known as the risk protection warrant law, a state’s attorney or any two police officers can seek an order from a judge that allows the seizure of a firearm or ammunition if they believe the person with access to the weapons poses a risk to themselves or others. A court hearing is held within two weeks to decide whether the firearms or ammunition should be kept away from the person. Any member of the public can contact police to begin the procedure. The order lasts for a single year. The new bill proposes to make those orders indefinite. But it would allow a person to apply to the court every 180 days to lift the order. It would also prevent someone who is shown to be an imminent risk to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. And it would change who can seek an order from a judge. Rather than two police officers or a state’s attorney, a single police officer, household or family members and certain medical professionals would be able to petition for the seizure order.
To be fair, Connecticut’s current law is far from the worst red flag law we’ve seen. It’s extremely limited as to who can request the order and it’s a temporary order. Far from ideal, I’ll grant you, but also far from the worst.
Yet this bill seeks to change that.
It’s important to remember that red flag orders are typically issued without the accused being able to face their accusers. They’re issued when the individual isn’t there as are based entirely on the testimony of those seeking the order in the first place. Now, Connecticut wants the order to be in place indefinitely and place the onus on the accused to illustrate they’re not a threat.
That goes against everything our justice system is supposed to stand for. What’s next? Throw someone in the water and if they float, they’re a danger and should be deprived of their guns, but if they drown, they’re righteous? Are you kidding me?
The kicker is who would be hurt the worst in a scheme like that. That’s right, the economically disadvantaged. The poorer members of the community would be far less likely to have the means to fight for their rights to be restored ever 180 days. They’re also more likely to be attacked while disarmed.
Unfortunately, this is Connecticut. For all the progressive blathering about the poor we hear, they never stop to consider that group when they’re pushing for the curtailing of constitutionally-protected rights. Connecticut is among the worst offenders in this regard, so that means there’s a very good chance of this passing.
Unless, of course, folks in Connecticut rally and make it clear that supporting such a measure is career suicide.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--Colorado Congressman To Biden And Beto: Come And Take It

Pearls are being clutched and fainting couches are being readied after Colorado Rep. Ken Buck took to Twitter with a challenge to Joe Biden and Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke .
Of course Chris Cilliza of CNN demonstrated his cluelessness with his response .
I ’ d say “ Come and take it ” actually is a normal reaction to the idea of confiscating legally owned firearms from millions of Americans .
It ’ s the idea of gun confiscation that ’ s abnormal and outside the bounds of the American tradition .
Some of Buck ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discipline in his short video clip .
Alex Yablon , who used to write for The Trace , wondered why Buck was allowed to keep an AR-15 in his Capitol Hill office , given that the District of Columbia has banned them .
So are “ large capacity magazines ” , but David Gregory of NBC News got away with possessing one on camera a few years ago .
Even some of Rep. Buck ’ s fellow congresscritters took to social media to complain that they felt unsafe .
As it turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time anti-gun activists have tried to make a big deal out of Buck ’ s black rifle .
Back in 2015 , after Buck and then-Rep. Trey Gowdy posed in his office with Buck ’ s AR-15 , D.C. ’ s Attorney General actually launched an investigation .
As the Huffington Post reported at the time , however , Buck broke no laws by having his AR-15 in his D.C. office .
As for the muzzle discipline , Buck noted at the time that the AR-15 on his office wall wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on to say the fact that the AR-15 is inoperable makes Buck ’ s video “ pure performance.
” I ’ d say “ symbolic.
” Buck was simply expressing the point of view of millions of Americans ; we ’ re not going to simply hand over our legally owned firearms if Joe Biden wins on Election Day and appoints O ’ Rourke to go round up our guns .
Yablon and other Americans who support gun confiscation may be disappointed by the unwillingness of millions to comply with any gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be surprised .
Americans have a long history of standing up in defiance to infringements on our individual rights and civil liberties , and that includes our right to keep and bear arms .

Pearls are being clutched and fainting couches are being readied after Colorado Rep. Ken Buck took to Twitter with a challenge to Joe Biden and Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.
I have just one message for Joe Biden and Beto O’Rourke, if you want to take everyone’s AR-15s, why don’t you swing by my office in Washington, D.C. and start with this one? Come and take it. #2A pic.twitter.com/jG2SiXetov — Congressman Ken Buck (@RepKenBuck) March 6, 2020
Of course Chris Cilliza of CNN demonstrated his cluelessness with his response.
I’d say “Come and take it” actually is a normal reaction to the idea of confiscating legally owned firearms from millions of Americans. It’s the idea of gun confiscation that’s abnormal and outside the bounds of the American tradition.
Some of Buck’s critics took issue with his muzzle discipline in his short video clip.
Did you notice the lack of barrel discipline/safety….. just pointed gun at camera man — Mason Young (@Mason_Youngg) March 6, 2020
Alex Yablon, who used to write for The Trace, wondered why Buck was allowed to keep an AR-15 in his Capitol Hill office, given that the District of Columbia has banned them.
Assault rifles are completely banned in DC https://t.co/hPb33W2c6Q https://t.co/3dkvRLGAuv — Alex Yablon (@AlexYablon) March 6, 2020
So are “large capacity magazines”, but David Gregory of NBC News got away with possessing one on camera a few years ago.
Even some of Rep. Buck’s fellow congresscritters took to social media to complain that they felt unsafe.
Your congressional office is not your private home. It is a public space. This behavior is threatening and unacceptable. I feel unsafe with this in my place of work. I have been in contact with the Sergeant at Arms to express my concerns. https://t.co/UTbNBXLziW — Rep. Haley Stevens (@RepHaleyStevens) March 6, 2020
As it turns out, this isn’t the first time anti-gun activists have tried to make a big deal out of Buck’s black rifle. Back in 2015, after Buck and then-Rep. Trey Gowdy posed in his office with Buck’s AR-15, D.C.’s Attorney General actually launched an investigation. As the Huffington Post reported at the time, however, Buck broke no laws by having his AR-15 in his D.C. office.
The Metropolitan Police Department referred HuffPost to the Capitol Police Department, which noted that D.C.’s ban does not apply to any member of Congress or their employees while at the Capitol. “[Capitol Police Board] regulations … specifically provide that members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped,” Lieutenant Kimberly Schneider said.
As for the muzzle discipline, Buck noted at the time that the AR-15 on his office wall wasn’t operable.
In a statement released from his office, Buck described the gun as “a beautiful, patriotic paper weight” and said Capitol Police gave him permission to bring the rifle into the office. “While safety protocols call for all guns to be treated as if they are loaded, this one isn’t ,” he said. “Further, a close inspection of the only public photo of the rifle will show that the bolt carrier assembly is not in the rifle; it is in fact in Colorado.”
So yes, it would have been better had Buck pointed the rifle towards the wall instead of the camera, but I’d say this is a little different than, say, Carl Reimer negligently discharging his handgun while on a livestream earlier this week.
In a later tweet Yablon went on to say the fact that the AR-15 is inoperable makes Buck’s video “pure performance.” I’d say “symbolic.” Buck was simply expressing the point of view of millions of Americans; we’re not going to simply hand over our legally owned firearms if Joe Biden wins on Election Day and appoints O’Rourke to go round up our guns. Yablon and other Americans who support gun confiscation may be disappointed by the unwillingness of millions to comply with any gun confiscation order, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Americans have a long history of standing up in defiance to infringements on our individual rights and civil liberties, and that includes our right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--Prepping For A Pandemic- Are You Ready?

Prepping For A Pandemic- Are You Ready?

Today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. isn ’ t exactly Second Amendment-related , but it ’ s Second Amendment-adjacent , if you will .
After all , many of us may already be somewhere on the prepper spectrum , and with the number of cases of coronavirus increasing in the United States and the CDC warning of potential disruption to our daily lives , it ’ s not a bad idea to go over some of the basics of what we might be looking at over the next few months and how best to handle it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Jon Stokes , editor of ThePrepared.com , who ’ s been keeping close tabs on new developments in the coronavirus outbreak .
Stokes has also put together a very good check list of what you should have on hand to help keep you healthy , as well as some basic food prep items you should have on hand in case you ’ re stuck inside your home for a prolonged period of time .
Stokes says we ’ re past the point of slow prepping , and folks should think of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurricane preparation .
We know there ’ s a storm out there , we know it ’ s going to hit the mainland , but we still don ’ t know how severe it will be and who will be hit the hardest .
One of the things we didn ’ t get into in the interview , but is worth mentioning here , is planting a garden .
Frozen and canned vegetables are great , but planting now will provide you fresh vegetables throughout the summer .
Even if you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of tomato plants in a container along with some micro-greens or lettuces can go a long way .
Over the past few years , my wife and I have been scaling back our garden to focus on tomatoes and peppers , but we ’ re expanding out this year to include potatoes , carrots , beets , and beans ; all vegetables with pretty long shelf lives .
Planting now won ’ t help you over the next few weeks , but as Stokes notes , we don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Spanish Flu swept the globe in two waves ; the first hitting the old and infirm , and a second wave that hit the young and healthy .
Even if COVID-19 were to peter out this spring ( which seems unlikely ) , it could come back in a slightly different variation next fall and winter .
I ’ m not panicking over COVID-19 , but I am taking it seriously .
As I ’ ve talked about here before , my wife has Stage IV lung cancer and a compromised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s taking .
That certainly puts her at an elevated risk for serious complications from the virus , so I ’ ve been religiously washing my hands , face , and beard , and making sure that ’ s the first thing my kids do when they come in from outside as well .
Even doing all of that , I still managed to catch a cold at CPAC , so I ’ ve been engaged in some “ social distancing ” as well .
Thankfully , it was minor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but basically from the first tickle in the back of my throat until now , I ’ ve tried to stay away from the grocery store or other public places .
Hopefully this conversation will help you in your plans and preparation , and we ’ ll be back with a Second Amendment-focused show on Monday .

Today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. isn’t exactly Second Amendment-related, but it’s Second Amendment-adjacent, if you will. After all, many of us may already be somewhere on the prepper spectrum, and with the number of cases of coronavirus increasing in the United States and the CDC warning of potential disruption to our daily lives, it’s not a bad idea to go over some of the basics of what we might be looking at over the next few months and how best to handle it.
Joining me for today’s discussion is Jon Stokes, editor of ThePrepared.com, who’s been keeping close tabs on new developments in the coronavirus outbreak. Stokes has also put together a very good check list of what you should have on hand to help keep you healthy, as well as some basic food prep items you should have on hand in case you’re stuck inside your home for a prolonged period of time.
Stokes says we’re past the point of slow prepping, and folks should think of what we’re seeing in terms of hurricane preparation. We know there’s a storm out there, we know it’s going to hit the mainland, but we still don’t know how severe it will be and who will be hit the hardest.
One of the things we didn’t get into in the interview, but is worth mentioning here, is planting a garden. Frozen and canned vegetables are great, but planting now will provide you fresh vegetables throughout the summer. Even if you don’t have a lot of room, a couple of tomato plants in a container along with some micro-greens or lettuces can go a long way. Over the past few years, my wife and I have been scaling back our garden to focus on tomatoes and peppers, but we’re expanding out this year to include potatoes, carrots, beets, and beans; all vegetables with pretty long shelf lives.
Planting now won’t help you over the next few weeks, but as Stokes notes, we don’t know how this coronavirus works. In 1918, the Spanish Flu swept the globe in two waves; the first hitting the old and infirm, and a second wave that hit the young and healthy. Even if COVID-19 were to peter out this spring (which seems unlikely), it could come back in a slightly different variation next fall and winter.
I’m not panicking over COVID-19, but I am taking it seriously. As I’ve talked about here before, my wife has Stage IV lung cancer and a compromised immune system thanks to the chemotherapy drugs she’s taking. That certainly puts her at an elevated risk for serious complications from the virus, so I’ve been religiously washing my hands, face, and beard, and making sure that’s the first thing my kids do when they come in from outside as well.
Even doing all of that, I still managed to catch a cold at CPAC, so I’ve been engaged in some “social distancing” as well. Thankfully, it was minor and I’m getting over it, but basically from the first tickle in the back of my throat until now, I’ve tried to stay away from the grocery store or other public places.
Hopefully this conversation will help you in your plans and preparation, and we’ll be back with a Second Amendment-focused show on Monday.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--Two States Considering Constitutional Carry

While concealed carry is all fine and well , the requirement to have a permit in order to bear arms is still a clear infringement on the plain text of the Second Amendment .
After all , “ the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” doesn ’ t actually mean “ infringe all you want by making someone have a permit in order to do this thing.
” Saying otherwise is ridiculous .
That ’ s why permitless carry is also often referred to as constitutional carry .
Now , two states are looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , we have Utah that has a constitutional carry bill just introduced .
A Utah lawmaker doesn ’ t think anyone over 21 needs to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm .
But while Rep. Walt Brooks , R-St. George , on Wednesday unveiled HB472 that would allow Utahns who can lawfully possess a firearm to forgo the permitting processes to conceal carry , he admits he doesn ’ t expect it to pass .
“ Being this late in the session , the bill is not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the bill language together for next year ’ s session , ” Brooks told the Deseret News .
This is not the first time lawmakers have tried to dump the Utah law that requires someone to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon .
The Legislature passed a bill in 2013 that would have dropped the requirement , but Gov .
Gary Herbert vetoed the legislation , saying “ it removes an existing provision of Utah law that those who carry a concealed weapon obtain a permit .
Utah ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for decades , and in its current form for more than 15 years.
” Which , of course , is a stupid reason to veto a bill .
Honestly , saying he ’ s vetoing a bill because it removes a provision it ’ s expressly written to remove is kind of circular reasoning .
More importantly , though , keeping a law in place simply because it ’ s been in place for years is beyond idiotic .
Bad laws need to be removed , no matter how old they are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill not pass .
However , in Alabama , they ’ re much closer to making constitutional carry a reality .
A bill that would remove the requirement for citizens in Alabama to obtain a permit to conceal carry a firearm has passed a Senate Committee on a 6-4 vote .
The bill , SB1 , was filed by Gerald Allen ( R-Tuscaloosa ) and has faced opposition from gun control groups and police officers within the state .
Currently , in order to conceal a weapon on your person or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a vehicle , Alabamians are required to possess a concealed carry permit that you obtain from your Sheriff .
Allen filed a similar bill last year that also got to this point , but failed to go any further .
Of course , Alabama ’ s current permitting process has some problems .
In fact , I wrote yesterday about a measure to try and fix that system .
However , these two bills aren ’ t exactly at odds with one another .
A state-wide permitting system will still have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , reciprocity requires a permit .
What are the odds of this one passing , though ?
Well , not fantastic , truth be told , though I ’ d love to be wrong .
This is basically the same legislature that failed to advance the bill last year .
There ’ s no reason to think anything ’ s changed .
Still , it would be nice to see constitutional carry gain a little bit more steam with wins in either or both states .

While concealed carry is all fine and well, the requirement to have a permit in order to bear arms is still a clear infringement on the plain text of the Second Amendment. After all, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” doesn’t actually mean “infringe all you want by making someone have a permit in order to do this thing.”
Saying otherwise is ridiculous.
That’s why permitless carry is also often referred to as constitutional carry.
Now, two states are looking at doing away with their own permit requirements. First, we have Utah that has a constitutional carry bill just introduced.
A Utah lawmaker doesn’t think anyone over 21 needs to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm. But while Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, on Wednesday unveiled HB472 that would allow Utahns who can lawfully possess a firearm to forgo the permitting processes to conceal carry, he admits he doesn’t expect it to pass. “Being this late in the session, the bill is not going to make it through. My purpose is to get the bill language together for next year’s session,” Brooks told the Deseret News. This is not the first time lawmakers have tried to dump the Utah law that requires someone to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Legislature passed a bill in 2013 that would have dropped the requirement, but Gov. Gary Herbert vetoed the legislation, saying “it removes an existing provision of Utah law that those who carry a concealed weapon obtain a permit. Utah’s permitting system has been in place for decades, and in its current form for more than 15 years.”
Which, of course, is a stupid reason to veto a bill. Honestly, saying he’s vetoing a bill because it removes a provision it’s expressly written to remove is kind of circular reasoning.
More importantly, though, keeping a law in place simply because it’s been in place for years is beyond idiotic. Bad laws need to be removed, no matter how old they are.
Unfortunately, Brooks may be right and the bill not pass.
However, in Alabama, they’re much closer to making constitutional carry a reality.
A bill that would remove the requirement for citizens in Alabama to obtain a permit to conceal carry a firearm has passed a Senate Committee on a 6-4 vote. The bill, SB1, was filed by Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) and has faced opposition from gun control groups and police officers within the state. Currently, in order to conceal a weapon on your person or to carry your weapon in an accessible place in a vehicle, Alabamians are required to possess a concealed carry permit that you obtain from your Sheriff.
Allen filed a similar bill last year that also got to this point, but failed to go any further.
Of course, Alabama’s current permitting process has some problems. In fact, I wrote yesterday about a measure to try and fix that system. However, these two bills aren’t exactly at odds with one another. A state-wide permitting system will still have a place in a constitutional carry state. After all, reciprocity requires a permit.
What are the odds of this one passing, though?
Well, not fantastic, truth be told, though I’d love to be wrong. This is basically the same legislature that failed to advance the bill last year. There’s no reason to think anything’s changed.
Still, it would be nice to see constitutional carry gain a little bit more steam with wins in either or both states.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--From Impassioned Speech To Lt. Governor Nomination

I remember writing about Mark Robinson ’ s speech to a city council .
It was brilliant , passionate , and accurate .
The video of the speech went viral .
It still shows up from time to time in pro-gun advertisements and Second Amendment groups on social media .
Robinson made a big splash with his eloquent words and spirited defense of our right to keep and bear arms .
And , it looks like it paid off for him in ways it ’ s unlikely he imagined just a couple of years ago .
He didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video of his speech was free media that likely helped Robinson .
And honestly , this is good to see .
For one thing , Robinson ’ s nomination suggests that love of the Second Amendment is alive and well within the North Carolina Republican Party .
While it ’ s unlikely the party faithful would back an anti-gun candidate , Robinson ’ s name is almost synonymous with the Second Amendment .
You don ’ t back a candidate like him if you don ’ t support the Second Amendment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a signal that North Carolina is far from becoming another Virginia .
North Carolina is a red state , but the margins between Democrats and Republicans are much closer than many might realize .
It ’ s not a swing state , but it ’ s not too far from it .
Robinson winning would indicate , though , that love and support for the Second Amendment isn ’ t just strong in the GOP but throughout the entire state .
It would serve as a signal to anti-gun lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in for the next several years .
Not only will Robinson not play well with them , neither will the electorate as a whole .
All from a passionate speech defending the Second Amendment .
Honestly , this has to make you more than a little proud .
In a country where some try to argue women and minorities are disadvantaged , we have a man who took a viral speech that perfectly summed up the stupidity surrounding gun control pushes following mass shootings who is now poised to take the second-highest office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t live in North Carolina , but if I did , I ’ d be backing Robinson ’ s campaign in a heartbeat .
Consider this an endorsement , if you want , but if you ’ re in the state , reach out to Robinson ’ s campaign and do whatever you can .
Whether it ’ s donating money or volunteering , do whatever you can to get this man elected to public office .
We need more people like Mark elected to office in every state in this great country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robinson , though , and we can build up from there .
Once we do , the gun-grabbing days for Brady , Giffords , and the Bloomberg crowd will be well and truly numbered .

I remember writing about Mark Robinson’s speech to a city council. It was brilliant, passionate, and accurate. The video of the speech went viral. It still shows up from time to time in pro-gun advertisements and Second Amendment groups on social media.
Robinson made a big splash with his eloquent words and spirited defense of our right to keep and bear arms.
And, it looks like it paid off for him in ways it’s unlikely he imagined just a couple of years ago.
A man’s impassioned defense of gun rights to a North Carolina city council that went viral has catapulted him in less than two years to the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. First-time candidate Mark Robinson got the most votes among the nine-person field in Tuesday’s primary and enough to avoid a runoff.
He didn’t win in the fundraising department, but the video of his speech was free media that likely helped Robinson.
And honestly, this is good to see.
For one thing, Robinson’s nomination suggests that love of the Second Amendment is alive and well within the North Carolina Republican Party. While it’s unlikely the party faithful would back an anti-gun candidate, Robinson’s name is almost synonymous with the Second Amendment. You don’t back a candidate like him if you don’t support the Second Amendment.
If he wins the general election, it’s a signal that North Carolina is far from becoming another Virginia.
North Carolina is a red state, but the margins between Democrats and Republicans are much closer than many might realize. It’s not a swing state, but it’s not too far from it.
Robinson winning would indicate, though, that love and support for the Second Amendment isn’t just strong in the GOP but throughout the entire state. It would serve as a signal to anti-gun lawmakers that they might as well pack it in for the next several years. Not only will Robinson not play well with them, neither will the electorate as a whole.
All from a passionate speech defending the Second Amendment.
Honestly, this has to make you more than a little proud. In a country where some try to argue women and minorities are disadvantaged, we have a man who took a viral speech that perfectly summed up the stupidity surrounding gun control pushes following mass shootings who is now poised to take the second-highest office in his state.
I don’t live in North Carolina, but if I did, I’d be backing Robinson’s campaign in a heartbeat. Consider this an endorsement, if you want, but if you’re in the state, reach out to Robinson’s campaign and do whatever you can. Whether it’s donating money or volunteering, do whatever you can to get this man elected to public office. We need more people like Mark elected to office in every state in this great country.
Let’s start with Mark Robinson, though, and we can build up from there. Once we do, the gun-grabbing days for Brady, Giffords, and the Bloomberg crowd will be well and truly numbered.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--VA Dems Reach Agreement On Background Checks, Gun Rationing

The legislative session in Virginia is almost over , and Democrats in the House and Senate have reached an agreement on several gun control measures that passed out of their respective chambers in different forms , ensuring that Gov .
Ralph Northam will be able to sign most of his anti-gun agenda into law in coming days .
WTOP radio in Washington , D.C. reports that deals have been struck on universal background check bills as well as the return of “ one-gun-a-month ” firearms rationing .
Expanded , “ universal ” background checks will only apply to gun sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final language of bills agreed to by the House and Senate .
Under a separate agreement , the return of Virginia ’ s one handgun per month purchase limit will include an exception for concealed carry permit holders .
In both of those cases , the final language of the bills looks to be closer to the language passed by the state Senate , and not the more draconian versions approved by the House of Delegates .
There are some oddities with the background check bill that will be sent to Northam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if I were to sell a firearm to a relative , it would be a crime not to conduct a background check before transferring the firearm .
If I ’ m just gifting the gun , on the other hand , no background check would be required .
The law will be largely unenforceable , but I expect that anti-gun lawmakers will be back next year to “ tweak ” the measure and add in requirements for background checks on all transfers as well .
The one-gun-a-month language represents a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mid-1990s to 2012 , the state had the same law in place , along with the exemption for concealed carry licensees .
I suspect that the new one-gun-a-month law will spur some Virginians to obtain their concealed carry license in order to bypass the gun rationing scheme .
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association reports that two other gun control bills passed out of conference committee on Thursday as well .
SB 263 Concealed handgun permits ; demonstration of competence , effective date .
The House had amended this bill to remove all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable demonstration of competence in addition to removing the option for online training .
The House had already accepted the Senates changes to the companion bill which had added NRA Certified Training back to the bill and only removed the online training option .
The Conference Committee recommended the original Senate bill .
This means that both version now include NRA Certified Training as an option for demonstrating competence .
The House approved the conference report yesterday .
The Senate has not voted .
SB 64 Paramilitary activities ; penalty .
Provides that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity if such person brandishes a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance while assembled with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons with any firearm , any explosive or incendiary device , or any components or combination thereof .
Such unlawful paramilitary activity is punishable as a Class 5 felony .
House substitute agreed to by Senate ( 21-Y 19-N ) .

The legislative session in Virginia is almost over, and Democrats in the House and Senate have reached an agreement on several gun control measures that passed out of their respective chambers in different forms, ensuring that Gov. Ralph Northam will be able to sign most of his anti-gun agenda into law in coming days.
WTOP radio in Washington, D.C. reports that deals have been struck on universal background check bills as well as the return of “one-gun-a-month” firearms rationing.
Expanded, “universal” background checks will only apply to gun sales, not other gun transfers, under the final language of bills agreed to by the House and Senate. Under a separate agreement, the return of Virginia’s one handgun per month purchase limit will include an exception for concealed carry permit holders.
In both of those cases, the final language of the bills looks to be closer to the language passed by the state Senate, and not the more draconian versions approved by the House of Delegates.
There are some oddities with the background check bill that will be sent to Northam for his approval. Under the language, if I were to sell a firearm to a relative, it would be a crime not to conduct a background check before transferring the firearm. If I’m just gifting the gun, on the other hand, no background check would be required. The law will be largely unenforceable, but I expect that anti-gun lawmakers will be back next year to “tweak” the measure and add in requirements for background checks on all transfers as well.
The one-gun-a-month language represents a return to the old days in Virginia. From the mid-1990s to 2012, the state had the same law in place, along with the exemption for concealed carry licensees. I suspect that the new one-gun-a-month law will spur some Virginians to obtain their concealed carry license in order to bypass the gun rationing scheme.
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association reports that two other gun control bills passed out of conference committee on Thursday as well.