bearingarms--2020-11-03--Safety Is Always One More Gun Law Down The Road

S0-called “ gun violence ” is a problem .
Let me be clear about it .
Then again , any kind of violence is a problem .
If you lose someone to violence , you ’ re not going to feel better because they were killed in an explosion or stabbed 43 times .
The weapon used is far less important than the fact that someone you love was injured or killed .
And yet , there are those who seem to think that gun control isn ’ t just an answer to violence , but the only possible answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may sound , popped up again in a story about the anniversary of someone killed in a driveby shooting .
It seems that the problem is that Chicago just doesn ’ t have enough gun control .
Now , up until that last sentence , I was sitting here nodding along with Montes ’ points .
Far too many violent offenders are getting back out on the streets and creating more chaos and strife in their wakes .
Yet the last sentence is what gets me .
Better gun control ?
Honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , the state of Illinois requires all law-abiding citizens to get a license just to purchase a firearm .
Further , all lawful gun sales must go through a licensed gun dealer so a NICS background check can be performed .
There ’ s literally no law that can be put in place that would do more to restrict guns than these besides , maybe , outright bans .
And yet , criminals still get guns in Chicago .
See , the problem with Montes ’ thinking on gun control is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one more gun control law on the books .
Just one more new rule and maybe then the streets will be safe .
All it will take is just one more restriction and everything will be better .
Then they get it .
They get the new rule they want and nothing changes .
Nothing ’ s better .
Violence still plagues the streets and the police simply can ’ t stop it .
So these folks look to their legislators and demand yet another gun control law .
The thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of needing just one more law .
Proponents will continue to claim they need another law and another law until there ’ s nothing left for them to take .
Meanwhile , the criminals have figured out how to bypass these new regulations before the ink is even dry on them .
That is if they even bother .
Most illegal gun transactions are black market anyway , which means the new laws don ’ t do a thing to hurt them .
Yet proponents will continue agitating for just one more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two and then all will be well .
It never is and it never will be .

S0-called “gun violence” is a problem. Let me be clear about it. Then again, any kind of violence is a problem. If you lose someone to violence, you’re not going to feel better because they were killed in an explosion or stabbed 43 times. The weapon used is far less important than the fact that someone you love was injured or killed.
And yet, there are those who seem to think that gun control isn’t just an answer to violence, but the only possible answer.
This idea, as misguided as it may sound, popped up again in a story about the anniversary of someone killed in a driveby shooting. It seems that the problem is that Chicago just doesn’t have enough gun control.
Raul Montes Jr., a community activist who organized the rally on Sunday, said Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is too lenient on offenders and that Mayor Lori Lightfoot is not doing enough to keep police officers safe amid recent incidents of looting and civil unrest. The city needs better gun control and better policy to end soaring gun violence, Montes said.
Now, up until that last sentence, I was sitting here nodding along with Montes’ points. Far too many violent offenders are getting back out on the streets and creating more chaos and strife in their wakes.
Yet the last sentence is what gets me. Better gun control? Honestly, what does that even mean?
After all, the state of Illinois requires all law-abiding citizens to get a license just to purchase a firearm. Further, all lawful gun sales must go through a licensed gun dealer so a NICS background check can be performed. There’s literally no law that can be put in place that would do more to restrict guns than these besides, maybe, outright bans.
And yet, criminals still get guns in Chicago.
See, the problem with Montes’ thinking on gun control is that it always feels like you need just one more gun control law on the books. Just one more new rule and maybe then the streets will be safe. All it will take is just one more restriction and everything will be better.
Then they get it.
They get the new rule they want and nothing changes. Nothing’s better. Violence still plagues the streets and the police simply can’t stop it. So these folks look to their legislators and demand yet another gun control law.
The thing is, gun control will perpetually be a case of needing just one more law. Proponents will continue to claim they need another law and another law until there’s nothing left for them to take.
Meanwhile, the criminals have figured out how to bypass these new regulations before the ink is even dry on them. That is if they even bother. Most illegal gun transactions are black market anyway, which means the new laws don’t do a thing to hurt them.
Yet proponents will continue agitating for just one more law. Always just another law or two and then all will be well.
It never is and it never will be.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Ban On Open Carry At MI Polls Rejected By Courts

A Michigan Court of Appeals decision that overturned a ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places in the state will be the final word on the issue , after the state ’ s Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson .
The court never responded to Benson ’ s request , and her office on Monday afternoon reluctantly issued a statement acknowledging that her ban would have no force of law on Election Day .
Soon after Benson ’ s original announcement in mid-October , many sheriffs and police chiefs across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legality of her order , and the state ’ s association of police chiefs publicly stated that Benson simply didn ’ t have the authority to unilaterally bar legally carried firearms from the polls .
I ’ m somewhat surprised that the state Supreme Court didn ’ t hold a hearing , if only to agree with Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray , who was the first to rule against the ban , arguing that the issue needed to be addressed by the legislature and not imposed via an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-profile nature of the case , I would have expected the court to weigh in , but their silence speaks volumes as well .
Clearly Benson had no authority to impose her gun ban , just as Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer didn ’ t have the authority to impose her COVID-19 orders ( which were struck down by the state Supreme Court ) , but the blame can ’ t rest entirely on their shoulders .
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel , who gave the thumbs up to both Benson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face some tough questions over her endorsement of the power grabs , but I doubt that happens .
Nessel ’ s up for re-election in two years , however , and given her close victory in 2018 , I suspect she ’ ll have plenty of Republicans lining up to challenge her .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

A Michigan Court of Appeals decision that overturned a ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places in the state will be the final word on the issue, after the state’s Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. The court never responded to Benson’s request, and her office on Monday afternoon reluctantly issued a statement acknowledging that her ban would have no force of law on Election Day.
Soon after Benson’s original announcement in mid-October, many sheriffs and police chiefs across the state of Michigan expressed concern over the legality of her order, and the state’s association of police chiefs publicly stated that Benson simply didn’t have the authority to unilaterally bar legally carried firearms from the polls.
I’m somewhat surprised that the state Supreme Court didn’t hold a hearing, if only to agree with Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray, who was the first to rule against the ban, arguing that the issue needed to be addressed by the legislature and not imposed via an administrative order from Benson. Given the high-profile nature of the case, I would have expected the court to weigh in, but their silence speaks volumes as well.
Clearly Benson had no authority to impose her gun ban, just as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer didn’t have the authority to impose her COVID-19 orders (which were struck down by the state Supreme Court), but the blame can’t rest entirely on their shoulders. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who gave the thumbs up to both Benson’s and Whitmer’s orders, should face some tough questions over her endorsement of the power grabs, but I doubt that happens.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Celebrities Who Want You Disarmed Hire Armed Security For Election Night

I won ’ t say that everyone expects post-election violence , but most people seem to .
After all , in 2020 , violence seems to be the norm .
At least , it ’ s the norm when we ’ re not all hunkered down in our homes because of a pandemic or something .
However , the safe money is probably on some degree of rioting if Donald Trump wins .
We saw it four years ago and we ’ re likely to see more this week if the president wins reelection .
A Joe Biden win probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially , but there may be “ celebratory looting ” or some such nonsense .
Regardless , many are taking precautions .
What ’ s amusing , though , is how the celebrities that spend money and time trying to see you disarmed are paying for armed security .
Wealthy celebrities living in at least one of New York City ’ s swankiest apartment buildings will be protected by armed guards during any civil unrest that may arise from the November 3 election .
Page Six exclusively reported that London Terrace Towers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which has housed Debbie Harry , Pete Davidson , and Tim Gunn , among others — recently sent an email to residents informing them that extra security would be hired for potential unrest .
“ As you are aware , government enforcement agencies across the country are making plans to control the possible civil unrest following the upcoming presidential election , ” the email read , according to Page Six .
“ Regardless of the outcome of [ Tuesday ’ s ] election , our concerns range from isolated violent incidents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confrontations between extremists , and potential property damage.
” “ Insiders ” told Page Six that the extra guards being hired to patrol the apartment complex will be armed .
“ It ’ s all a little much but this is Chelsea and with The Eagle leather bar closed due to the pandemic , no one is going to complain about seeing guys in uniform with a big gun !
” one resident told the outlet .
Meanwhile , folks like you and me ?
They want to see us disarmed because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t be trusted .
Most of us can ’ t afford to outsource our personal protection .
We don ’ t live in expensive apartment buildings that will hire armed security for us .
Nope .
We ’ re regular people who have to work regular jobs .
We can ’ t afford to hire our own security .
Yet this is normal for the celebrity set .
See , in their minds , they ’ re special .
They ’ re deserving of special protection because they ’ re more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re famous .
The problem is that it really doesn ’ t hold up to reality .
While a celebrity becoming the victim of a crime will dominate news headlines for weeks or months , the truth is that they ’ re no more likely to be the victim of a crime than anyone else .
After all , there are around 15,000 homicides in the United States every year .
How many of them are celebrities ?
There are about 150,000 rapes , yet there ’ s no reason to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aggravated assaults , and any other violent crime you care to name are far more likely to impact the regular guy or gal than the celebrities .
And yet , they are so wrapped up in their ivory tower mentality that they think they are the targets .
So , they hire extra security and look at us and think , “ Let them eat cake , ” then go back to their world of make-believe .
Meanwhile , the rest of us have to worry about whether or not our homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Trump sign out front because we can ’ t outsource our personal protection .
Me ?
I ’ ll be locked and loaded tonight and for the rest of the week and I dare some celebrity to make a thing of it .

I won’t say that everyone expects post-election violence, but most people seem to. After all, in 2020, violence seems to be the norm. At least, it’s the norm when we’re not all hunkered down in our homes because of a pandemic or something.
However, the safe money is probably on some degree of rioting if Donald Trump wins. We saw it four years ago and we’re likely to see more this week if the president wins reelection.
A Joe Biden win probably won’t yield as much violence initially, but there may be “celebratory looting” or some such nonsense.
Regardless, many are taking precautions.
What’s amusing, though, is how the celebrities that spend money and time trying to see you disarmed are paying for armed security.
Wealthy celebrities living in at least one of New York City’s swankiest apartment buildings will be protected by armed guards during any civil unrest that may arise from the November 3 election. Page Six exclusively reported that London Terrace Towers in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood — which has housed Debbie Harry, Pete Davidson, and Tim Gunn, among others — recently sent an email to residents informing them that extra security would be hired for potential unrest. “As you are aware, government enforcement agencies across the country are making plans to control the possible civil unrest following the upcoming presidential election,” the email read, according to Page Six. “Regardless of the outcome of [Tuesday’s] election, our concerns range from isolated violent incidents to a long stretch of mass protests, confrontations between extremists, and potential property damage.” “Insiders” told Page Six that the extra guards being hired to patrol the apartment complex will be armed. “It’s all a little much but this is Chelsea and with The Eagle leather bar closed due to the pandemic, no one is going to complain about seeing guys in uniform with a big gun!” one resident told the outlet.
Meanwhile, folks like you and me? They want to see us disarmed because we’re a bunch of hayseeds who can’t be trusted. Most of us can’t afford to outsource our personal protection. We don’t live in expensive apartment buildings that will hire armed security for us. Nope. We’re regular people who have to work regular jobs. We can’t afford to hire our own security.
Yet this is normal for the celebrity set.
See, in their minds, they’re special. They’re deserving of special protection because they’re more likely to be specifically targeted because they’re famous. The problem is that it really doesn’t hold up to reality.
While a celebrity becoming the victim of a crime will dominate news headlines for weeks or months, the truth is that they’re no more likely to be the victim of a crime than anyone else. After all, there are around 15,000 homicides in the United States every year. How many of them are celebrities? There are about 150,000 rapes, yet there’s no reason to believe celebrities are disproportionately impacted. Armed robberies, aggravated assaults, and any other violent crime you care to name are far more likely to impact the regular guy or gal than the celebrities.
And yet, they are so wrapped up in their ivory tower mentality that they think they are the targets.
So, they hire extra security and look at us and think, “Let them eat cake,” then go back to their world of make-believe.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to worry about whether or not our homes will get burned to the ground because of a Trump sign out front because we can’t outsource our personal protection.
Me? I’ll be locked and loaded tonight and for the rest of the week and I dare some celebrity to make a thing of it.


bearingarms--2020-11-03--Some Perspective On The Staggering Number Of New Gun Owners

According to the latest estimates from the National Shooting Sports Foundation , more than seven million Americans have become first-time gun buyers in 2020 , a staggeringly high number in a year already full of shattered records for firearm sales .
The NICS data for October , released on Monday , suggests that another 1.77-million firearms were sold at retail in October , which is yet another monthly sales record , and for the year-to-date , it ’ s estimated that there have been more than 17-million guns sold this year , far higher than the 13.2-million firearms sold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into some perspective , the estimated 7-million new gun owners in the United States just since January is more than five times the size of our active duty military , which stands at about 1.3-million service members .
The number of new gun owners is about ten times larger than the number of law enforcement in the United States , and is about seven times the estimated number of all gang members in the United States .
In other words , seven million new gun owners is a pretty staggering figure , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms market in the years ahead , but also has the potential to influence the gun control debate in the immediate future .
As we ’ ve noted previously , many new gun owners don ’ t fit the conservative stereotype , and even liberal publications like NYMag are beginning to recognize the impact that gun owners on the Left can have in the gun control debate .
“ You can ’ t say you ’ re for civil rights and have a civil right you ’ re absolutely interested in curtailing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Liberal Gun Club , an organization founded in 2008 that provides gun-skills courses for as little as $ 10 a year and has 4,500 members .
She says that Democratic lawmakers are totally ignorant when it comes to how guns actually work .
In keeping with national trends , Smith says Liberal Gun Club membership has grown a lot in the past year .
“ People are really concerned about this particular ultra-right-wing threat they ’ re perceiving , ” she says .
“ I can ’ t tell you the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always [ thought of me as their ] ‘ crazy gun friend ’ who have called me and said , ‘ I want to buy a shotgun .
I want to buy a handgun .
Where do I go ?
’ ” She has been hosting beginner shooting lessons in her backyard to meet the increased demand for gun skills that the pandemic and the upcoming election have inspired .
As opposed to understanding firearms as the primary cause of gun deaths in the U.S. , the Liberal Gun Club is interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what causes violence beyond the easy access to deadly weapons .
“ If you don ’ t understand how the tool works , then you don ’ t understand what problem you ’ re solving or not solving with it , ” Smith says , noting the ineffectiveness of AR bans .
Liberals get “ everything ” wrong about guns , Adam Selvage , a truck driver who lives in Albuquerque , told me .
He started the Facebook page Pro-Gun Democrats in 2012 after going out shooting with his then-girlfriend ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were the only people they knew who were “ incredibly liberal and still like shooting.
” At the beginning , his page had likes in the single digits , but eight years later , it has upwards of 2,500 followers and has sprouted a Facebook group where members can chat privately about firearms .
Many of his fellow Democrats , Selvage says , have a negative view of guns “ because they know what they see on TV , and the guns on TV are illegal in the United States , for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they think guns are just used for killing people.
” The size of the pro-gun groups on the Left can ’ t compare to the size of organizations like the NRA , Gun Owners of America , or the Second Amendment Foundation , but the numbers are growing , and that ’ s a very good thing .
As we ’ ll be discussing on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , no matter who wins the presidential election , the fight over our right to keep and bear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either at the state or federal level , and the millions of new gun owners can play an important role in protecting their newly-exercised rights , even if it ’ s lobbying their fellow Democrats to turn away from gun bans and licensing laws and address violent crime through things like “ root-cause mitigation .
”

According to the latest estimates from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, more than seven million Americans have become first-time gun buyers in 2020, a staggeringly high number in a year already full of shattered records for firearm sales. The NICS data for October, released on Monday, suggests that another 1.77-million firearms were sold at retail in October, which is yet another monthly sales record, and for the year-to-date, it’s estimated that there have been more than 17-million guns sold this year, far higher than the 13.2-million firearms sold in all of 2019.
To put this into some perspective, the estimated 7-million new gun owners in the United States just since January is more than five times the size of our active duty military, which stands at about 1.3-million service members. The number of new gun owners is about ten times larger than the number of law enforcement in the United States, and is about seven times the estimated number of all gang members in the United States.
In other words, seven million new gun owners is a pretty staggering figure, and one that could reshape not only the firearms market in the years ahead, but also has the potential to influence the gun control debate in the immediate future. As we’ve noted previously, many new gun owners don’t fit the conservative stereotype, and even liberal publications like NYMag are beginning to recognize the impact that gun owners on the Left can have in the gun control debate.
“You can’t say you’re for civil rights and have a civil right you’re absolutely interested in curtailing,” says Lara Smith, the spokesperson for the Liberal Gun Club, an organization founded in 2008 that provides gun-skills courses for as little as $10 a year and has 4,500 members. She says that Democratic lawmakers are totally ignorant when it comes to how guns actually work. In keeping with national trends, Smith says Liberal Gun Club membership has grown a lot in the past year. “People are really concerned about this particular ultra-right-wing threat they’re perceiving,” she says. “I can’t tell you the number of friends of mine who have always [thought of me as their] ‘crazy gun friend’ who have called me and said, ‘I want to buy a shotgun. I want to buy a handgun. Where do I go?’” She has been hosting beginner shooting lessons in her backyard to meet the increased demand for gun skills that the pandemic and the upcoming election have inspired. As opposed to understanding firearms as the primary cause of gun deaths in the U.S., the Liberal Gun Club is interested in investigating “root-cause mitigation,” or, what causes violence beyond the easy access to deadly weapons. “If you don’t understand how the tool works, then you don’t understand what problem you’re solving or not solving with it,” Smith says, noting the ineffectiveness of AR bans. Liberals get “everything” wrong about guns, Adam Selvage, a truck driver who lives in Albuquerque, told me. He started the Facebook page Pro-Gun Democrats in 2012 after going out shooting with his then-girlfriend; they got to talking about how they were the only people they knew who were “incredibly liberal and still like shooting.” At the beginning, his page had likes in the single digits, but eight years later, it has upwards of 2,500 followers and has sprouted a Facebook group where members can chat privately about firearms. Many of his fellow Democrats, Selvage says, have a negative view of guns “because they know what they see on TV, and the guns on TV are illegal in the United States, for the most part. They get scared because they think guns are just used for killing people.”
The size of the pro-gun groups on the Left can’t compare to the size of organizations like the NRA, Gun Owners of America, or the Second Amendment Foundation, but the numbers are growing, and that’s a very good thing. As we’ll be discussing on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, no matter who wins the presidential election, the fight over our right to keep and bear arms is going to be fierce in 2021, either at the state or federal level, and the millions of new gun owners can play an important role in protecting their newly-exercised rights, even if it’s lobbying their fellow Democrats to turn away from gun bans and licensing laws and address violent crime through things like “root-cause mitigation.”


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Chicago Man Nicknamed "Murdah" Charged With Murdah

Some people get stuck with nicknames that they don ’ t like .
Some of the ones I got back in the day don ’ t bear mentioning .
Sometimes , they have meaning .
Sometimes , they ’ re plays off someone ’ s name , like when everyone in high school called me “ Tomcat.
” Other times , it ’ s a play on something you did .
Still others get reverse nicknames , like calling a fat guy “ Slim ” or a bald guy “ Curly.
” I ’ m sure that ’ s behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” right ?
Or , you know , maybe not .
A parolee nicknamed “ Murdah ” has been charged with killing his friend and shooting the victim ’ s girlfriend during a disagreement over a gun in Chatham last month .
About a week before the Oct. 17 shooting , Aaron Campbell and his cousin went to a party , where they met up with the alleged gunman , Deangelo McClain .
Campbell , 30 , and McClain were both armed and showing off their guns at the party and at some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gun , Cook County prosecutors said .
McClain and Campbell ’ s cousin then got into an argument and Campbell ended up leaving the party without his gun , prosecutors said .
Campbell then left , but without his gun .
After several days and several attempts at making contact to get his gun back , he eventually did and went to McClain ’ s house .
McClain , joined by a still-unidentified person , came up to Campbell ’ s driver ’ s side window , leaned in and told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing into the car , Assistant State ’ s Attorney James Murphy said .
Campbell was shot several times and his girlfriend was struck once .
Campbell was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center , where he later died , and his girlfriend underwent surgery to remove a bullet from her abdomen , police and prosecutors said .
The girlfriend identified McClain by his nickname and picked him out of a photo lineup .
Yet my question is pretty straightforward .
Just how did McClain , a parolee , get a firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with such strict gun control ?
Could it be that gun control isn ’ t worth the ink used to print it ?
I mean , I know that people with nicknames like “ Murdah ” are usually the trustworthy sort , downright paragons of virtue and all , but if he ’ d already done prison time and if gu control like universal background checks actually work , then just how did this guy get a gun ?
It ’ s important to remember that Murdah wasn ’ t at his bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital after being shot in a different incident .
In other words , this is a career criminal who is knee-deep in the violence that plagues Chicago ’ s streets .
Yet he got a firearm despite everything gun control advocates claim .
Murdah is charged with murder being gun control laws don ’ t stop people like him .
They never have and they never will .
All it does is interfere with the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who want to own firearms for lawful purposes .
They are the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government in hopes they can be blessed with permission to buy a gun while people like Murdah can get them with impunity .

Some people get stuck with nicknames that they don’t like. Some of the ones I got back in the day don’t bear mentioning. Sometimes, they have meaning. Sometimes, they’re plays off someone’s name, like when everyone in high school called me “Tomcat.” Other times, it’s a play on something you did.
Still others get reverse nicknames, like calling a fat guy “Slim” or a bald guy “Curly.”
I’m sure that’s behind a Chicago man nicknamed “Murdah,” right?
Or, you know, maybe not.
A parolee nicknamed “Murdah” has been charged with killing his friend and shooting the victim’s girlfriend during a disagreement over a gun in Chatham last month. About a week before the Oct. 17 shooting, Aaron Campbell and his cousin went to a party, where they met up with the alleged gunman, Deangelo McClain. Campbell, 30, and McClain were both armed and showing off their guns at the party and at some point, McClain ended up with Campbell’s gun, Cook County prosecutors said. McClain and Campbell’s cousin then got into an argument and Campbell ended up leaving the party without his gun, prosecutors said.
Campbell then left, but without his gun. After several days and several attempts at making contact to get his gun back, he eventually did and went to McClain’s house.
McClain approached Campbell’s car with an unidentified individual.
McClain, joined by a still-unidentified person, came up to Campbell’s driver’s side window, leaned in and told Campbell “he was tweaking” before firing into the car, Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy said. Campbell was shot several times and his girlfriend was struck once. Campbell was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where he later died, and his girlfriend underwent surgery to remove a bullet from her abdomen, police and prosecutors said.
The girlfriend identified McClain by his nickname and picked him out of a photo lineup.
Yet my question is pretty straightforward. Just how did McClain, a parolee, get a firearm in the first place in a state with such strict gun control? Could it be that gun control isn’t worth the ink used to print it?
I mean, I know that people with nicknames like “Murdah” are usually the trustworthy sort, downright paragons of virtue and all, but if he’d already done prison time and if gu control like universal background checks actually work, then just how did this guy get a gun?
It’s important to remember that Murdah wasn’t at his bond hearing. Why? He was in the hospital after being shot in a different incident. In other words, this is a career criminal who is knee-deep in the violence that plagues Chicago’s streets. Yet he got a firearm despite everything gun control advocates claim.
Murdah is charged with murder being gun control laws don’t stop people like him. They never have and they never will.
All it does is interfere with the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who want to own firearms for lawful purposes. They are the ones who are left to grovel before the government in hopes they can be blessed with permission to buy a gun while people like Murdah can get them with impunity.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Should You Be Prepping For Potential Unrest?

Yes , according to ThePrepared.com ‘ s Jon Stokes , though political violence/Civil War 2.0 is not his primary concern at the moment .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Stokes says what ’ s really keeping him up at night at the moment is the prospect of a cratering economy over the next few months as COVID-19 cases rise , stores shut down once again , and millions of us struggle to keep a roof over our heads and food on our table .
That ’ s not to say that Stokes blithely dismisses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for now at least he thinks the prospects are overblown .
If Donald Trump were to pull out an election victory , that would increase the likelihood of violent demonstrations on the Left , but Stokes believes that we ’ re going to continue to see antifa and anarchist violence continue even in a Biden administration .
That sign was spotted in Portland , Oregon last night , where Gov .
Kate Brown called out the National Guard for the first time ( funny how that didn ’ t happen before Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not going away , though the media will have zero interest in covering any political violence in a potential Biden administration unless it can be blamed on the right .
If you ’ re concerned about the potential for any unrest , or even more lockdowns , Stokes has some solid advice on the most important necessities if you ’ re starting to get into prepping .
We didn ’ t spend a lot of time today talking about guns and ammo , because at this point its basically a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do discuss what your pantry should look like and some of the best places to stock up on the basics of a good food supply ( hint , it ’ s not your local supermarket ) .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation above , and head over to ThePrepared.com for plenty of more tips on how to survive and thrive in uncertain times .

Yes, according to ThePrepared.com‘s Jon Stokes, though political violence/Civil War 2.0 is not his primary concern at the moment. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Stokes says what’s really keeping him up at night at the moment is the prospect of a cratering economy over the next few months as COVID-19 cases rise, stores shut down once again, and millions of us struggle to keep a roof over our heads and food on our table.
That’s not to say that Stokes blithely dismisses the possibility of widespread unrest, but for now at least he thinks the prospects are overblown. If Donald Trump were to pull out an election victory, that would increase the likelihood of violent demonstrations on the Left, but Stokes believes that we’re going to continue to see antifa and anarchist violence continue even in a Biden administration.
Of course it's an AK-47. They can't even accept the reality that the American made AR15 is a superior weapon. Communists, amirite? pic.twitter.com/JMGLatqgfL — Fwee-nix Ammunition (@FenixAmmunition) November 5, 2020
That sign was spotted in Portland, Oregon last night, where Gov. Kate Brown called out the National Guard for the first time (funny how that didn’t happen before Election Day). So yeah, antifa’s not going away, though the media will have zero interest in covering any political violence in a potential Biden administration unless it can be blamed on the right.
If you’re concerned about the potential for any unrest, or even more lockdowns, Stokes has some solid advice on the most important necessities if you’re starting to get into prepping. We didn’t spend a lot of time today talking about guns and ammo, because at this point its basically a matter of getting what’s available, but we do discuss what your pantry should look like and some of the best places to stock up on the basics of a good food supply (hint, it’s not your local supermarket).
Be sure to check out the entire conversation above, and head over to ThePrepared.com for plenty of more tips on how to survive and thrive in uncertain times.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Houston Police Chief Has Insights On Dem's Failure To Flip Texas

Usually , when I write about Art Acevado , it ’ s to proverbially slap him around over something grotesquely stupid he said about guns and gun rights .
As a result , I write about him more than most police chiefs in the country .
Considering this is the same country with Portland and Chicago , that ’ s actually saying something kind of impressive .
However , I also believe in giving credit where credit is due .
Every now and then , a blind squirrel finds a nut or what have you and this time , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular , he touches on a stark reality on why Democrats failed to flip Texas despite all the money spent on doing just that .
Houston police chief Art Acevedo , who was previously the police chief in Austin , offered some ideas on Twitter for why Texas wasn ’ t won over by Democrats this time .
In response to a statement about there being more Republicans than Democrats in Texas , Acevedo wrote : “ Texas Democrats can thank ‘ socialist democrats and defund the police crowd ’ led by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the AustinCity Council .
Fact , Americans and Texans want better policing , not de-policing , and they don ’ t want anything to do with any form of socialism.
” Texas Democrats can thank “ socialist democrats and defund the police crowd ” led by @ GregCasar , @ JimmyFlannigan and the rest of the AustinCity Council .
Fact , Americans and Texans want better policing , not de-policing , and they don ’ t want anything to do with any form of socialism .
Come ride with me in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks .
Acevedo is not a conservative or a Trump supporter .
On the contrary , he made news back in June when he appeared on CNN and told the president to , basically , shut up about how to deal with protesters .
And last year , Jazz wrote about Acevedo going on a gun control rant after four of his officers were shot .
He definitely leans left and would probably be happy to see Texas turn blue .
But even he considers Austin ’ s socialist city council members a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not an exaggeration in this case .
If you ’ re not familiar with Greg Casar , who Acevedo mentioned in his tweet , he ’ s a Democratic Socialist on the Austin City Council : It ’ s important we remember that there are divisions in the liberal ranks .
The only thing they all agree on is how much they despise President Trump .
That includes some like Acevedo who lean fairly far to the left but still aren ’ t going to support outright socialism and damn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their police defunded .
That might work in New York , California , or Massachusetts , but it ’ s never going to fly in Texas .
Now , there are a lot of people who look at Texas as being more conservative and pro-gun than Texas really is .
Oh , it ’ s both of those things , but there are states that are much more conservative and much more pro-gun .
Despite that , though , Texas has a reputation .
Another part of that reputation is a love of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmen there .
Lawmen are part of the mystique of the Old West , a mystique that Texas has embraced completely .
Defunding the police is never going to fly there .
Of course , that ’ s not to say that Democrats would have fared any better without socialism or “ defund the police ” rhetoric .
I ’ m not convinced that would have made a lot of difference , but it certainly wouldn ’ t have hurt their chances to at least appeal to more moderate centrist independents .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did and it backfired on them spectacularly .

Usually, when I write about Art Acevado, it’s to proverbially slap him around over something grotesquely stupid he said about guns and gun rights. As a result, I write about him more than most police chiefs in the country. Considering this is the same country with Portland and Chicago, that’s actually saying something kind of impressive.
However, I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. Every now and then, a blind squirrel finds a nut or what have you and this time, it was Acevado who found it.
In particular, he touches on a stark reality on why Democrats failed to flip Texas despite all the money spent on doing just that.
Houston police chief Art Acevedo, who was previously the police chief in Austin, offered some ideas on Twitter for why Texas wasn’t won over by Democrats this time. In response to a statement about there being more Republicans than Democrats in Texas, Acevedo wrote: “Texas Democrats can thank ‘socialist democrats and defund the police crowd’ led by @GregCasar, @JimmyFlannigan and the rest of the AustinCity Council. Fact, Americans and Texans want better policing, not de-policing, and they don’t want anything to do with any form of socialism.” Texas Democrats can thank “socialist democrats and defund the police crowd” led by @GregCasar, @JimmyFlannigan and the rest of the AustinCity Council. Fact, Americans and Texans want better policing, not de-policing, and they don’t want anything to do with any form of socialism. — Chief Art Acevedo (@ArtAcevedo) November 4, 2020 Come ride with me in a marked police car and we can ask folks. — Chief Art Acevedo (@ArtAcevedo) November 4, 2020 Acevedo is not a conservative or a Trump supporter. On the contrary, he made news back in June when he appeared on CNN and told the president to, basically, shut up about how to deal with protesters. And last year, Jazz wrote about Acevedo going on a gun control rant after four of his officers were shot. He definitely leans left and would probably be happy to see Texas turn blue. But even he considers Austin’s socialist city council members a bridge too far for Texas. And that’s not an exaggeration in this case. If you’re not familiar with Greg Casar, who Acevedo mentioned in his tweet, he’s a Democratic Socialist on the Austin City Council:
It’s important we remember that there are divisions in the liberal ranks. The only thing they all agree on is how much they despise President Trump. That includes some like Acevedo who lean fairly far to the left but still aren’t going to support outright socialism and damn sure don’t want to see their police defunded.
That might work in New York, California, or Massachusetts, but it’s never going to fly in Texas.
Now, there are a lot of people who look at Texas as being more conservative and pro-gun than Texas really is. Oh, it’s both of those things, but there are states that are much more conservative and much more pro-gun. Despite that, though, Texas has a reputation.
Another part of that reputation is a love of law and order. They like their lawmen there. Lawmen are part of the mystique of the Old West, a mystique that Texas has embraced completely.
Defunding the police is never going to fly there.
Of course, that’s not to say that Democrats would have fared any better without socialism or “defund the police” rhetoric. I’m not convinced that would have made a lot of difference, but it certainly wouldn’t have hurt their chances to at least appeal to more moderate centrist independents.
Not that it matters, though. They did and it backfired on them spectacularly.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Gun Rights Groups File Lawsuit Over NYC Carry Laws

New York City managed to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny earlier this year by changing a gun control law that was facing a SCOTUS challenge , but it ’ s highly unlikely they ’ ll do the same in order to moot the latest lawsuit filed against the city over its draconian gun laws .
The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are bringing new litigation to federal court , this time taking on the city ’ s concealed carry laws .
The case , known as Greco v. City of New York , attacks New York City ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the average citizen to obtain a license to carry .
Because the New York Police Department requires all applicants to demonstrate “ proper cause , ” and because self-defense or your Second Amendment rights aren ’ t seen as a valid reason to receive a government permission slip to exercise your right to bear arms , there are only about 30,000 concealed carry permits in the city of more than 8-million people .
“ People in New York have a right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Blasio think , the Constitution fully applies in the City and State of New York , ” said FPC President Brandon Combs .
“ The Supreme Court in Heller was clear that to ‘ bear ’ arms means to ‘ carry ’ them on the person in case of confrontation.
’ Anything that denies a law-abiding citizen the ability to exercise that right is unconstitutional , period.
” “ Like the lawsuit against New Jersey ’ s carry ban we filed earlier this week , we are suing New York City over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding people from carry loaded , operable handguns on their person in public places , ” explained attorney Adam Kraut , FPC ’ s Director of Legal Strategy .
“ The State of New York and New York City have enacted broad criminal laws to prohibit the carry of handguns , and then set up an unconstitutional requirement for the issuance of a license to carry , thus completely foreclosing the right .
This case seeks to strike down these laws and allow New Yorkers and visitors to exercise the right to bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The vast majority of gun-related arrests in New York City are related to being in possession of a handgun without a license , and the vast majority of those those cases involve young minority males without any serious criminal history , but who may find the risk of prosecution less of a threat than going unarmed and defenseless in their neighborhoods .
If New York City had a “ shall issue ” process that removed the “ proper cause ” requirement , many of those guys would be eligible to legally carry a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gun control laws they ’ re faced with the prospect of years in prison if they ’ re caught with a gun or being the victim of a violent crime as they ’ re walking home from work or hanging out with friends .
In addition , New York City ’ s carry laws foster corruption .
Because of the broad leeway given to the NYPD Licensing Bureau , there are plenty of opportunities to offer a bribe in order to ensure approval .
As former NYPD Supervisor David Villanueva testified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Licensing Bureau was a “ bribery machine ” until several cops were busted .
Villanueva gave the testimony at the Manhattan federal court trial of John Chambers , a self-described gun lawyer to the stars accused of plying Villanueva with lavish gifts , including an $ 8,500 diamond-studded watch and tickets to Broadway shows , in exchange for gun permits .
Villanueva , who pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the feds , walked the jury through each expeditor .
Frank Soohoo , who pleaded guilty in 2016 , plied Villanueva and Ochetel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hawaii , the ex-police sergeant said .
Soohoo also threw lavish parties at his Queens gun store for the officers and occasionally hired hookers to attend , Villanueva said .
In exchange , Soohoo got help getting permits , including advice on how to help a client who was “ federally barred ” from legally owning a gun , Villanueva said .
Expeditor Alex “ Shaya ” Lichtenstein , who has also pleaded guilty , paid $ 1,000 per gun permit , Villanueva said .
In exchange , he was granted at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 — none of which should have been approved because paperwork was missing , Villanueva said .
People went to prison over this scandal , but the officers in the Licensing Bureau have just as much subjective power as they did before the scandal came to light , and there ’ s nothing other than individual honor or integrity to stop this from happening again .
If the city were to adopt a “ shall issue ” system , on the other hand , it would remove the opportunity for corruption completely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yorkers lawfully exercising their right to bear arms .
For New York City , that ’ s a tradeoff they ’ re unwilling to make .
Who knows at this point what the makeup of the Supreme Court will be by the time the Greco case could be heard , but in the wake of Justice Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Court both SAF and FPC had said they would be looking at new cases to bring , and overturning New York City ’ s carry laws would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Let ’ s hope we still have a SCOTUS that hasn ’ t been packed with anti-gun justices when Greco arrives on its doorstep .

New York City managed to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny earlier this year by changing a gun control law that was facing a SCOTUS challenge, but it’s highly unlikely they’ll do the same in order to moot the latest lawsuit filed against the city over its draconian gun laws. The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are bringing new litigation to federal court, this time taking on the city’s concealed carry laws.
“The right to bear arms must be available to all citizens in New York, not just wealthy people and celebrities,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Like other rights protected by the Constitution, that right is not limited to the confines of one’s home. Ever since the SAF Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago ten years ago, the Second Amendment absolutely applies in New York.”
The case, known as Greco v. City of New York, attacks New York City’s policies, which make it virtually impossible for the average citizen to obtain a license to carry. Because the New York Police Department requires all applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” and because self-defense or your Second Amendment rights aren’t seen as a valid reason to receive a government permission slip to exercise your right to bear arms, there are only about 30,000 concealed carry permits in the city of more than 8-million people.
“People in New York have a right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense, and contrary to what Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio think, the Constitution fully applies in the City and State of New York,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court in Heller was clear that to ‘bear’ arms means to ‘carry’ them on the person in case of confrontation.’ Anything that denies a law-abiding citizen the ability to exercise that right is unconstitutional, period.” “Like the lawsuit against New Jersey’s carry ban we filed earlier this week, we are suing New York City over their unconstitutional ban that prevents typical, law-abiding people from carry loaded, operable handguns on their person in public places,” explained attorney Adam Kraut, FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy. “The State of New York and New York City have enacted broad criminal laws to prohibit the carry of handguns, and then set up an unconstitutional requirement for the issuance of a license to carry, thus completely foreclosing the right. This case seeks to strike down these laws and allow New Yorkers and visitors to exercise the right to bear arms as they are entitled to.”
The vast majority of gun-related arrests in New York City are related to being in possession of a handgun without a license, and the vast majority of those those cases involve young minority males without any serious criminal history, but who may find the risk of prosecution less of a threat than going unarmed and defenseless in their neighborhoods. If New York City had a “shall issue” process that removed the “proper cause” requirement, many of those guys would be eligible to legally carry a firearm, but because of the city’s gun control laws they’re faced with the prospect of years in prison if they’re caught with a gun or being the victim of a violent crime as they’re walking home from work or hanging out with friends.
In addition, New York City’s carry laws foster corruption. Because of the broad leeway given to the NYPD Licensing Bureau, there are plenty of opportunities to offer a bribe in order to ensure approval. As former NYPD Supervisor David Villanueva testified a couple of years ago, the Licensing Bureau was a “bribery machine” until several cops were busted.
Villanueva gave the testimony at the Manhattan federal court trial of John Chambers, a self-described gun lawyer to the stars accused of plying Villanueva with lavish gifts, including an $8,500 diamond-studded watch and tickets to Broadway shows, in exchange for gun permits. Villanueva, who pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the feds, walked the jury through each expeditor. Frank Soohoo, who pleaded guilty in 2016, plied Villanueva and Ochetel with trips to the Bahamas, Mexico and Hawaii, the ex-police sergeant said. Soohoo also threw lavish parties at his Queens gun store for the officers and occasionally hired hookers to attend, Villanueva said. In exchange, Soohoo got help getting permits, including advice on how to help a client who was “federally barred” from legally owning a gun, Villanueva said. Expeditor Alex “Shaya” Lichtenstein, who has also pleaded guilty, paid $1,000 per gun permit, Villanueva said. In exchange, he was granted at least 100 of them between 2012 and 2015 — none of which should have been approved because paperwork was missing, Villanueva said.
People went to prison over this scandal, but the officers in the Licensing Bureau have just as much subjective power as they did before the scandal came to light, and there’s nothing other than individual honor or integrity to stop this from happening again. If the city were to adopt a “shall issue” system, on the other hand, it would remove the opportunity for corruption completely, though it would mean many more New Yorkers lawfully exercising their right to bear arms. For New York City, that’s a tradeoff they’re unwilling to make.
Who knows at this point what the makeup of the Supreme Court will be by the time the Greco case could be heard, but in the wake of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Court both SAF and FPC had said they would be looking at new cases to bring, and overturning New York City’s carry laws would be a huge victory for gun owners throughout the United States. Let’s hope we still have a SCOTUS that hasn’t been packed with anti-gun justices when Greco arrives on its doorstep.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Cabela's Sued Over Ammo Purchase

Cabela's Sued Over Ammo Purchase

Federal law states that people can ’ t be sued for engaging in lawful trade of guns and ammo .
Oh , if someone breaks the law or if the products are faulty , that ’ s different , but just for engaging in lawful trade ?
Nope .
Of course , that doesn ’ t stop lawsuits from happening .
Usually , they ’ re thrown out , but an anti-gun court decision against Remington didn ’ t just hurt the company , it ’ s likely to hurt the entire gun industry as now the vultures are out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the lawsuit against Remington could continue , they ’ re hoping other judges will follow suit .
To that end , it seems that outdoor retailer Cabela ’ s is under the gavel for an ammunition sale in New York .
At the same time that gun sales have skyrocketed as more Americans reach for a firearm to protect themselves from threats real and perceived , warning shots abound that should have gun rights advocates on edge .
The latest is the court ruling allowing a lawsuit against the Cabela ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold ammunition to then- 19-year-old Jake Klocek , who used it in a handgun to accidentally kill 19-year-old Anthony King , a friend he ’ d invited over while housesitting for an Elma couple .
The suit by the victim ’ s family contends that Cabela ’ s – a defendant along with Klocek and the Elma couple – “ knew or should have known its failure to use reasonable care ” in selling the ammunition to someone like Klocek would result in serious injury or death .
But that claim hinges on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , could not legally buy handgun ammunition .
However , he could legally buy long gun ammunition .
And as Cabela ’ s attorneys point out , the ammunition in question – .45 ACP – can be used in both handguns and rifles .
If the clerk asks and the buyer says it ’ s for a rifle , how is the store supposed to know , short of having a polygraph machine at every register ?
That last part is particularly important .
After all , .45 ACP carbines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a number of people age 18-21 will purchase a carbine in their preferred handgun caliber , often using the same magazines as the handgun they intend on purchasing , and stock up on magazines and ammo prior to turning 21 .
Unfortunately , what ’ s happening here is that we have judges hearing cases on subjects they know absolutely nothing about .
In fairness , there ’ s no way to avoid that happening .
The problem , though , is that now we end up with a lawsuit continuing based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibits handgun ammo purchases , sure , but so long as the ammo can go in a long gun , it counts as long gun ammunition .
Pistol-caliber carbines are common and actually popular options for home defense among many aged 18-21 in part because they ’ re long guns but have ballistics similar to a handgun , which means less chance of over-penetration compared to a conventional rifle but are lighter recoiling than shotguns .
And that ’ s where the problem with this lawsuit comes into play .
What really bothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorneys are able to make their case at trial , we could see the end of pistol-caliber carbines for people in that particular age group .
On the other hand , Second Amendment organizations are challenging some of the laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms for adults under the age of 21 , so there ’ s also a real chance that SCOTUS could end up ruling that adults of all ages are on an equal footing when it comes to the exercise of their Second Amendment rights .

Federal law states that people can’t be sued for engaging in lawful trade of guns and ammo. Oh, if someone breaks the law or if the products are faulty, that’s different, but just for engaging in lawful trade? Nope.
Of course, that doesn’t stop lawsuits from happening. Usually, they’re thrown out, but an anti-gun court decision against Remington didn’t just hurt the company, it’s likely to hurt the entire gun industry as now the vultures are out and about. Since a judge ruled that the lawsuit against Remington could continue, they’re hoping other judges will follow suit.
To that end, it seems that outdoor retailer Cabela’s is under the gavel for an ammunition sale in New York.
At the same time that gun sales have skyrocketed as more Americans reach for a firearm to protect themselves from threats real and perceived, warning shots abound that should have gun rights advocates on edge. The latest is the court ruling allowing a lawsuit against the Cabela’s store in Cheektowaga to proceed after it sold ammunition to then- 19-year-old Jake Klocek, who used it in a handgun to accidentally kill 19-year-old Anthony King, a friend he’d invited over while housesitting for an Elma couple. The suit by the victim’s family contends that Cabela’s – a defendant along with Klocek and the Elma couple – “knew or should have known its failure to use reasonable care” in selling the ammunition to someone like Klocek would result in serious injury or death. But that claim hinges on the fact that Klocek, under 21 at the time, could not legally buy handgun ammunition. However, he could legally buy long gun ammunition. And as Cabela’s attorneys point out, the ammunition in question – .45 ACP – can be used in both handguns and rifles. If the clerk asks and the buyer says it’s for a rifle, how is the store supposed to know, short of having a polygraph machine at every register?
That last part is particularly important. After all, .45 ACP carbines actually are a thing. In fact, a number of people age 18-21 will purchase a carbine in their preferred handgun caliber, often using the same magazines as the handgun they intend on purchasing, and stock up on magazines and ammo prior to turning 21.
And it’s perfectly legal.
Unfortunately, what’s happening here is that we have judges hearing cases on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. In fairness, there’s no way to avoid that happening. The problem, though, is that now we end up with a lawsuit continuing based on a bad argument.
Federal law prohibits handgun ammo purchases, sure, but so long as the ammo can go in a long gun, it counts as long gun ammunition. Pistol-caliber carbines are common and actually popular options for home defense among many aged 18-21 in part because they’re long guns but have ballistics similar to a handgun, which means less chance of over-penetration compared to a conventional rifle but are lighter recoiling than shotguns.
And that’s where the problem with this lawsuit comes into play.
What really bothers me is that unless Cabela’s attorneys are able to make their case at trial, we could see the end of pistol-caliber carbines for people in that particular age group. On the other hand, Second Amendment organizations are challenging some of the laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms for adults under the age of 21, so there’s also a real chance that SCOTUS could end up ruling that adults of all ages are on an equal footing when it comes to the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--Did Libertarian Gun Owners "Throw Away Their Votes"?

It ’ s that time in the election cycle when we all point fingers at each other for the lack of electoral success .
For Democrats , that means complaining that Nancy Pelosi either wasn ’ t moderate enough or was too moderate for voters in her messaging .
For Republicans , it means complaining that third-party voters wasted their votes on independent candidates or the Libertarian Party .
On Thursday , Fox News ran a piece criticizing swing state voters who ended up choosing Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen , arguing that their votes may end up costing Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , Libertarian voters could have swung the Electoral College by at least 22 votes by supporting Trump in battleground states Wisconsin , Michigan and Nevada .
By throwing away their votes , they ’ ve likely become spoilers for the Trump reelection effort , ” political strategist Ryan Cassin , CEO of Beast Digital , told Fox News .
As of late Wednesday , former Vice President Biden was projected to have secured Wisconsin with 49.6 % over Trump ’ s 49 % , and Jorgensen came in third at just under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood at 49.8 % , over Trump ’ s 48.7 % and Jorgenson again at 1 % .
Similarly , in hotly contested Nevada , Biden garnered 49.2 % over Trump ’ s 48.6 % , with the Libertarian Party ( LP ) coming in at 1.4 % .
“ In the tightest race of Wisconsin , Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen garnered 38,414 votes , around the normal 1 % of the vote they normally do .
This number is larger than to 21,000 votes that Democrat Joe Biden won this race by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santiago .
“ Wisconsin was crucial for Republican Donald Trump to win reelection .
In the 2020 races where the painful artifacts of a deeply divided nation split the major-party vote so tightly , the Libertarian vote does determine a win or lose.
” Let ’ s get this out of the way up front : I voted for Donald Trump , though Jorgensen would have been my second choice .
I don ’ t agree with Cassin ’ s premise that those Libertarian voters ended up “ throwing away their votes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice , and it ’ s only wasted if you don ’ t vote at all .
I know several gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who cast a ballot for Jorgensen , and while I wish they would have decided differently , these aren ’ t folks who took their decision lightly .
It ’ s true that the Libertarian Party will end up playing the spoiler in swing states like Wisconsin , Michigan , and Nevada , but the argument that Jorgensen ’ s supporters threw away their votes doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these voters had their own reasons for not supporting either Trump or Biden , and I doubt they consider their votes wasted .
It also has to be noted that the Libertarian Party itself isn ’ t exactly unified .
In fact , it ’ s so fractured that there are people who identify as Libertarian Socialists , as oxymoronic as that is .
Even if the Libertarian Party wasn ’ t on the ballot in these swing states , not all self-identified libertarians would have ended up voting for Trump .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have voted for Trump , and I suspect that a good number of them wouldn ’ t have voted at all .
Some people vote their conscience on Election Day , backing the candidate they most agree with regardless of their potential to win .
Others may vote more pragmatically , picking the major party candidate they ’ re most closely aligned with even if there ’ s a third-party choice that personally suits them better .
Ultimately , it ’ s up to the parties to woo these voters , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish that these Libertarian voters had gone with Trump over Jorgensen ?
Sure .
It certainly would make life easier over the next four years ( not to mention the next few weeks , as court challenges over the election take place ) , but I ’ m not going to blame someone for casting their vote for the candidate that they actually thought was the best on the ballot , even if they had no chance of winning .
While I ’ m personally a pragmatic voter , I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want the votes of the 1 % of the population that voted for Jo Jorgensen , they need to compete for those votes .
We saw big swings towards the GOP among non-white and women voters this election cycle after efforts were made to court members of those voting blocs , and there ’ s no reason why the GOP can ’ t improve its standing among those who identify as Libertarian as well .

It’s that time in the election cycle when we all point fingers at each other for the lack of electoral success. For Democrats, that means complaining that Nancy Pelosi either wasn’t moderate enough or was too moderate for voters in her messaging. For Republicans, it means complaining that third-party voters wasted their votes on independent candidates or the Libertarian Party.
On Thursday, Fox News ran a piece criticizing swing state voters who ended up choosing Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen, arguing that their votes may end up costing Donald Trump the election.
“In this election, Libertarian voters could have swung the Electoral College by at least 22 votes by supporting Trump in battleground states Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. By throwing away their votes, they’ve likely become spoilers for the Trump reelection effort,” political strategist Ryan Cassin, CEO of Beast Digital, told Fox News. As of late Wednesday, former Vice President Biden was projected to have secured Wisconsin with 49.6% over Trump’s 49%, and Jorgensen came in third at just under 1%. In Michigan, Biden stood at 49.8%, over Trump’s 48.7% and Jorgenson again at 1%. Similarly, in hotly contested Nevada, Biden garnered 49.2% over Trump’s 48.6%, with the Libertarian Party (LP) coming in at 1.4%. “In the tightest race of Wisconsin, Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen garnered 38,414 votes, around the normal 1% of the vote they normally do. This number is larger than to 21,000 votes that Democrat Joe Biden won this race by,” noted global risk analyst Dennis Santiago. “Wisconsin was crucial for Republican Donald Trump to win reelection. In the 2020 races where the painful artifacts of a deeply divided nation split the major-party vote so tightly, the Libertarian vote does determine a win or lose.”
Let’s get this out of the way up front: I voted for Donald Trump, though Jorgensen would have been my second choice. I don’t agree with Cassin’s premise that those Libertarian voters ended up “throwing away their votes,” however. Your vote is your choice, and it’s only wasted if you don’t vote at all. I know several gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who cast a ballot for Jorgensen, and while I wish they would have decided differently, these aren’t folks who took their decision lightly.
It’s true that the Libertarian Party will end up playing the spoiler in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, but the argument that Jorgensen’s supporters threw away their votes doesn’t fly with me. Presumably, these voters had their own reasons for not supporting either Trump or Biden, and I doubt they consider their votes wasted.
It also has to be noted that the Libertarian Party itself isn’t exactly unified. In fact, it’s so fractured that there are people who identify as Libertarian Socialists, as oxymoronic as that is. Even if the Libertarian Party wasn’t on the ballot in these swing states, not all self-identified libertarians would have ended up voting for Trump. Some would have voted for Biden, some would have voted for Trump, and I suspect that a good number of them wouldn’t have voted at all.
Some people vote their conscience on Election Day, backing the candidate they most agree with regardless of their potential to win. Others may vote more pragmatically, picking the major party candidate they’re most closely aligned with even if there’s a third-party choice that personally suits them better. Ultimately, it’s up to the parties to woo these voters, not the other way around.
Do I wish that these Libertarian voters had gone with Trump over Jorgensen? Sure. It certainly would make life easier over the next four years (not to mention the next few weeks, as court challenges over the election take place), but I’m not going to blame someone for casting their vote for the candidate that they actually thought was the best on the ballot, even if they had no chance of winning.
While I’m personally a pragmatic voter, I don’t begrudge anyone their idealism. If Republicans want the votes of the 1% of the population that voted for Jo Jorgensen, they need to compete for those votes. We saw big swings towards the GOP among non-white and women voters this election cycle after efforts were made to court members of those voting blocs, and there’s no reason why the GOP can’t improve its standing among those who identify as Libertarian as well.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--From A Viral 2A Speech To NC Lt. Governor

I still remember the first time I heard of Mark Robinson .
I suck at remembering dates , but I remember events pretty well .
Amidst a push in his hometown of Greensboro , North Carolina to cancel a local gun show , Robinson stood before a podium and gave an impassioned speech defending the right to keep and bear arms .
There was really nothing to nitpick about .
He was dead-on right about pretty much everything he said .
Now , just a little more than two years after that speech , Mr. Robinson is the Lt. Governor-elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Mark Robinson will be North Carolina ’ s first Black lieutenant governor , according to projections from the Associated Press cited by local news .
Robinson defeated Democrat Yvonne Lewis Holley , who also could have made history as North Carolina ’ s first Black lieutenant governor .
Robinson had a lead of more than three percentage points with roughly 75 % of ballots counted Wednesday morning , according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections website .
Robinson ran as a political outsider .
He attracted viral attention in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city council of Greensboro , N.C. , about gun rights .
Unfortunately , North Carolina opted to keep a Democrat for governor , so Robinson will be working with the opposition .
Regardless , though , Robinson ’ s story is one we should all pay close attention to .
He leveraged a viral speech on the Second Amendment into winning the second-highest office in the state of North Carolina .
That ’ s not too shabby , really .
It should also serve as a warning to North Carolina Democrats not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
While it ’ s unlikely Robinson can stop them directly , his election–especially how he gained initial name recognition–means that North Carolina voters may be willing to consider candidates from both parties , but they want their guns left the hell alone .
The question now is what happens for Robinson .
Sure , he ’ ll serve as Lt .
Governor , but will that be enough for him , or will he seek higher office ?
Frankly , I ’ d love to see him in Congress in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to serve a term or two as Lt .
Governor , but then running for a House seat or even the Senate–he ’ s already won statewide office , after all–should seem a logical step .
Then again , maybe the governorship is part of his plan .
Who knows .
Either way , it all depends on how he does in this office .
Based on what I ’ ve seen of the man , though , there ’ s zero reason to doubt his ability .
Personally , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to side with Robinson .
Now , of course , it comes down to the business of getting down to business .
Robinson has work to do and so do pro-gun forces throughout the state .
At least they have a staunch ally high up in state government .
Even if he can ’ t affect the outcome of legislation , that ’ s still a better feeling than being alone in an anti-gun state .
With luck , we ’ ll see some decent legislation roll out of North Carolina before too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have held control of the legislature , so we ’ ll have to see .

I still remember the first time I heard of Mark Robinson. I suck at remembering dates, but I remember events pretty well.
Amidst a push in his hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina to cancel a local gun show, Robinson stood before a podium and gave an impassioned speech defending the right to keep and bear arms. There was really nothing to nitpick about. He was dead-on right about pretty much everything he said.
Now, just a little more than two years after that speech, Mr. Robinson is the Lt. Governor-elect of the state of North Carolina.
Republican Mark Robinson will be North Carolina’s first Black lieutenant governor, according to projections from the Associated Press cited by local news. Robinson defeated Democrat Yvonne Lewis Holley, who also could have made history as North Carolina’s first Black lieutenant governor. Robinson had a lead of more than three percentage points with roughly 75% of ballots counted Wednesday morning, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections website. … Robinson ran as a political outsider. He attracted viral attention in 2018 when he delivered an impassioned speech to the city council of Greensboro, N.C., about gun rights.
Unfortunately, North Carolina opted to keep a Democrat for governor, so Robinson will be working with the opposition.
Regardless, though, Robinson’s story is one we should all pay close attention to. He leveraged a viral speech on the Second Amendment into winning the second-highest office in the state of North Carolina. That’s not too shabby, really.
It should also serve as a warning to North Carolina Democrats not to try and push anti-Second Amendment laws though. While it’s unlikely Robinson can stop them directly, his election–especially how he gained initial name recognition–means that North Carolina voters may be willing to consider candidates from both parties, but they want their guns left the hell alone.
The question now is what happens for Robinson.
Sure, he’ll serve as Lt. Governor, but will that be enough for him, or will he seek higher office? Frankly, I’d love to see him in Congress in the not too distant future. Sure, he needs to serve a term or two as Lt. Governor, but then running for a House seat or even the Senate–he’s already won statewide office, after all–should seem a logical step.
Then again, maybe the governorship is part of his plan. Who knows.
Either way, it all depends on how he does in this office. Based on what I’ve seen of the man, though, there’s zero reason to doubt his ability. Personally, I think North Carolina made a wise decision to side with Robinson. Now, of course, it comes down to the business of getting down to business. Robinson has work to do and so do pro-gun forces throughout the state.
At least they have a staunch ally high up in state government. Even if he can’t affect the outcome of legislation, that’s still a better feeling than being alone in an anti-gun state.
With luck, we’ll see some decent legislation roll out of North Carolina before too much longer. The GOP seems to have held control of the legislature, so we’ll have to see.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--2A Sanctuary Movement Sees Success In Pacific NW

The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has been around for a few years , and we ’ ve seen several different waves of support in different parts of the country .
In 2018 , the movement seemed to be centered in and around Illinois , while many New Mexico counties adopted SAS resolutions in the early months of 2019 .
After Democrats took control of the Virginia legislature in November of last year , the movement spread like a wildfire across the state of Virginia with more than 100 counties and towns adopting resolutions that warned against trying to enforce unconstitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pacific Northwest has been ground zero for the movement , and Second Amendment activists in Oregon were able to put Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinances on the ballot in four Oregon counties .
The ordinances won the approval of voters this week in Columbia and Umatilla counties , while the ballot measure was rejected in Clatsop and Coos counties ( where local officials had campaigned against the proposal ) .
In Idaho , meanwhile , a growing number of towns are adopting resolutions of their own .
In fact , the third largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution this week .
Nampa is the latest Idaho community to declare its intent to oppose any legislation and possibly defy any laws that may infringe upon Second Amendment gun rights .
The City Council voted unanimously for a resolution declaring Nampa a Second Amendment City .
The resolution says in part , “ The Mayor and City Council are opposed to any legislation that would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms or ban the possession and use of any firearms now employed by the individual citizens of Nampa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property.
” The Nampa council on Monday directed its police department “ specifically to exercise sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen any unconstitutional laws.
” While Nampa shied away from using the term “ sanctuary , ” the intent of the resolution is identical to the resolutions that we ’ ve seen in counties and towns that have adopted the moniker .
There is , however , one big difference between the movement in Idaho and Oregon , at least at the moment .
In Idaho , city councils are passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually put ordinances on the books that could punish county officials with misdemeanor charges for enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws .
That ’ s obviously a much bigger step than approving a largely ceremonial resolution , and the ordinances are likely to face a court challenge if and when they ’ re ever enforced .
If Joe Biden is ultimately declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election , this week ’ s Second Amendment Sanctuary success could end up being a preview of another wave of support , and this time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be confined to one geographic part of the country .
From Washington State to Maine , communities that back the Second Amendment are likely to respond to Democratic control of the White House by sending a message to D.C. Democrats- if you pass an unconstitutional gun control law , don ’ t count on us to enforce it .

The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has been around for a few years, and we’ve seen several different waves of support in different parts of the country. In 2018, the movement seemed to be centered in and around Illinois, while many New Mexico counties adopted SAS resolutions in the early months of 2019. After Democrats took control of the Virginia legislature in November of last year, the movement spread like a wildfire across the state of Virginia with more than 100 counties and towns adopting resolutions that warned against trying to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.
In recent months the Pacific Northwest has been ground zero for the movement, and Second Amendment activists in Oregon were able to put Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinances on the ballot in four Oregon counties. The ordinances won the approval of voters this week in Columbia and Umatilla counties, while the ballot measure was rejected in Clatsop and Coos counties (where local officials had campaigned against the proposal).
In Idaho, meanwhile, a growing number of towns are adopting resolutions of their own. In fact, the third largest city in the state passed its own resolution this week.
Nampa is the latest Idaho community to declare its intent to oppose any legislation and possibly defy any laws that may infringe upon Second Amendment gun rights. The City Council voted unanimously for a resolution declaring Nampa a Second Amendment City. The resolution says in part, “The Mayor and City Council are opposed to any legislation that would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms or ban the possession and use of any firearms now employed by the individual citizens of Nampa, for defense of life, liberty and property.” The Nampa council on Monday directed its police department “specifically to exercise sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen any unconstitutional laws.”
While Nampa shied away from using the term “sanctuary,” the intent of the resolution is identical to the resolutions that we’ve seen in counties and towns that have adopted the moniker.
There is, however, one big difference between the movement in Idaho and Oregon, at least at the moment. In Idaho, city councils are passing resolutions, while the counties in Oregon actually put ordinances on the books that could punish county officials with misdemeanor charges for enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws. That’s obviously a much bigger step than approving a largely ceremonial resolution, and the ordinances are likely to face a court challenge if and when they’re ever enforced.
If Joe Biden is ultimately declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, this week’s Second Amendment Sanctuary success could end up being a preview of another wave of support, and this time I don’t think the wave will be confined to one geographic part of the country. From Washington State to Maine, communities that back the Second Amendment are likely to respond to Democratic control of the White House by sending a message to D.C. Democrats- if you pass an unconstitutional gun control law, don’t count on us to enforce it.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--FBI Claims "Boogaloo Boys" Have 3D-Printed Machine Gun Parts

I honestly don ’ t believe that I live in a world where people took most of the Boogaloo memes seriously .
They were supposed to be a freaking joke with a tinge of warning mixed in .
It was one of those things plenty of us laughed about and shared and went on with our lives .
We may have figured the actual Boogaloo was coming , but we weren ’ t in a hurry for it .
It really does seem that a lot of people took it seriously .
Now , they ’ re taking steps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned .
SINCE THE FIRST 3D-printed gun was fired more than seven years ago , the technique has loomed as a potential tool to arm individuals with lethal weapons they couldn ’ t otherwise legally obtain .
Now criminal charges against one West Virginia man suggest that the digital gunsmithing method has been adopted by violent , anti-government domestic extremists : the Boogaloo movement .
A criminal complaint filed last week accuses Timothy Watson , a resident of Ranson , West Virginia , of selling more than 600 3D-printed plastic components of automatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FBI says Watson attempted to disguise the devices as wall hooks for keys or coats .
Remove an extraneous bracket from the “ wall hooks , ” and the remaining small plastic piece functions perfectly as a “ drop-in auto sear , ” a simple but precisely shaped rifle part that can convert a legal AR-15 into an illegal , fully automatic machine gun .
Those simple components have been banned in the US—aside from rare , grandfathered-in automatic rifle registration—for more than 20 years .
According to the FBI , Watson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Boogaloo movement , a heavily armed extremist anti-government group whose adherents have allegedly wounded and killed multiple law enforcement officials in incidents across the US .
The so-called Boogaloo Boys have aimed to incite violence amidst racial justice protests like those that followed the police killing of George Floyd , reportedly in an effort to start a civil war they call the Boogaloo .
The FBI alleges that one of the recipients of Watson ’ s 3D-printed auto sears , a California man named Steven Carrillo , is likely the same man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz police department and two Oakland courthouse security guards in May and June of this year , killing one guard and one police officer .
Honestly , if this is what the Boogaloo Boys are up to , I ’ m pretty sure they ’ re not going to accomplish a damn thing in any future civil war .
They ’ re clearly too stupid to do much .
Buying a “ wall hanger ” that everyone can tell is really a drop-in sear is on par with the “ solvent traps ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that look suspiciously like suppressors .
Anyone with half a brain knows that something like that will come to the attention of law enforcement , get raided , and then their entire customer list becomes one long document for probable cause .
Look , full-auto weapons shouldn ’ t be illegal .
The National Firearms Act should be completely repealed and fully-automatic weapons should be on the wall of your local gun store where you can buy them and walk out with it that day .
I get that people wanting to gear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of capability , but guess what ?
This is what happens when you try it and are stupid .
On the flip side , though , it ’ s another great example of just how 3D printing has killed gun control .

I honestly don’t believe that I live in a world where people took most of the Boogaloo memes seriously. They were supposed to be a freaking joke with a tinge of warning mixed in. It was one of those things plenty of us laughed about and shared and went on with our lives. We may have figured the actual Boogaloo was coming, but we weren’t in a hurry for it.
Some people, though…
It really does seem that a lot of people took it seriously. Now, they’re taking steps that have the FBI more than a little concerned.
SINCE THE FIRST 3D-printed gun was fired more than seven years ago, the technique has loomed as a potential tool to arm individuals with lethal weapons they couldn’t otherwise legally obtain. Now criminal charges against one West Virginia man suggest that the digital gunsmithing method has been adopted by violent, anti-government domestic extremists: the Boogaloo movement. A criminal complaint filed last week accuses Timothy Watson, a resident of Ranson, West Virginia, of selling more than 600 3D-printed plastic components of automatic rifles through his website, Portablewallhanger.com. The FBI says Watson attempted to disguise the devices as wall hooks for keys or coats. Remove an extraneous bracket from the “wall hooks,” and the remaining small plastic piece functions perfectly as a “drop-in auto sear,” a simple but precisely shaped rifle part that can convert a legal AR-15 into an illegal, fully automatic machine gun. Those simple components have been banned in the US—aside from rare, grandfathered-in automatic rifle registration—for more than 20 years. According to the FBI, Watson’s customers included multiple members of the Boogaloo movement, a heavily armed extremist anti-government group whose adherents have allegedly wounded and killed multiple law enforcement officials in incidents across the US. The so-called Boogaloo Boys have aimed to incite violence amidst racial justice protests like those that followed the police killing of George Floyd, reportedly in an effort to start a civil war they call the Boogaloo. The FBI alleges that one of the recipients of Watson’s 3D-printed auto sears, a California man named Steven Carrillo, is likely the same man accused of shooting members of the Santa Cruz police department and two Oakland courthouse security guards in May and June of this year, killing one guard and one police officer.
Honestly, if this is what the Boogaloo Boys are up to, I’m pretty sure they’re not going to accomplish a damn thing in any future civil war. They’re clearly too stupid to do much.
Buying a “wall hanger” that everyone can tell is really a drop-in sear is on par with the “solvent traps” I’ve seen advertised on Facebook that look suspiciously like suppressors. Anyone with half a brain knows that something like that will come to the attention of law enforcement, get raided, and then their entire customer list becomes one long document for probable cause.
Look, full-auto weapons shouldn’t be illegal. The National Firearms Act should be completely repealed and fully-automatic weapons should be on the wall of your local gun store where you can buy them and walk out with it that day.
But they’re not.
I get that people wanting to gear up for a civil war want that kind of capability, but guess what? This is what happens when you try it and are stupid.
On the flip side, though, it’s another great example of just how 3D printing has killed gun control.


bearingarms--2020-11-05--A Democratic Revolt Brewing In The House?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handily won re-election in her San Francisco congressional district this week , but she could find it much more of a challenge to hang on to her role as the top Democrat in the House of Representatives .
There ’ s growing discontent from some House Democrats who believe Pelosi ’ s leadership ( or lack thereof ) is partly responsible for what is shaping up to be a disastrous election for the Democratic party in the House .
As The Hill reports : Stung by their party ’ s dispiriting showing at the polls Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other centrists are privately discussing a plan that was unthinkable just 24 hours earlier : throwing their support behind a challenger to Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) .
The two Democrats told The Hill on Wednesday that they were reaching out to their colleagues about backing one of Pelosi ’ s top lieutenants , House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries ( N.Y. ) , for Speaker in the next Congress .
“ He ’ s the only one prepared and positioned ” to be Speaker , said one of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives better than anyone .
And most importantly , he ’ s not Nancy Pelosi.
” The idea was immediately shot down by Jeffries , who says he ’ s focused on keeping his current spot .
Yet the grumbling reflects a remarkable shift in internal Democratic thinking in the immediate wake of Tuesday ’ s elections .
Heading into the polls , Pelosi enjoyed the overwhelming support of her caucus — facing no threat of a Speakership challenge — and Democratic leaders were eyeing big gains to their majority , with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early returns revealed a different reality : Not only did Democrats lose a number of their most vulnerable members , they had not picked off a single Republican incumbent heading into Wednesday evening .
So far Republicans have picked up six House seats , and they ’ re leading in many of the 40 or so races that have yet to be called .
It ’ s highly unlikely that Republicans will regain control of the House , but they could easily end up taking a dozen or more seats from Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a “ blue wave ” election .
“ Pelosi needed to hammer Trump but instead she chose to let him slide , ” said one former senior Democratic aide .
“ Last night should have been a bloodbath for Republicans.
” With frustrations bubbling up , Pelosi has become an early target for moderates representing suburban districts worried that their leadership ’ s strategy hurt such members heading into the polls .
“ It ’ s time for Democrats to elevate a new generation of leadership in both the House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats told The Hill .
“ Americans are clearly afraid of ‘ socialism , ’ want safe streets and neighborhoods and to vote for people who they believe will help put more money in their pockets .
“ While Democratic policies can adequately address those issues , ” the lawmaker added , “ our messaging mechanism clearly can not .
” “ Centrist ” Democrats are angry at Pelosi for not being moderate enough in her message , while the far-Left wing of the party are angry because they believe the messaging was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had a better night if more candidates had embraced their inner AOC .
I suspect that ultimately Pelosi is re-elected by her colleagues as House Speaker , but even if she ’ s replaced it ’ s not like Democrats are going to replace her with a pro-gun Democrat .
No matter who ’ s in charge , the House is going to be pushing all kinds of anti-gun bills in the next session of Congress .
For gun owners , it doesn ’ t matter if Pelosi ’ s the Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least enjoy the infighting over the choice .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handily won re-election in her San Francisco congressional district this week, but she could find it much more of a challenge to hang on to her role as the top Democrat in the House of Representatives. There’s growing discontent from some House Democrats who believe Pelosi’s leadership (or lack thereof) is partly responsible for what is shaping up to be a disastrous election for the Democratic party in the House. As The Hill reports:
Stung by their party’s dispiriting showing at the polls Tuesday, two moderate House Democrats say they and other centrists are privately discussing a plan that was unthinkable just 24 hours earlier: throwing their support behind a challenger to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The two Democrats told The Hill on Wednesday that they were reaching out to their colleagues about backing one of Pelosi’s top lieutenants, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), for Speaker in the next Congress. “He’s the only one prepared and positioned” to be Speaker, said one of the Democratic lawmakers. “He bridges moderates and progressives better than anyone. And most importantly, he’s not Nancy Pelosi.” The idea was immediately shot down by Jeffries, who says he’s focused on keeping his current spot. Yet the grumbling reflects a remarkable shift in internal Democratic thinking in the immediate wake of Tuesday’s elections. Heading into the polls, Pelosi enjoyed the overwhelming support of her caucus — facing no threat of a Speakership challenge — and Democratic leaders were eyeing big gains to their majority, with some estimates in the double digits. But the early returns revealed a different reality: Not only did Democrats lose a number of their most vulnerable members, they had not picked off a single Republican incumbent heading into Wednesday evening.
So far Republicans have picked up six House seats, and they’re leading in many of the 40 or so races that have yet to be called. It’s highly unlikely that Republicans will regain control of the House, but they could easily end up taking a dozen or more seats from Democrats during what the Left believed was going to be a “blue wave” election.
“Pelosi needed to hammer Trump but instead she chose to let him slide,” said one former senior Democratic aide. “Last night should have been a bloodbath for Republicans.” With frustrations bubbling up, Pelosi has become an early target for moderates representing suburban districts worried that their leadership’s strategy hurt such members heading into the polls. “It’s time for Democrats to elevate a new generation of leadership in both the House and the Senate,” one of the Democrats told The Hill. “Americans are clearly afraid of ‘socialism,’ want safe streets and neighborhoods and to vote for people who they believe will help put more money in their pockets. “While Democratic policies can adequately address those issues,” the lawmaker added, “our messaging mechanism clearly cannot.”
“Centrist” Democrats are angry at Pelosi for not being moderate enough in her message, while the far-Left wing of the party are angry because they believe the messaging was too moderate, and that Democrats would have had a better night if more candidates had embraced their inner AOC.
I suspect that ultimately Pelosi is re-elected by her colleagues as House Speaker, but even if she’s replaced it’s not like Democrats are going to replace her with a pro-gun Democrat. No matter who’s in charge, the House is going to be pushing all kinds of anti-gun bills in the next session of Congress. For gun owners, it doesn’t matter if Pelosi’s the Speaker or not, but we can at least enjoy the infighting over the choice.