bearingarms--2020-10-19--Veteran Cop Says Biden's Bad News For Public Safety

Sgt .
Betsy Brantner Smith has 29 years of law enforcement experience , and currently serves as a firearms trainer , so as you can imagine she has some pretty strong opinions about Joe Biden ’ s plan to train cops to “ aim for the leg ” when using their firearms .
Sgt .
Smith , who ’ s also a spokesperson for the National Police Association , says Biden ’ s bad idea is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to policies that threaten public safety and the right to keep and bear arms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to discuss why she believes cities are going to become more dangerous places if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in charge .
As Brantner Smith points out , Biden ’ s intent to force police to shoot for the leg when they use their firearms to stop a threat is an awful idea that could lead to disastrous unintended consequences for both officers and innocent civilians .
As I mentioned in my last post on the subject , there are good reasons why both law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for center mass when using their gun in self-defense or in defense of another .
Joe Biden seems to think that if police officers aim for the leg , the lethal force of a firearm is suddenly somehow less lethal .
This is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels ; the femoral artery runs through the leg and severing the artery can cause someone to bleed to death in a matter of minutes , aiming for a smaller , moving target like a leg is more likely to result in a missed shot and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another officer or a civilian , the officer firing to stop the threat and aiming for the leg instead of the chest is an ineffective and dangerous way to do so , just to name a few .
Brantner Smith ’ s concern over Biden ’ s public safety policies goes deeper than his cluelessness about firearms , however .
She fears that a Biden/Harris administration would paint a rhetorical target on the backs of law enforcement , which would make them less likely to engage in the kind of proactive policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime .
We may already be seeing this is take place in some Democrat-controlled cities and suburbs .
HotAir ’ s Jazz Shaw , for example , highlighted a couple of cases in Aurora , Colorado that have left residents wondering if police are backing off from making arrests of violent suspects because of “ social justice policing.
” We ’ ve already seen two instances where the police in Aurora , Colorado have “ stood down ” when facing violent felons .
The first incident involved a guy with a lengthy rap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girls , destroying property , and threatening harm to the residents of an apartment complex .
The cops stood down twice in two days rather than taking him into custody .
The more recent incident involved a child abuse suspect with multiple warrants and who was on parole , who barricaded himself inside his home with one of his children and some firearms .
The cops walked away that time also and the perpetrator is still on the loose .
As Jazz notes , in Aurora violent crimes are soaring , while arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a recipe for disaster , but Brantner Smith similar statistics could be seen across the country if Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have the chance to “ reimagine ” policing in the coming months .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Sgt .
Betsy Brantner Smith in the video window above , and stick around for more news afterwards , including a closer look at an armed citizen in San Francisco and a Denver man who recently received a slap on the wrist for his role in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith has 29 years of law enforcement experience, and currently serves as a firearms trainer, so as you can imagine she has some pretty strong opinions about Joe Biden’s plan to train cops to “aim for the leg” when using their firearms. Sgt. Smith, who’s also a spokesperson for the National Police Association, says Biden’s bad idea is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to policies that threaten public safety and the right to keep and bear arms, and she joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss why she believes cities are going to become more dangerous places if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in charge.
As Brantner Smith points out, Biden’s intent to force police to shoot for the leg when they use their firearms to stop a threat is an awful idea that could lead to disastrous unintended consequences for both officers and innocent civilians. As I mentioned in my last post on the subject, there are good reasons why both law enforcement and civilians are taught to aim for center mass when using their gun in self-defense or in defense of another.
Joe Biden seems to think that if police officers aim for the leg, the lethal force of a firearm is suddenly somehow less lethal. This is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels; the femoral artery runs through the leg and severing the artery can cause someone to bleed to death in a matter of minutes, aiming for a smaller, moving target like a leg is more likely to result in a missed shot and the potential for a friendly fire injury to another officer or a civilian, the officer firing to stop the threat and aiming for the leg instead of the chest is an ineffective and dangerous way to do so, just to name a few.
Brantner Smith’s concern over Biden’s public safety policies goes deeper than his cluelessness about firearms, however. She fears that a Biden/Harris administration would paint a rhetorical target on the backs of law enforcement, which would make them less likely to engage in the kind of proactive policing that’s needed to reduce violent crime. We may already be seeing this is take place in some Democrat-controlled cities and suburbs.
HotAir’s Jazz Shaw, for example, highlighted a couple of cases in Aurora, Colorado that have left residents wondering if police are backing off from making arrests of violent suspects because of “social justice policing.”
We’ve already seen two instances where the police in Aurora, Colorado have “stood down” when facing violent felons. The first incident involved a guy with a lengthy rap sheet who was exposing himself to young girls, destroying property, and threatening harm to the residents of an apartment complex. The cops stood down twice in two days rather than taking him into custody. The more recent incident involved a child abuse suspect with multiple warrants and who was on parole, who barricaded himself inside his home with one of his children and some firearms. The cops walked away that time also and the perpetrator is still on the loose.
As Jazz notes, in Aurora violent crimes are soaring, while arrests are down nearly 50%. That’s a recipe for disaster, but Brantner Smith similar statistics could be seen across the country if Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have the chance to “reimagine” policing in the coming months.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith in the video window above, and stick around for more news afterwards, including a closer look at an armed citizen in San Francisco and a Denver man who recently received a slap on the wrist for his role in a gang shooting in the Mile High City.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--SF Business Owner Displays Gun, Stops Assault On Tourist

The co-owner of an iconic San Francisco business stopped an attack on a tourist over the weekend thanks to his concealed firearm .
Kevin Chan helps run the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory in the city ’ s Chinatown neighborhood , but on Saturday the business owner stepped outside of the landmark business and into a scuffle between two strangers .
Chan says he felt like he had to step in when he saw a man getting aggressive with one of several tourists who were in the area .
“ The guy just pushed real quick…he did the first push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-owner of the business that ’ s been in operation since 1962 .
Kevin , recounted the turn of events , “ The guy asked the Black guy , ‘ Why did you push me ?
’ The Black guy said , ‘ because you stared at me two blocks away !
’ ” What makes this story remarkable is what unfolds next .
Kevin immediately steps in after the shove , and lifts up his shirt to reveal… “ I have a concealed carry and I need it to protect my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sight of the gun is enough for the man in the black sweatshirt to leave .
“ He was scared and he didn ’ t want to go any further.
” It doesn ’ t surprise me to learn that a concealed carry licensee stepped up to help out a stranger in need .
What ’ s truly shocking to me is the fact that Kevin Chan actually has a concealed carry permit in the first place .
California ’ s ridiculous gun control laws give county sheriffs the discretion to approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel haven ’ t demonstrated a “ justifiable need , ” and San Francisco County is one of several across the state where the sheriff doesn ’ t view self-defense as a valid reason to carry .
In fact , as of 2019 , there were only two concealed carry permits active in the city of nearly 900,000 people , which is the fewest number of permit holders in any California county .
It ’ s likely that Chan received his permit to carry from another California county , since permits issued in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Regardless of where the permit was issued , I ’ m awfully glad that Chan received it .
Based on his comments to ABC 7 in San Francisco , it sounds like crime is a growing concern in his neighborhood .
Tourism in Chinatown was down 35 % before the pandemic .
Once COVID-19 hit , business went down for some as much as 90 % .
While some tourists are coming back , as ABC7 witnessed Sunday night , Kevin can ’ t afford for incidents like this to scare visitors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ ll have a bad impression and blame the Chinese community.
” Kevin decided not to file a police report afraid it would go nowhere .
So he is choosing to tell his story to send a message to local leaders .
“ Not to defund the police .
But to reform the police .
Recognize them .
Don ’ t take away resources .
Our community needs resources.
” Indeed it does .
According to the group Stop Crime SF , violent crime has been on a steady rise throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s president Frank Noto reported back in August that the city had been struggling for months to quell the growing number of shootings and assaults .
Crime in categories like burglary and homicide is up for the fourth straight month in San Francisco .
Homicides increased in San Francisco by 25 percent in July compared to the same month last year , and by 30 percent for the year to date .
Thirty people have been murdered in the city this year .
Unlike most other cities , San Francisco is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
Stop Crime SF previously reported that crime was up this spring , and the police department ’ s crime data dashboard shows burglaries climbed sharply in July also .
They were up 56 percent , with 680 burglaries reported .
Burglaries have also risen a steep 42 percent for the year to date .
Similarly , motor vehicle thefts were up 71 percent in July and 30 percent for the year .
Arsons climbed 35 percent for the same period , with an increase of 44 percent for the year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a global pandemic , San Francisco police now have to deal with skyrocketing crime rates , ” said Frank Noto , president of victim ’ s rights group Stop Crime SF .
“ We can ’ t forget the victims of the homicides , burglaries , arsons and stolen cars that we ’ ve seen more of this year.
” Noto pins a lot of the blame for the crime increase on a lack of police officers ( San Francisco is about 200 officers short of the number of police required by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light-on-crime policies of San Francisco D.A .
Chesa Boudin .
Unfortunately for residents the soft-on-crime approach taken by the District Attorney isn ’ t likely to change anytime soon , and the restrictive concealed carry policies of Sheriff Paul Miyamoto aren ’ t going to change either .
I ’ m glad that Kevin Chan was around to prevent this particular assault from escalating , but it ’ s both unconscionable and unconstitutional that the average resident of San Francisco can ’ t lawfully carry a firearm in self-defense as well .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucky ” enough to be assaulted in the presence of a police officer or an armed citizen , and the odds are against them having a carry permit of their own .

The co-owner of an iconic San Francisco business stopped an attack on a tourist over the weekend thanks to his concealed firearm. Kevin Chan helps run the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, but on Saturday the business owner stepped outside of the landmark business and into a scuffle between two strangers.
Chan says he felt like he had to step in when he saw a man getting aggressive with one of several tourists who were in the area.
“The guy just pushed real quick…he did the first push real hard,” says Kevin Chan, co-owner of the business that’s been in operation since 1962. Kevin, recounted the turn of events, “The guy asked the Black guy, ‘Why did you push me?’ The Black guy said, ‘because you stared at me two blocks away!’” What makes this story remarkable is what unfolds next. Kevin immediately steps in after the shove, and lifts up his shirt to reveal… “I have a concealed carry and I need it to protect my business,” Chan said. Just the sight of the gun is enough for the man in the black sweatshirt to leave. “He was scared and he didn’t want to go any further.”
It doesn’t surprise me to learn that a concealed carry licensee stepped up to help out a stranger in need. What’s truly shocking to me is the fact that Kevin Chan actually has a concealed carry permit in the first place.
California’s ridiculous gun control laws give county sheriffs the discretion to approve or deny carry licenses to anyone they feel haven’t demonstrated a “justifiable need,” and San Francisco County is one of several across the state where the sheriff doesn’t view self-defense as a valid reason to carry. In fact, as of 2019, there were only two concealed carry permits active in the city of nearly 900,000 people, which is the fewest number of permit holders in any California county.
It’s likely that Chan received his permit to carry from another California county, since permits issued in one county are valid throughout the state. Regardless of where the permit was issued, I’m awfully glad that Chan received it. Based on his comments to ABC 7 in San Francisco, it sounds like crime is a growing concern in his neighborhood.
Tourism in Chinatown was down 35% before the pandemic. Once COVID-19 hit, business went down for some as much as 90%. While some tourists are coming back, as ABC7 witnessed Sunday night, Kevin can’t afford for incidents like this to scare visitors away. “People will come here and they’ll have a bad impression and blame the Chinese community.” Kevin decided not to file a police report afraid it would go nowhere. So he is choosing to tell his story to send a message to local leaders. “Not to defund the police. But to reform the police. Recognize them. Don’t take away resources. Our community needs resources.”
Indeed it does. According to the group Stop Crime SF, violent crime has been on a steady rise throughout much of the year. The organization’s president Frank Noto reported back in August that the city had been struggling for months to quell the growing number of shootings and assaults.
Crime in categories like burglary and homicide is up for the fourth straight month in San Francisco. Homicides increased in San Francisco by 25 percent in July compared to the same month last year, and by 30 percent for the year to date. Thirty people have been murdered in the city this year. Unlike most other cities, San Francisco is also experiencing a dramatic upsurge in other serious crimes. Stop Crime SF previously reported that crime was up this spring, and the police department’s crime data dashboard shows burglaries climbed sharply in July also. They were up 56 percent, with 680 burglaries reported. Burglaries have also risen a steep 42 percent for the year to date. Similarly, motor vehicle thefts were up 71 percent in July and 30 percent for the year. Arsons climbed 35 percent for the same period, with an increase of 44 percent for the year to date. “On top of dealing with a global pandemic, San Francisco police now have to deal with skyrocketing crime rates,” said Frank Noto, president of victim’s rights group Stop Crime SF. “We can’t forget the victims of the homicides, burglaries, arsons and stolen cars that we’ve seen more of this year.”
Noto pins a lot of the blame for the crime increase on a lack of police officers (San Francisco is about 200 officers short of the number of police required by the city charter) and on the light-on-crime policies of San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin. Unfortunately for residents the soft-on-crime approach taken by the District Attorney isn’t likely to change anytime soon, and the restrictive concealed carry policies of Sheriff Paul Miyamoto aren’t going to change either.
I’m glad that Kevin Chan was around to prevent this particular assault from escalating, but it’s both unconscionable and unconstitutional that the average resident of San Francisco can’t lawfully carry a firearm in self-defense as well. Most crime victims won’t be “lucky” enough to be assaulted in the presence of a police officer or an armed citizen, and the odds are against them having a carry permit of their own.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--Anti-Gun Essay Engages In Impressive Mental Gymnastics

Pro-gun arguments can take many forms , but at the end of the day , every pro-gun voice can fall back on the idea that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms .
The truth is , we shouldn ’ t need any additional arguments than that .
As such , though , while anti-gunners may try to claim we ’ re engaging in some double talk from time to time , the truth is that we ’ re addressing their arguments .
Ours are pretty much , “ It ’ s our right to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the arguments can get kind of idiotic .
Take this essay that tries to counter a pro-gun essay .
In his Oct. 15 essay , “ Second Amendment rights at stake in November , ” Len Lisenbee writes that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “ have repeatedly stated their intent to disregard all aspects of the Second Amendment .
Both Democrats have stated their intentions to confiscate all firearms held by civilians.
” It ’ s one thing to argue that you disagree with their policy goals and even to argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution .
It ’ s another to baldly lie about what they have said and lie in a way that only fuels irrational fears about impending doom if the election doesn ’ t go your way .
The rest of Lisenbee ’ s column provides absolutely no support for his assertion , because there is none .
Just because someone advocates a gun-control policy that you believe would violate the Second Amendment doesn ’ t mean they advocate a “ disregard [ for ] all aspects of the Second Amendment ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confiscating all privately owned weapons .
Put aside whether their gun policy agenda would be effective or constitutional or not .
It ’ s simply a lie to say that any and all restrictions on guns are unconstitutional .
That ’ s not just my opinion .
It ’ s what the courts of this nation have held since the Bill of Rights .
I don ’ t know Lisenbee , but he actually wasn ’ t particularly wrong .
See , while one can make the case that gun control is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t speaking about gun control in general .
He was talking specifically about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , and that ’ s an important difference .
Joe Biden ’ s gun control proposals call specifically to ban so-called “ assault weapons.
” These are the most commonly owned rifles in the nation , but he wants to ban them anyway .
This despite the Heller decision saying that commonly-owned guns were not to be banned .
Further , Joe Biden has said he disagrees with the Court ’ s decision that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means there ’ s little reason to believe he would view it as part of his oath of office to protect that right .
Oh , but he hasn ’ t said he would come after our guns , though , right ?
Well , maybe not .
However , what he has done is make clear his intention to have Beto O ’ Rourke spearhead his anti-gun efforts .
This is the same Beto O ’ Rourke who stood up during a debate and said , “ Hell yeah , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AK-47s.
” The fact that Biden hasn ’ t disavowed that particular part of Beto ’ s plan suggests that he ’ s not ruling out doing precisely that .
Oh , he might be wrong , but a lie is a knowing falsehood .
I honestly believe that Lisenbee believes these claims because , well , I sure as hell believe them too .
That ’ s based on the facts outlined above .
If you ’ re going to call something a Big Lie , you damn well need to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than just assume because your interpretation of the facts are different that the truth automatically must be .
Frankly , I fail to see how anyone remotely cognizant of Biden ’ s words and deeds regarding gun control , especially during this election cycle , could possible see them as anything other than blatantly anti-gun .

Pro-gun arguments can take many forms, but at the end of the day, every pro-gun voice can fall back on the idea that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms. The truth is, we shouldn’t need any additional arguments than that.
As such, though, while anti-gunners may try to claim we’re engaging in some double talk from time to time, the truth is that we’re addressing their arguments. Ours are pretty much, “It’s our right to have guns.”
However, on their side, the arguments can get kind of idiotic. Take this essay that tries to counter a pro-gun essay.
In his Oct. 15 essay, “Second Amendment rights at stake in November,” Len Lisenbee writes that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “have repeatedly stated their intent to disregard all aspects of the Second Amendment. Both Democrats have stated their intentions to confiscate all firearms held by civilians.” It’s one thing to argue that you disagree with their policy goals and even to argue that in your opinion those policies would violate the Constitution. It’s another to baldly lie about what they have said and lie in a way that only fuels irrational fears about impending doom if the election doesn’t go your way. The rest of Lisenbee’s column provides absolutely no support for his assertion, because there is none. Just because someone advocates a gun-control policy that you believe would violate the Second Amendment doesn’t mean they advocate a “disregard [for] all aspects of the Second Amendment” or, even worse, that they favor confiscating all privately owned weapons. Put aside whether their gun policy agenda would be effective or constitutional or not. It’s simply a lie to say that any and all restrictions on guns are unconstitutional. That’s not just my opinion. It’s what the courts of this nation have held since the Bill of Rights.
I don’t know Lisenbee, but he actually wasn’t particularly wrong.
See, while one can make the case that gun control is, actually, constitutional, Lisenbee wasn’t speaking about gun control in general. He was talking specifically about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and that’s an important difference.
Joe Biden’s gun control proposals call specifically to ban so-called “assault weapons.” These are the most commonly owned rifles in the nation, but he wants to ban them anyway. This despite the Heller decision saying that commonly-owned guns were not to be banned.
Further, Joe Biden has said he disagrees with the Court’s decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That means there’s little reason to believe he would view it as part of his oath of office to protect that right.
Oh, but he hasn’t said he would come after our guns, though, right? Well, maybe not.
However, what he has done is make clear his intention to have Beto O’Rourke spearhead his anti-gun efforts. This is the same Beto O’Rourke who stood up during a debate and said, “Hell yeah, we’re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.” The fact that Biden hasn’t disavowed that particular part of Beto’s plan suggests that he’s not ruling out doing precisely that.
So no, Lisenbee didn’t lie.
Oh, he might be wrong, but a lie is a knowing falsehood. I honestly believe that Lisenbee believes these claims because, well, I sure as hell believe them too. That’s based on the facts outlined above.
If you’re going to call something a Big Lie, you damn well need to make sure the other person is lying, rather than just assume because your interpretation of the facts are different that the truth automatically must be.
Frankly, I fail to see how anyone remotely cognizant of Biden’s words and deeds regarding gun control, especially during this election cycle, could possible see them as anything other than blatantly anti-gun.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--Everytown Aiming For Swing-State Takeover Of Legislatures

Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety is pouring another $ 4.4-million into several state legislative races around the country as part of the group ’ s efforts to reshape the gun control debate in traditionally 2A-friendly states like Texas and Arizona .
The new flood of campaign cash is in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bloomberg is spending to boost the election efforts of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , and according to Politico , will be used to try to tie together the issues of gun control and the response to the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting two open , competitive House seats , dropping $ 2 million on negative TV ads .
In Texas ’ 22nd District , the group attacks Republican Troy Nehls , who is running against Democrat Sri Kulkarni , for his National Rifle Association endorsement .
In Texas ’ 24th District , the ad hits Republican Beth Van Duyne , who is running against Democrat Candace Valenzuela , for accepting money from the NRA .
Everytown is also spending $ 1.3 million in TV and digital ads aimed at flipping state legislative chambers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Carolina and Texas .
One digital ad tells voters in North Carolina that “ Covid-19 is not the only public health crisis facing North Carolina families , ” the ad ’ s narrator says .
“ Deaths from Covid-19 and gun violence are on the rise , but Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature have failed to take the action required to keep us safe.
” Everytown ’ s strategy is simple ; target key legislative races with a flood of cash that allows their chosen candidates to flood the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in the closing days of the campaign .
Who doesn ’ t want to be safe , after all ?
Of course , in order to make its case , Everytown has to ignore the fact that violent crime is rising primarily in cities that are run by Democrats and have plenty of local gun laws on the books .
In New York City , for example , shootings are double what they were in 2019 , Chicago ’ s homicide rate is on pace for a 20-year high .
Voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not realize that , however , and gun control activists are hoping that their message of “ gun safety ” will enable them to install anti-gun majorities in state legislatures , as the group did in Virginia in 2019 .
We know that money isn ’ t everything in politics ; if it were , it would be Bloomberg himself squaring off against Donald Trump in the general election .
The anti-gun billionaire spent more than a billion dollars on his own short-lived presidential campaign but failed to win even a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the race after four months ( Bloomberg did win the primary in American Samoa , picking up a single delegate ) .
Gun owners can counter the influx of campaign cash , but in order to do so , they need to be reaching out to the undecided voters that they know and encourage them to cast their ballot on Election Day .
We can defeat Bloomberg ’ s anti-Second Amendment agenda , but we ’ re going to have to put in some time and effort to do so .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day , the time for sitting our hands is over .
We need to be involved and engaged every day in order to ensure that our rights will remain protected and respected after the votes are tallied .

Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety is pouring another $4.4-million into several state legislative races around the country as part of the group’s efforts to reshape the gun control debate in traditionally 2A-friendly states like Texas and Arizona.
The new flood of campaign cash is in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bloomberg is spending to boost the election efforts of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and according to Politico, will be used to try to tie together the issues of gun control and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Texas, Everytown is targeting two open, competitive House seats, dropping $2 million on negative TV ads. In Texas’ 22nd District, the group attacks Republican Troy Nehls, who is running against Democrat Sri Kulkarni, for his National Rifle Association endorsement. In Texas’ 24th District, the ad hits Republican Beth Van Duyne, who is running against Democrat Candace Valenzuela, for accepting money from the NRA. Everytown is also spending $1.3 million in TV and digital ads aimed at flipping state legislative chambers to Democrats in Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas. One digital ad tells voters in North Carolina that “Covid-19 is not the only public health crisis facing North Carolina families,” the ad’s narrator says. “Deaths from Covid-19 and gun violence are on the rise, but Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature have failed to take the action required to keep us safe.”
Everytown’s strategy is simple; target key legislative races with a flood of cash that allows their chosen candidates to flood the airwaves with vague messaging about “safety” in the closing days of the campaign. Who doesn’t want to be safe, after all?
Of course, in order to make its case, Everytown has to ignore the fact that violent crime is rising primarily in cities that are run by Democrats and have plenty of local gun laws on the books. In New York City, for example, shootings are double what they were in 2019, Chicago’s homicide rate is on pace for a 20-year high. Voters in Arizona, Texas, or North Carolina may not realize that, however, and gun control activists are hoping that their message of “gun safety” will enable them to install anti-gun majorities in state legislatures, as the group did in Virginia in 2019.
We know that money isn’t everything in politics; if it were, it would be Bloomberg himself squaring off against Donald Trump in the general election. The anti-gun billionaire spent more than a billion dollars on his own short-lived presidential campaign but failed to win even a single state’s primary before dropping out of the race after four months (Bloomberg did win the primary in American Samoa, picking up a single delegate).
Gun owners can counter the influx of campaign cash, but in order to do so, they need to be reaching out to the undecided voters that they know and encourage them to cast their ballot on Election Day. We can defeat Bloomberg’s anti-Second Amendment agenda, but we’re going to have to put in some time and effort to do so. With just a couple of weeks left until Election Day, the time for sitting our hands is over. We need to be involved and engaged every day in order to ensure that our rights will remain protected and respected after the votes are tallied.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--Mark Kelly: "I'm A Gun Owner, But..."

Mark Kelly: "I'm A Gun Owner, But..."

How many times have you seen that phrase , only for it to be followed by the most ridiculous anti-gun arguments ever seen by man ?
Virtually no one starts off a sentence that way without going on to make it very clear that they have no grasp of what the Second Amendment means , represents , or anything else .
The same goes for anything that could be seen as a derivative of that .
Take Mark Kelly ( please ? )
for example : Sure , US Senate candidate Mark Kelly loves the Second Amendment .
Just ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Second Amendment , I am a gun owner , ” the Democrat said at last week ’ s campaign debate with Sen. Martha McSally ( R–AZ ) .
“ Our rights and traditions are so important.
” “ I probably own more firearms than your average Arizonan , ” he told another interviewer .
But Kelly ’ s actions show disdain for gun rights .
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence , which Kelly co-founded , endorsed California as the best model for gun laws while giving Arizona an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how he actually supports the Second Amendment , but saying you support something is quite different from demonstrating your support .
While Kelly has never held public office , he build much of his name recognition with his anti-gun advocacy .
Now , I get his issue with guns .
If my wife was shot by a maniac , I ’ d at least entertain the idea that guns were the problem .
In fact , after a dear friend of mine was murdered by a maniac , I considered for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been wrong .
I can see why Kelly would wonder the same thing .
Yet that doesn ’ t excuse the fact that he and his wife , once she recovered , have been part of a jihad against gun rights for the rest of the nation .
As noted , their organization has held up California as the model for the rest of the nation , a model that severely restricts and limits the ability for law-abiding citizens to have access to the best means of self-defense .
It severely restricts their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to resist a tyrannical government .
Now , it ’ s possible that Kelly doesn ’ t actually agree with the official Giffords stance on this one .
I won ’ t rule that potentiality out .
However , if that ’ s the case , he needs to speak up and say so .
The fact that he hasn ’ t , that he won ’ t come out and say that Giffords–an organization he co-founded with his wife–has gone too far for him regarding the acceptable level of gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees with literally all of it .
Let ’ s not forget that this is a man who went out an purchased an AR-15 just to show how “ simple ” it was to buy such a weapon , then turned it over to law enforcement .
That act alone tells you that he won ’ t exactly stand with the Second Amendment should he make it to the Senate .
He can say he ’ s a gun owner and that he supports the Second Amendment , but he needs to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks he can convince gun owners that he ’ s sincere .
Of course , at this point , I ’ m pretty sure doing that would be impossible .

“I’m a gun owner, but…”
How many times have you seen that phrase, only for it to be followed by the most ridiculous anti-gun arguments ever seen by man? Virtually no one starts off a sentence that way without going on to make it very clear that they have no grasp of what the Second Amendment means, represents, or anything else.
The same goes for anything that could be seen as a derivative of that. Take Mark Kelly (please?) for example:
Sure, US Senate candidate Mark Kelly loves the Second Amendment. Just ask him. “I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am a gun owner,” the Democrat said at last week’s campaign debate with Sen. Martha McSally (R–AZ). “Our rights and traditions are so important.” “I probably own more firearms than your average Arizonan,” he told another interviewer. But Kelly’s actions show disdain for gun rights. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which Kelly co-founded, endorsed California as the best model for gun laws while giving Arizona an F.
In other words, “I’m a gun owner, but…”
See, Kelly can spout all about how he actually supports the Second Amendment, but saying you support something is quite different from demonstrating your support. While Kelly has never held public office, he build much of his name recognition with his anti-gun advocacy.
Now, I get his issue with guns. If my wife was shot by a maniac, I’d at least entertain the idea that guns were the problem. In fact, after a dear friend of mine was murdered by a maniac, I considered for about half a second whether I’d been wrong. I can see why Kelly would wonder the same thing.
Yet that doesn’t excuse the fact that he and his wife, once she recovered, have been part of a jihad against gun rights for the rest of the nation. As noted, their organization has held up California as the model for the rest of the nation, a model that severely restricts and limits the ability for law-abiding citizens to have access to the best means of self-defense. It severely restricts their ability to have the kind of arms needed to resist a tyrannical government.
Now, it’s possible that Kelly doesn’t actually agree with the official Giffords stance on this one. I won’t rule that potentiality out.
However, if that’s the case, he needs to speak up and say so.
The fact that he hasn’t, that he won’t come out and say that Giffords–an organization he co-founded with his wife–has gone too far for him regarding the acceptable level of gun control is ample reason to believe that he agrees with literally all of it.
Let’s not forget that this is a man who went out an purchased an AR-15 just to show how “simple” it was to buy such a weapon, then turned it over to law enforcement. That act alone tells you that he won’t exactly stand with the Second Amendment should he make it to the Senate.
He can say he’s a gun owner and that he supports the Second Amendment, but he needs to do a lot more than that if he thinks he can convince gun owners that he’s sincere.
Of course, at this point, I’m pretty sure doing that would be impossible.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--2A Advocates Win Partial Victory Over Rhode Island "Buyback"

A gun turn-in program in two Rhode Island cities took place this past weekend despite a court challenge by Second Amendment activists , but the pro-gun group that brought the lawsuit is still claiming victory after the cities of Providence and Central Falls announced a major change to the compensated confiscation program .
Originally , officials in the towns had declared that all stolen firearms that were turned over to police would be destroyed rather than returned to their rightful owners .
The Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition objected to the decision and filed litigation seeking to block the turn-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a judge denied an injunction that would have stopped the so-called buyback , but not before the organizers agreed to change their policy .
After the brief hearing before Superior Court Judge Melissa Long , the gun rights group ’ s attorney and President Frank Saccoccio said his organization got what it wanted .
“ They said on record the stolen guns wouldn ’ t be destroyed , ” Saccoccio said .
“ We lost the battle but we won the war.
” Saccoccio was referring to statements from the Central Falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their respective police departments would do their best to return any stolen weapons to their rightful owners .
The two cities are offering $ 200 Visa gift cards for handguns , $ 100 gift cards for rifles and shotguns and $ 500 if the firearms are stolen .
Initial statements about the Saturday morning buyback indicated the weapons would be destroyed after they were purchased .
Almost 400 firearms were collected in Providence and Central Falls , including at least eight guns that had previously been reported as stolen .
While Providence ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns collected , at least one city council member is skeptical that the “ buyback ” will make a difference .
“ If someone can convince me why [ amnesty is ] going to reduce gun violence in our city , then I could potentially change my mind , but at the moment , I do not support the amnesty piece because there are 130 open homicide cases in the City of Providence , ” Providence city council member David Salvatore said .
Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza spent most of the day at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and counting the total number of guns at the end .
“ Even if they ’ re legit and they ’ re owned and properly cared for , they can always have been stolen and find their way onto the street , ” Mayor Elorza said .
“ That ’ s why we ’ re just a safe community and a safer city with less guns out there and this is going to go a long way to make sure we can stop some of the gunfire .
It ’ s not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This isn ’ t going to help .
In fact , there ’ s virtually no evidence that “ buybacks ” do anything to reduce violent crime , suicides , or accidents involving firearms .
Ultimately , these gun turn-in events are another supply-side solution to a demand-side problem ; the number of guns available for criminals to steal or acquire on the black market is far higher than the number of violent criminals in Providence itself .
Trying to ban or buy their way to safety by going after guns rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the commission of violent crime is a fool ’ s errand , but at least those who had their guns stolen will have the opportunity to get their guns back rather than seeing them destroyed .
The “ gun buyback ” is still a waste of time and money , in my opinion , but as long as Providence and Central Falls are true to their word and work to return stolen firearms to their rightful owners , it won ’ t be a violation of constitutional rights as well .

A gun turn-in program in two Rhode Island cities took place this past weekend despite a court challenge by Second Amendment activists, but the pro-gun group that brought the lawsuit is still claiming victory after the cities of Providence and Central Falls announced a major change to the compensated confiscation program.
Originally, officials in the towns had declared that all stolen firearms that were turned over to police would be destroyed rather than returned to their rightful owners. The Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition objected to the decision and filed litigation seeking to block the turn-in program from taking place.
On Friday, a judge denied an injunction that would have stopped the so-called buyback, but not before the organizers agreed to change their policy.
After the brief hearing before Superior Court Judge Melissa Long, the gun rights group’s attorney and President Frank Saccoccio said his organization got what it wanted. “They said on record the stolen guns wouldn’t be destroyed,” Saccoccio said. “We lost the battle but we won the war.” Saccoccio was referring to statements from the Central Falls and Providence attorneys who told the court their respective police departments would do their best to return any stolen weapons to their rightful owners. The two cities are offering $200 Visa gift cards for handguns, $100 gift cards for rifles and shotguns and $500 if the firearms are stolen. Initial statements about the Saturday morning buyback indicated the weapons would be destroyed after they were purchased.
Almost 400 firearms were collected in Providence and Central Falls, including at least eight guns that had previously been reported as stolen. While Providence’s mayor is touting the number of guns collected, at least one city council member is skeptical that the “buyback” will make a difference.
“If someone can convince me why [amnesty is] going to reduce gun violence in our city, then I could potentially change my mind, but at the moment, I do not support the amnesty piece because there are 130 open homicide cases in the City of Providence,” Providence city council member David Salvatore said. Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza spent most of the day at The DiVinci Center helping with the buyback and counting the total number of guns at the end. “Even if they’re legit and they’re owned and properly cared for, they can always have been stolen and find their way onto the street,” Mayor Elorza said. “That’s why we’re just a safe community and a safer city with less guns out there and this is going to go a long way to make sure we can stop some of the gunfire. It’s not a complete solution, but it definitely helps.”
This isn’t going to help. In fact, there’s virtually no evidence that “buybacks” do anything to reduce violent crime, suicides, or accidents involving firearms. Ultimately, these gun turn-in events are another supply-side solution to a demand-side problem; the number of guns available for criminals to steal or acquire on the black market is far higher than the number of violent criminals in Providence itself.
Trying to ban or buy their way to safety by going after guns rather than the individuals who are using them in the commission of violent crime is a fool’s errand, but at least those who had their guns stolen will have the opportunity to get their guns back rather than seeing them destroyed. The “gun buyback” is still a waste of time and money, in my opinion, but as long as Providence and Central Falls are true to their word and work to return stolen firearms to their rightful owners, it won’t be a violation of constitutional rights as well.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--Oakland Homicide Total Proves Failure Of Gun Control

All over the country , the violent crime rate appears to be soaring .
Every city of any appreciable size seems to be seeing far more shootings than they have in years .
It ’ s a topic of conversation in most of these communities with everyone saying something has to be done .
However , many of those folks are looking to gun control as a potential solution to their communities ’ issued , and that ’ s probably not a particularly wise idea .
After all , let ’ s look at the most gun controlled state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re having issues there as well .
Three people died and two others were injured Saturday night and early Sunday morning in a string of shootings in three Bay Area cities .
In Oakland , officers and firefighters called to the 9900 block of MacArthur Boulevard at about 1 a.m. Sunday found a woman with at least one gunshot wound , authorities said .
The San Francisco resident died at the scene .
About 90 minutes later , officers responded to a shooting on the 8300 block of International Boulevard and found a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid was provided , but the victim died at a local hospital , police said .
The area around East Oakland has emerged as the epicenter in a wave of shootings and homicides in a city that has logged more than 80 slayings in 2020 , up from 58 at this time last year .
Police link the increase to the coronavirus , gang skirmishes and an influx of guns .
Vallejo recorded its 23rd homicide of the year early Sunday .
That ’ s the most slayings the city has seen since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to crime data from the department .
Police responded to the 1900 block of Ascot Parkway and found a 28-year-old man with at least one gunshot wound .
He died at the scene , police said .
Now , Oakland police can try and lay the blame on the “ influx of guns ” all they want , but let ’ s keep a few things in mind about California .
For one , they have universal background checks , which are supposed to keep people from skipping NICS checks .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a FFL holder , which means a background check .
While a lot of guns have been sold over the last six months or so , all of them sold lawfully have complied with the law .
Further , California has waiting periods and an extremely limited supply of handguns available for sale .
They ’ ve done everything they can think of to throttle the Second Amendment in the state .
Despite all that , or even because of it , violent crime is soaring there just like every other state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorry , but at what point will people in California recognize that violent crime is far more complex than anything that could be solved with a simplistic solution like gun control ?
Even if you ignore the violation of Californians ’ civil liberties , the truth of the matter is that gun control just plain doesn ’ t work as advertised .
Yet we all know that this is California we ’ re talking about here .
There ’ s only one solution they ’ ll entertain when the legislature is in session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control .

All over the country, the violent crime rate appears to be soaring. Every city of any appreciable size seems to be seeing far more shootings than they have in years. It’s a topic of conversation in most of these communities with everyone saying something has to be done.
However, many of those folks are looking to gun control as a potential solution to their communities’ issued, and that’s probably not a particularly wise idea.
After all, let’s look at the most gun controlled state in the nation, California. They’re having issues there as well.
Three people died and two others were injured Saturday night and early Sunday morning in a string of shootings in three Bay Area cities. In Oakland, officers and firefighters called to the 9900 block of MacArthur Boulevard at about 1 a.m. Sunday found a woman with at least one gunshot wound, authorities said. The San Francisco resident died at the scene. About 90 minutes later, officers responded to a shooting on the 8300 block of International Boulevard and found a man who had been shot. Emergency aid was provided, but the victim died at a local hospital, police said. The area around East Oakland has emerged as the epicenter in a wave of shootings and homicides in a city that has logged more than 80 slayings in 2020, up from 58 at this time last year. Police link the increase to the coronavirus, gang skirmishes and an influx of guns. Vallejo recorded its 23rd homicide of the year early Sunday. That’s the most slayings the city has seen since it recorded 25 homicides in 2013, according to crime data from the department. Police responded to the 1900 block of Ascot Parkway and found a 28-year-old man with at least one gunshot wound. He died at the scene, police said.
Now, Oakland police can try and lay the blame on the “influx of guns” all they want, but let’s keep a few things in mind about California. For one, they have universal background checks, which are supposed to keep people from skipping NICS checks. Every gun lawfully sold in the state goes through a FFL holder, which means a background check.
While a lot of guns have been sold over the last six months or so, all of them sold lawfully have complied with the law. Further, California has waiting periods and an extremely limited supply of handguns available for sale. They’ve done everything they can think of to throttle the Second Amendment in the state.
Despite all that, or even because of it, violent crime is soaring there just like every other state in the nation.
I’m sorry, but at what point will people in California recognize that violent crime is far more complex than anything that could be solved with a simplistic solution like gun control? Even if you ignore the violation of Californians’ civil liberties, the truth of the matter is that gun control just plain doesn’t work as advertised.
Shocking, I know, but it’s true.
Yet we all know that this is California we’re talking about here. There’s only one solution they’ll entertain when the legislature is in session, and that will be still more gun control.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--The Cost Of Compliance With Biden's Gun Ban

If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually win the war for the White House next month , one of the first things the pair will likely do when they take office is turn their attention to American gun owners .
If Republicans manage to hang on to the U.S. Senate , a Biden/Harris administration would use the power of executive orders to start cracking down on legal gun owners in the name of fighting crime , but if Democrats manage to take the U.S. Senate in addition to the Oval Office , they ’ ll quickly move to pass Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons and large capacity magazines .
Gun owners will be left with a choice ; hand over your arms to the government in exchance for some amount of cash , or fork over $ 200 per firearm and magazine in order to register them under the National Firearms Act and the empty promise from Biden that you ’ ll be able to keep ahold of your guns and magazines .
I ’ ll say up front that I believe a Biden/Harris administration would have some serious issues with compliance if they try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In New York for instance , a registration requirement for so-called assault weapons under the state ’ s SAFE Act was ignored by many gun owners , and that experience would likely be replicated on a nationwide scale in the event of a Biden gun ban taking effect .
Just for the sake of argument , though , how much would it cost American gun owners to comply with Biden ’ s demand ?
The National Rifle Association ’ s Andrew Arulanandam estimates that gun owners would pay at least $ 3.6-billion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their guns .
A tax of $ 200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to a pay a collective $ 3.6 billion in taxes , if this policy were enacted into legislation .
That figure does not even consider other guns that might be deemed “ assault weapons ” by Democrats , which could also fall under the same provisions of the National Firearms Act .
The $ 3.6-billion tab also doesn ’ t include the cost of registering ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10-rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be classified as “ large capacity magazines ” and would also have to be registered under the NFA at a cost of $ 200 per magazine .
Honestly , I ’ m not sure how a gun owner would even go about registering a magazine under the NFA , since they typically don ’ t come with any sort of serialized markings that would allow the government to keep track of who owns what .
Nevertheless , if Biden tries to implement his gun ban in its current form , the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double .
There ’ s no real estimate of how many “ large capacity magazines ” are currently in the hands of legal gun owners , but during California ’ s “ Freedom Week ” in 2018 , when gun owners in the state were briefly allowed to purchase magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds , it ’ s estimated that more than one million magazines were sold .
Across the country , there are likely tens of millions of magazines that would be classified as “ large capacity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 200 per magazine , many gun owners would simply be unable to comply with Biden ’ s mandate because of the high cost .
Ultimately , the financial burden Biden ’ s gun ban would impose on gun owners would ensure that Biden ’ s buddies in the 1 % could avoid legal trouble by registering their so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines , but working class gun owners would be faced with the option of going broke in order to keep their guns , handing them over to the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or risk a ten-year federal prison sentence if they ’ re found in possession of any banned guns or magazines .
In other words , Biden ’ s ban wouldn ’ t make anyone any safer , but it would likely create a new class of non-violent criminals who could face years behind bars because they can ’ t afford to comply and don ’ t want to give up their legally-owned guns..

If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually win the war for the White House next month, one of the first things the pair will likely do when they take office is turn their attention to American gun owners. If Republicans manage to hang on to the U.S. Senate, a Biden/Harris administration would use the power of executive orders to start cracking down on legal gun owners in the name of fighting crime, but if Democrats manage to take the U.S. Senate in addition to the Oval Office, they’ll quickly move to pass Biden’s proposed ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Gun owners will be left with a choice; hand over your arms to the government in exchance for some amount of cash, or fork over $200 per firearm and magazine in order to register them under the National Firearms Act and the empty promise from Biden that you’ll be able to keep ahold of your guns and magazines.
I’ll say up front that I believe a Biden/Harris administration would have some serious issues with compliance if they try to implement their gun and magazine ban. In New York for instance, a registration requirement for so-called assault weapons under the state’s SAFE Act was ignored by many gun owners, and that experience would likely be replicated on a nationwide scale in the event of a Biden gun ban taking effect.
Just for the sake of argument, though, how much would it cost American gun owners to comply with Biden’s demand? The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam estimates that gun owners would pay at least $3.6-billion in taxes if they wanted to legally keep their guns.
A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to a pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes, if this policy were enacted into legislation. That figure does not even consider other guns that might be deemed “assault weapons” by Democrats, which could also fall under the same provisions of the National Firearms Act.
The $3.6-billion tab also doesn’t include the cost of registering ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10-rounds, which under Biden’s plan would be classified as “large capacity magazines” and would also have to be registered under the NFA at a cost of $200 per magazine.
Honestly, I’m not sure how a gun owner would even go about registering a magazine under the NFA, since they typically don’t come with any sort of serialized markings that would allow the government to keep track of who owns what. Nevertheless, if Biden tries to implement his gun ban in its current form, the tax on gun owners would likely more than double.
There’s no real estimate of how many “large capacity magazines” are currently in the hands of legal gun owners, but during California’s “Freedom Week” in 2018, when gun owners in the state were briefly allowed to purchase magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, it’s estimated that more than one million magazines were sold. Across the country, there are likely tens of millions of magazines that would be classified as “large capacity” by the Biden administration, and at $200 per magazine, many gun owners would simply be unable to comply with Biden’s mandate because of the high cost.
Ultimately, the financial burden Biden’s gun ban would impose on gun owners would ensure that Biden’s buddies in the 1% could avoid legal trouble by registering their so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but working class gun owners would be faced with the option of going broke in order to keep their guns, handing them over to the government in exchange for pennies on the dollar, or risk a ten-year federal prison sentence if they’re found in possession of any banned guns or magazines.
In other words, Biden’s ban wouldn’t make anyone any safer, but it would likely create a new class of non-violent criminals who could face years behind bars because they can’t afford to comply and don’t want to give up their legally-owned guns..


bearingarms--2020-10-19--Hypocrisy Abounds Over One Judge Deciding Gun Rights

Over the years , we ’ ve seen a lot of court decisions go in every direction when it comes to the Second Amendment .
Some courts rule one way , some rule another , and it really doesn ’ t seem to clarify a blasted thing .
However , what ’ s hilarious is that the media is taking issue with one pro-gun judge , which they take as evidence of a flawed system .
In the past two years U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez has issued sweeping rulings , written in vigorous and sharply-worded prose , in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-capacity magazines and mandatory background checks for ammunition purchases .
On Monday Benitez will hold a hearing in his courtroom in the downtown San Diego federal courthouse on another case filed last year that challenges several laws regulating and defining assault weapons in the state .
And he is also overseeing a fourth weapons case — one that challenges the state prohibition on possessing batons , billy clubs and blackjacks — that the plaintiffs say violates the Second Amendment .
In a federal district with more than a dozen judges , Benitez has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of challenges to state gun laws .
His rulings have wide implications , not only in California but also across the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals — a huge section of the nation stretching from Montana to Hawaii and Guam to Alaska .
With a U.S. Supreme Court that is seemingly on the verge of establishing a strong conservative majority where several justices , including current nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett , support an interpretation of the Second Amendment more favorable to gun ownership rights , Benitez ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
That scrutiny also includes the question of how various gun cases have gone to Benitez .
In federal courts , cases are assigned randomly to judges when they are filed .
The reason the cases land in front of Benitez lies in an obscure court rule for the federal court district in San Diego that governs “ related cases.
” Of course , this is just awful .
This can ’ t possibly be right , now can it ?
I mean , heaven forbid that Judge Benitez see gun cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem because Benitez tends to side with gun rights activists when it comes to the Second Amendment .
Because he ’ s the one who tends to hear most Second Amendment cases in his district and he doesn ’ t come down on the anti-gun side , this represents a massive problem .
Now , bear in mind that he has sound legal reasoning for coming down this way .
He ’ s not throwing the gun rights crowd a bone , he just happens to reach similar conclusion as we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting all these cases were the true issue , why were so many of them silent when Judge Jack Weinstein in New York was getting so many gun-related cases ?
Anti-gunners had zero issue with the notoriously anti-gun jurist hammering the firearm industry every chance he got , especially when it looked like cases were being steered directly toward him , but now it ’ s an issue .
The difference is that there ’ s actually a reason Benitez gets these cases , and since he ’ s not an anti-gun jihadist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s an issue and we all know it .
The hypocrisy of the whole situation is absolutely amazing .

Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of court decisions go in every direction when it comes to the Second Amendment. Some courts rule one way, some rule another, and it really doesn’t seem to clarify a blasted thing.
However, what’s hilarious is that the media is taking issue with one pro-gun judge, which they take as evidence of a flawed system.
In the past two years U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez has issued sweeping rulings, written in vigorous and sharply-worded prose, in two separate lawsuits challenging California state laws banning high-capacity magazines and mandatory background checks for ammunition purchases. On Monday Benitez will hold a hearing in his courtroom in the downtown San Diego federal courthouse on another case filed last year that challenges several laws regulating and defining assault weapons in the state. And he is also overseeing a fourth weapons case — one that challenges the state prohibition on possessing batons, billy clubs and blackjacks — that the plaintiffs say violates the Second Amendment. In a federal district with more than a dozen judges, Benitez has been able to oversee and rule on a series of challenges to state gun laws. His rulings have wide implications, not only in California but also across the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — a huge section of the nation stretching from Montana to Hawaii and Guam to Alaska. With a U.S. Supreme Court that is seemingly on the verge of establishing a strong conservative majority where several justices, including current nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, support an interpretation of the Second Amendment more favorable to gun ownership rights, Benitez’s rulings are drawing scrutiny from gun control groups. That scrutiny also includes the question of how various gun cases have gone to Benitez. In federal courts, cases are assigned randomly to judges when they are filed. The reason the cases land in front of Benitez lies in an obscure court rule for the federal court district in San Diego that governs “related cases.”
Of course, this is just awful. This can’t possibly be right, now can it? I mean, heaven forbid that Judge Benitez see gun cases regularly.
See, this is only a problem because Benitez tends to side with gun rights activists when it comes to the Second Amendment. Because he’s the one who tends to hear most Second Amendment cases in his district and he doesn’t come down on the anti-gun side, this represents a massive problem. Now, bear in mind that he has sound legal reasoning for coming down this way. He’s not throwing the gun rights crowd a bone, he just happens to reach similar conclusion as we do.
However, if one person seemingly getting all these cases were the true issue, why were so many of them silent when Judge Jack Weinstein in New York was getting so many gun-related cases? Anti-gunners had zero issue with the notoriously anti-gun jurist hammering the firearm industry every chance he got, especially when it looked like cases were being steered directly toward him, but now it’s an issue.
The difference is that there’s actually a reason Benitez gets these cases, and since he’s not an anti-gun jihadist, that’s the sole reason it’s an issue and we all know it.
The hypocrisy of the whole situation is absolutely amazing.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Study Finds Canadian Gun Laws Can't Stop Majority Of Gun Deaths

Here in the United States , anti-gunners routinely use suicides by firearm in their numbers for “ gun deaths ” as a way to push for more gun control .
Never anyone mind that unless someone is a convicted felon or adjudicated as “ mentally defective , ” they can still buy a firearm despite any gun control law you care to put on the books .
No , none of that matters to them .
In their mind , the only potential solution to suicides by firearm is more gun control .
However , even in ( at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatalities are suicides .
Over a 15 year period , more than two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in Ontario were suicides that impacted mostly older men living in rural areas , according to a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday .
Doctors from the Unity Health Toronto network of hospitals examined health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences on firearm-related deaths and injuries in Ontario from 2002 to 2016 .
They found that 67.6 per cent of deaths linked to guns in the province @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that period were suicides , and mostly impacted older men living in rural areas .
The researchers also discovered that the majority of gun-related injuries in Ontario are due to self-harm , making up 68 per cent of those injuries and again impacting mostly men over 45 , living in rural communities .
Huh .
Sounds about like our numbers , doesn ’ t it ?
Meanwhile , Canada has all kinds of gun laws .
For example , you ’ re required to have a license to buy any kind of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one to undergo a training course prior to obtaining said license .
Honestly , it ’ s worse than buying a gun in Illinois or California .
And yet , two-thirds of all people killed with a firearm in Ontario are killed in suicides .
For the record , Ontario has a population of about 14.5 million .
I mention that to put the total number of suicides in a little perspective .
That ’ s less than twice the population of New York City .
Anyway , despite the myriad of gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people still took their own life .
It seems the Canadian healthcare system managed to fail them as well .
So much for that idea , eh universal healthcare advocates ?
This shouldn ’ t be particularly surprising , though .
Suicide , despite what many anti-gunners claim , isn ’ t something you can pass a law and eliminate .
Hell , on the world state , the United States is ranked 27th in suicide rate while literally every nation higher up the chart .
In fact , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Russia , which are numbers one and two respectively .
Yet both nations have more restrictive gun laws than the United States , though Lithuania ’ s aren ’ t particularly awful as European nations go .
If gun laws had an appreciable impact on suicide , countries like 14th ranked Japan would have non-existent suicide rates .
Yet , they do .
That ’ s because suicide is a mental health issue , not a gun issue .
This focus some anti-gunners have with suicide only goes so far as gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nothing more than a cynical attempt at a power grab .
Then again , what else is new ?

Here in the United States, anti-gunners routinely use suicides by firearm in their numbers for “gun deaths” as a way to push for more gun control. Never anyone mind that unless someone is a convicted felon or adjudicated as “mentally defective,” they can still buy a firearm despite any gun control law you care to put on the books. No, none of that matters to them.
In their mind, the only potential solution to suicides by firearm is more gun control.
However, even in (at least)parts of Canada, most firearm-related fatalities are suicides.
Over a 15 year period, more than two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in Ontario were suicides that impacted mostly older men living in rural areas, according to a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday. Doctors from the Unity Health Toronto network of hospitals examined health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences on firearm-related deaths and injuries in Ontario from 2002 to 2016. They found that 67.6 per cent of deaths linked to guns in the province — a total of 1,842 — during that period were suicides, and mostly impacted older men living in rural areas. The researchers also discovered that the majority of gun-related injuries in Ontario are due to self-harm, making up 68 per cent of those injuries and again impacting mostly men over 45, living in rural communities.
Huh. Sounds about like our numbers, doesn’t it?
Meanwhile, Canada has all kinds of gun laws. For example, you’re required to have a license to buy any kind of a firearm. Getting one of those requires one to undergo a training course prior to obtaining said license. Honestly, it’s worse than buying a gun in Illinois or California.
And yet, two-thirds of all people killed with a firearm in Ontario are killed in suicides.
For the record, Ontario has a population of about 14.5 million. I mention that to put the total number of suicides in a little perspective. That’s less than twice the population of New York City.
Anyway, despite the myriad of gun laws on the books in Canada, these people still took their own life. It seems the Canadian healthcare system managed to fail them as well. So much for that idea, eh universal healthcare advocates?
This shouldn’t be particularly surprising, though. Suicide, despite what many anti-gunners claim, isn’t something you can pass a law and eliminate. Hell, on the world state, the United States is ranked 27th in suicide rate while literally every nation higher up the chart. In fact, it’s less than half of that of Lithuania and Russia, which are numbers one and two respectively.
Yet both nations have more restrictive gun laws than the United States, though Lithuania’s aren’t particularly awful as European nations go.
If gun laws had an appreciable impact on suicide, countries like 14th ranked Japan would have non-existent suicide rates. Yet, they do.
That’s because suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. This focus some anti-gunners have with suicide only goes so far as gun control, which mean’s it’s nothing more than a cynical attempt at a power grab.
Then again, what else is new?


bearingarms--2020-10-20--The Difference Between Insurrection And Defending Liberty

There have been a lot more people showing up in more places with firearms than in years past .
While I ’ ve been upfront that I don ’ t believe armed protests are particularly wise in some instances–things like protesting lockdowns in Michigan , for example–I do believe there are times when armed protests make sense .
For example , there are Second Amendment rallies .
There are also times when there ’ s reason to believe the other side might show up and try to be violent , so going armed just makes sense .
However , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of the issue or situation , and they ’ re comparing it to armed insurrection .
Of course , people like Horwitz would expect me to argue that he ’ s wrong , that “ insurrection ” is the last thing on anyone ’ s mind , but I won ’ t .
Instead , I ’ m going to point out in a way he ’ s actually right .
There are obviously some Americans ( on both the Left and the Right ) who are ready to wage an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and federal governments , and under federal law , “ insurrection ” is a crime .
At the heart of the Second Amendment , however , is the idea of resistance to tyranny , not “ insurrection ” as Horwitz claims .
To understand just why he ’ s wrong there , we have to go back to the ideas of the Founding Fathers .
The British government , back in 1775 , decided it was time to seize munitions from the potentially rebellious colonists .
They marched to Lexington and Concord with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , the War of Independence began with the first shots fired on Lexington Green as militia members stood in defense of their rights and property .
Sixteen years later , when the Bill of Rights was passed , Americans sought to make sure that could never happen again .
The Founding Fathers believed that government was the kind of thing that we had to have , but we needed to keep it in check as much as possible .
They feared standing armies because they knew that such an army could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people to have the means to violently resist the federal government if that government began acting tyrannically .
Resistance against a tyrannical regime was seen as the last step available to the American people , but we ’ re not talking about self-proclaimed militia members or individual gun owners trying to start a Civil War .
The Founders weren ’ t anarchists , after all .
James Madison made it clear in Federalist 46 that any successful defense of tyranny would have to involve local and state governments working hand-in-hand with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people .
Just as the Founders believed in “ ordered liberty , ” they believed that resistance to tyranny should be ordered as well .
Today , gun rights advocates hold onto that ideal that an armed citizenry serves as a check on tyranny .
After all , nowhere in the text does the Second Amendment mention hunting .
Hell , an argument can be made that the Second Amendment isn ’ t really about individual self-defense , though I don ’ t agree with that interpretation .
No , the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even from the federal government if necessary .
Josh Horwitz may call it insurrection , much like any would-be tyrant would , but the Founding Fathers called it resistance to oppression .
At the end of the day , that ’ s a feature , not a bug .

There have been a lot more people showing up in more places with firearms than in years past. While I’ve been upfront that I don’t believe armed protests are particularly wise in some instances–things like protesting lockdowns in Michigan, for example–I do believe there are times when armed protests make sense.
For example, there are Second Amendment rallies. There are also times when there’s reason to believe the other side might show up and try to be violent, so going armed just makes sense.
However, some don’t like any armed protest, regardless of the issue or situation, and they’re comparing it to armed insurrection.
Of course, people like Horwitz would expect me to argue that he’s wrong, that “insurrection” is the last thing on anyone’s mind, but I won’t.
Instead, I’m going to point out in a way he’s actually right. There are obviously some Americans (on both the Left and the Right) who are ready to wage an offensive war against local, state, and federal governments, and under federal law, “insurrection” is a crime. At the heart of the Second Amendment, however, is the idea of resistance to tyranny, not “insurrection” as Horwitz claims. To understand just why he’s wrong there, we have to go back to the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
The British government, back in 1775, decided it was time to seize munitions from the potentially rebellious colonists. They marched to Lexington and Concord with the intention of doing just that. Instead, the War of Independence began with the first shots fired on Lexington Green as militia members stood in defense of their rights and property.
Sixteen years later, when the Bill of Rights was passed, Americans sought to make sure that could never happen again. The Founding Fathers believed that government was the kind of thing that we had to have, but we needed to keep it in check as much as possible. They feared standing armies because they knew that such an army could be turned against the people. They wanted the people to have the means to violently resist the federal government if that government began acting tyrannically.
Resistance against a tyrannical regime was seen as the last step available to the American people, but we’re not talking about self-proclaimed militia members or individual gun owners trying to start a Civil War. The Founders weren’t anarchists, after all. James Madison made it clear in Federalist 46 that any successful defense of tyranny would have to involve local and state governments working hand-in-hand with an armed populace to defend the rights of the people. Just as the Founders believed in “ordered liberty,” they believed that resistance to tyranny should be ordered as well.
Today, gun rights advocates hold onto that ideal that an armed citizenry serves as a check on tyranny. After all, nowhere in the text does the Second Amendment mention hunting. Hell, an argument can be made that the Second Amendment isn’t really about individual self-defense, though I don’t agree with that interpretation. No, the Second Amendment is about preserving our freedom, even from the federal government if necessary. Josh Horwitz may call it insurrection, much like any would-be tyrant would, but the Founding Fathers called it resistance to oppression.
At the end of the day, that’s a feature, not a bug.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Democrats Accuse Miami Cop Of Voter Intimidation

It ’ s the political scandal of the day in Miami , where city council members and Biden supporters are demanding that a Miami police officer be suspended after walking through the city ’ s Government Center building in uniform and wearing a mask emblazoned with the slogan “ Trump 2020 : No More Bullshit ” .
Simeonides is the head of the Democratic Party in Miami-Dade , and in a subsequent tweet , he alleged that the Miami police officer actually committed a crime , quoting a section of state law that makes it a misdemeanor for any “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subdivision ” to “ participate in any political campaign for an elective office while on duty.
” The Miami New Times says the law is actually a little more complicated , however .
Police officers in Miami are allowed to vote while on duty , so the idea that Ubeda somehow intimidated voters by appearing in uniform is patently absurd .
Even the Trump mask , which Simeonides claims violates the statute about government employees not participating in campaigns while on duty , isn ’ t a cut-and-dried issue .
Was Ubeda participating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump mask ?
If he was casting his vote , the answer is most likely “ no.
” The Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust says local officials and employees have a right to engage in “ political campaign activities , ” but they can ’ t use their official authority to influence another person ’ s vote .
“ Political campaign activities may not involve the use of public resources in support of any political campaign or candidate , including office stationery , telephones , computers , or vehicles , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wearing a Trump mask isn ’ t using public resources , and as it turns out , campaign apparel is perfectly acceptable for voters to wear in Miami-Dade .
So , police are allowed to vote in uniform , and voters are allowed to wear apparel with political messaging .
If Ubeda was actually casting a vote , I ’ d argue that no law was broken , though the Miami Police Department has declared that Ubeda violated departmental policy by wearing the Trump mask while in uniform .
I doubt the officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , though plenty of Democrats are demanding it happen and the First Amendment issues inherent in the case would be fascinating to flesh out in court .
It sounds like he ’ s going to face at least some discipline from the Miami PD , however , and the department has a valid concern about officers wearing candidate apparel while on duty .
Conservatives would likely be pretty ticked off if a cop was in uniform wearing a Biden mask , even if he was standing in line to cast their vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wouldn ’ t be demanding that the officer be arrested , but there would be plenty of folks on the Right calling it inappropriate or worse .
I don ’ t think it was or should be illegal for Daniel Ubeda to wear his Trump mask to go vote , but since he was in his Miami PD uniform it also wasn ’ t the brightest idea .

It’s the political scandal of the day in Miami, where city council members and Biden supporters are demanding that a Miami police officer be suspended after walking through the city’s Government Center building in uniform and wearing a mask emblazoned with the slogan “Trump 2020: No More Bullshit”.
Here is @CityofMiami Police Officer Daniel Ubeda, in full uniform with badge and gun wearing his Trump mask inside of the polling location in government center. This is city funded voter intimidation. Ubeda should be suspended immediately. pic.twitter.com/TbJxu6mcem — Steve Simeonidis (@stevesimeonidis) October 20, 2020
Simeonides is the head of the Democratic Party in Miami-Dade, and in a subsequent tweet, he alleged that the Miami police officer actually committed a crime, quoting a section of state law that makes it a misdemeanor for any “employee of the state or any political subdivision” to “participate in any political campaign for an elective office while on duty.”
The Miami New Times says the law is actually a little more complicated, however. Police officers in Miami are allowed to vote while on duty, so the idea that Ubeda somehow intimidated voters by appearing in uniform is patently absurd. Even the Trump mask, which Simeonides claims violates the statute about government employees not participating in campaigns while on duty, isn’t a cut-and-dried issue. Was Ubeda participating in a political campaign by wearing the Trump mask? If he was casting his vote, the answer is most likely “no.”
The Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust says local officials and employees have a right to engage in “political campaign activities,” but they can’t use their official authority to influence another person’s vote. “Political campaign activities may not involve the use of public resources in support of any political campaign or candidate, including office stationery, telephones, computers, or vehicles,” the commission states on its website.
Wearing a Trump mask isn’t using public resources, and as it turns out, campaign apparel is perfectly acceptable for voters to wear in Miami-Dade.
According to the Florida Division of Elections’ Polling Place Procedures Manual, voters are allowed to wear apparel with social or political messaging inside polling places. Poll watchers and poll workers are not. But police officers aren’t allowed anywhere within a polling place unless they have permission from an election board to be there, or if they’re voting themselves.
So, police are allowed to vote in uniform, and voters are allowed to wear apparel with political messaging. If Ubeda was actually casting a vote, I’d argue that no law was broken, though the Miami Police Department has declared that Ubeda violated departmental policy by wearing the Trump mask while in uniform.
We are aware of the photograph being circulated of a Miami Police officer wearing a political mask in uniform. This behavior is unacceptable, a violation of departmental policy, and is being addressed immediately. pic.twitter.com/E3eO0IQh0f — Miami PD (@MiamiPD) October 20, 2020
I doubt the officer is going to face any charges over this, though plenty of Democrats are demanding it happen and the First Amendment issues inherent in the case would be fascinating to flesh out in court. It sounds like he’s going to face at least some discipline from the Miami PD, however, and the department has a valid concern about officers wearing candidate apparel while on duty.
Conservatives would likely be pretty ticked off if a cop was in uniform wearing a Biden mask, even if he was standing in line to cast their vote. I’d like to think we wouldn’t be demanding that the officer be arrested, but there would be plenty of folks on the Right calling it inappropriate or worse. I don’t think it was or should be illegal for Daniel Ubeda to wear his Trump mask to go vote, but since he was in his Miami PD uniform it also wasn’t the brightest idea.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--The Truth Behind William McRaven's "Support" For The 2A

Retired Admiral William McRaven has come out in support of Joe Biden , describing himself in a Wall Street Journal column as a pro-Second Amendment conservative who ’ s voting for the Democratic ticket this year , but like the rest of Biden ’ s supposed pro-2A supporters , it turns out that McRaven has a long history of embracing radical gun control policies .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we look back at McRaven ’ s opposition to pro-gun policies and his embrace of anti-gun activists as an example of why “ I support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most meaningless phrases in politics .
If McRaven , who gained national fame for overseeing the raid on the Pakistan compound where Osama bin Laden was hiding out , wants to support Biden , he should just say so .
Trying to make it seem like an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment is crossing the aisle in order to vote for the Biden/Harris ticket isn ’ t honorable , however .
It ’ s deceptive and misleading , which unfortunately is par for the course when it comes to Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s support for the Second Amendment was nowhere to be found when he was chancellor of the University of Texas system back in 2015 .
When lawmakers were poised to pass a campus carry bill , McRaven vocally objected ( unlike the chancellor of the Texas A & M system ) , complaining in a letter to lawmakers that allowing concealed carry holders to carry on campus just like they do off-campus would somehow put people at risk .
In his letter , McRaven cautions that his opposition to the proposal stems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students , faculty and staff .
He said his office has received calls from those groups , as well as law enforcement and mental health professionals , raising concerns about campus carry .
“ There is great concern that the presence of handguns , even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older , will lead to an increase in both accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds , ” he wrote .
He also cited concerns about allowing weapons in the university system ’ s hospitals , where emotions run high , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment are in use .
I ’ ve yet to meet a Second Amendment supporter who believes that “ the presence of handguns , even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older ” should be curtailed , but that ’ s exactly the position that McRaven took .
Despite his objections , legislators approved the campus carry bill , and there ’ ve been virtually no issues in the years since .
McRaven also embraced the March for Our Lives movement after the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple failures of law enforcement and school officials to deal with the suspect in the years , months , and even days before the attack , McRaven chose to pin the blame on our nation ’ s gun laws , tweeting out “ ” I could not be prouder of them !
This is exactly what we need the youth of America to do : to stand strong , to stand together , to challenge the laws that have not served them well.
” I actually went looking for quotes from McRaven that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Second Amendment rather than gun control , but I couldn ’ t find any .
Instead , when McRaven has spoken up on the issue , it ’ s been in support of more gun control laws , not the right to keep and bear arms .
Of course , this kind of deception isn ’ t new in politics .
As I said , “ I support the Second Amendment ” is one of the most overused and meaningless phrases in politics today , with everyone from Joe Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the right while doing everything they can to curtail it .
Even “ Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden ” pretend to support the Second Amendment , claiming that “ under the Biden administration there will be a strong partnership with Americans who believe in protecting the right of firearms ownership and the lives of innocent citizens.
” In actuality , Biden would ban some of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the country , making it a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large capacity magazines without paying $ 200 per item to register them with the government .
He would ban the online sale of ammunition , dramatically curtailing the ability of rural Americans to purchase ammunition for self-defense , hunting , and recreation .
Biden ’ s also vowing to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , allowing gun control groups to work with cities and individuals to sue firearms manufacturers for the actions of criminals .
This strategy would bankrupt the firearms industry , making it nearly impossible for anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mandate “ smart gun ” technology for all new firearms , even though there ’ s little demand among gun owners .
There ’ s literally nothing in Biden ’ s campaign plan that demonstrates any support for the Second Amendment whatsoever .
In fact , his campaign website even states that Biden believes the Second Amendment is “ limited.
” Limited to what , exactly ?
Biden doesn ’ t say , and to my knowledge he ’ s never been asked that question , just like Admiral McRaven has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support ” for the right to keep and bear arms .
For the media , it ’ s enough to simply express support .
The details are unimportant .
For gun owners on the other hand , the devil is in the details , and the details of Biden ’ s gun control agenda make it plain that both he and surrogates like McRaven support more gun control laws far more than they support the right to keep and bear arms .

Retired Admiral William McRaven has come out in support of Joe Biden, describing himself in a Wall Street Journal column as a pro-Second Amendment conservative who’s voting for the Democratic ticket this year, but like the rest of Biden’s supposed pro-2A supporters, it turns out that McRaven has a long history of embracing radical gun control policies.
Admiral William McRaven (ret), former commander of Special Ops during OBL raid, writes: “Truth be told, I am a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, small-government, strong-defense and a national-anthem-standing conservative. But… https://t.co/lVE10i8Hjn — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 20, 2020
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we look back at McRaven’s opposition to pro-gun policies and his embrace of anti-gun activists as an example of why “I support the Second Amendment” is one of the most meaningless phrases in politics. If McRaven, who gained national fame for overseeing the raid on the Pakistan compound where Osama bin Laden was hiding out, wants to support Biden, he should just say so. Trying to make it seem like an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment is crossing the aisle in order to vote for the Biden/Harris ticket isn’t honorable, however. It’s deceptive and misleading, which unfortunately is par for the course when it comes to Biden’s outreach to gun owners.
McRaven’s support for the Second Amendment was nowhere to be found when he was chancellor of the University of Texas system back in 2015. When lawmakers were poised to pass a campus carry bill, McRaven vocally objected (unlike the chancellor of the Texas A&M system), complaining in a letter to lawmakers that allowing concealed carry holders to carry on campus just like they do off-campus would somehow put people at risk.
In his letter, McRaven cautions that his opposition to the proposal stems from his concern for the safety of students, faculty and staff. He said his office has received calls from those groups, as well as law enforcement and mental health professionals, raising concerns about campus carry. “There is great concern that the presence of handguns, even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older, will lead to an increase in both accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds,” he wrote. He also cited concerns about allowing weapons in the university system’s hospitals, where emotions run high, and laboratories, where chemicals and high tech equipment are in use.
I’ve yet to meet a Second Amendment supporter who believes that “the presence of handguns, even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older” should be curtailed, but that’s exactly the position that McRaven took. Despite his objections, legislators approved the campus carry bill, and there’ve been virtually no issues in the years since.
McRaven also embraced the March for Our Lives movement after the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. Rather than pointing out the multiple failures of law enforcement and school officials to deal with the suspect in the years, months, and even days before the attack, McRaven chose to pin the blame on our nation’s gun laws, tweeting out “”I could not be prouder of them! This is exactly what we need the youth of America to do: to stand strong, to stand together, to challenge the laws that have not served them well.”
I actually went looking for quotes from McRaven that would indicate any sort of genuine support for the Second Amendment rather than gun control, but I couldn’t find any. Instead, when McRaven has spoken up on the issue, it’s been in support of more gun control laws, not the right to keep and bear arms.
Of course, this kind of deception isn’t new in politics. As I said, “I support the Second Amendment” is one of the most overused and meaningless phrases in politics today, with everyone from Joe Biden to Mark Kelly to Michael Bloomberg saying they support the right while doing everything they can to curtail it.
Even “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden” pretend to support the Second Amendment, claiming that “under the Biden administration there will be a strong partnership with Americans who believe in protecting the right of firearms ownership and the lives of innocent citizens.”
In actuality, Biden would ban some of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the country, making it a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to maintain possession of the so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines without paying $200 per item to register them with the government. He would ban the online sale of ammunition, dramatically curtailing the ability of rural Americans to purchase ammunition for self-defense, hunting, and recreation.
Biden’s also vowing to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allowing gun control groups to work with cities and individuals to sue firearms manufacturers for the actions of criminals. This strategy would bankrupt the firearms industry, making it nearly impossible for anyone to purchase a gun. He wants to mandate “smart gun” technology for all new firearms, even though there’s little demand among gun owners.
There’s literally nothing in Biden’s campaign plan that demonstrates any support for the Second Amendment whatsoever. In fact, his campaign website even states that Biden believes the Second Amendment is “limited.” Limited to what, exactly? Biden doesn’t say, and to my knowledge he’s never been asked that question, just like Admiral McRaven has never been asked any specifics about his “support” for the right to keep and bear arms.
For the media, it’s enough to simply express support. The details are unimportant. For gun owners on the other hand, the devil is in the details, and the details of Biden’s gun control agenda make it plain that both he and surrogates like McRaven support more gun control laws far more than they support the right to keep and bear arms.