bearingarms--2020-08-19--Federal Judge Hears Challenge To Gun Ban For 18-20 Year Olds

A lawsuit challenging a Washington State law that forbids 18-20 year olds from purchasing a semi-automatic rifle had its day in court on Tuesday , though the judge who heard oral arguments seemed pretty dismissive of the idea that the law violates the constitutional rights of younger Americans .
U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton told attorneys for the plaintiffs challenging the law that they were facing “ a stiff headwind ” in their quest to have the law struck down .
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton , who heard competing motions for summary judgment , said he expects to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 .
But he told attorneys at the outset of the hourlong hearing that the age restriction does not impact “ a core function of the Second Amendment , ” and noted 18- to 20-year-olds can still purchase other firearms , such as shotguns or bolt-action rifles .
“ Mr .
Ard , you ’ re going to have a very stiff headwind in your argument , ” the judge told Bainbridge Island attorney Joel Ard , one of the attorneys representing the case ’ s plaintiffs , which include gun sellers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Leighton , who conducted the hearing telephonically , said he had been enlightened by materials submitted by both sides .
“ I don ’ t share the hyperbole about the evil of guns or the sanctity of the right to self-defense , ” he said .
“ This is just a plain vanilla analysis of the law as I see it.
” With all due respect to Judge Leighton , I disagree that the law doesn ’ t impact a “ core restriction of the Second Amendment.
” Under state law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any firearm without a background check , which means that 18 , 19 , and 20-year olds can not legally purchase a handgun in the state .
Add in the provision barring those same individuals from purchasing a semi-automatic rifle , and you ’ re now talking about depriving adults who are legally eligible to own a firearm from their ability to purchase the most commonly-owned firearms for self-defense that exist today .
That ’ s absolutely an infringement on their core Second Amendment rights .
According to the Seattle Times , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Leighton told the attorneys he grew up in a rural community where he learned to shoot at age 6 and remembers students taking guns to school .
As a judge , “ I ’ ve heard how these young people are impacted in their executive function .
It ’ s akin to mental illness in their development , ” Leighton said .
Compared to the time and place where he grew up , “ this is a different world in the urban Western District of Washington.
” In arguing the age restriction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ plaintiff ’ s attorney Joel ] Ard said , “ No other enumerated right has been withdrawn from adult citizens.
” Uhh , in what world are 18-year olds not adults ?
They ’ re eligible to vote , they can serve in the military and die for our country , they can run for many state offices , and the criminal justice system considers an 18-year old to have reached the age of adulthood .
The judge ’ s comment that young people today are basically suffering from a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chuckle or two , but it ’ s an incredibly weak argument to deny young adults their Second Amendment rights .
It certainly looks like Judge Leighton will uphold the state ’ s ban on semi-automatic rifles for adults under the age of 21 , but we ’ ll see what the Ninth Circuit has to say in the months ahead .

A lawsuit challenging a Washington State law that forbids 18-20 year olds from purchasing a semi-automatic rifle had its day in court on Tuesday, though the judge who heard oral arguments seemed pretty dismissive of the idea that the law violates the constitutional rights of younger Americans. U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton told attorneys for the plaintiffs challenging the law that they were facing “a stiff headwind” in their quest to have the law struck down.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton, who heard competing motions for summary judgment, said he expects to issue a ruling on or before Aug. 31. But he told attorneys at the outset of the hourlong hearing that the age restriction does not impact “a core function of the Second Amendment,” and noted 18- to 20-year-olds can still purchase other firearms, such as shotguns or bolt-action rifles. “Mr. Ard, you’re going to have a very stiff headwind in your argument,” the judge told Bainbridge Island attorney Joel Ard, one of the attorneys representing the case’s plaintiffs, which include gun sellers and young people seeking to buy semi-automatic rifles. Leighton, who conducted the hearing telephonically, said he had been enlightened by materials submitted by both sides. “I don’t share the hyperbole about the evil of guns or the sanctity of the right to self-defense,” he said. “This is just a plain vanilla analysis of the law as I see it.”
With all due respect to Judge Leighton, I disagree that the law doesn’t impact a “core restriction of the Second Amendment.” Under state law, it’s already illegal to purchase any firearm without a background check, which means that 18, 19, and 20-year olds cannot legally purchase a handgun in the state. Add in the provision barring those same individuals from purchasing a semi-automatic rifle, and you’re now talking about depriving adults who are legally eligible to own a firearm from their ability to purchase the most commonly-owned firearms for self-defense that exist today. That’s absolutely an infringement on their core Second Amendment rights.
According to the Seattle Times, however, Judge Leighton sees things very differently.
Leighton told the attorneys he grew up in a rural community where he learned to shoot at age 6 and remembers students taking guns to school. As a judge, “I’ve heard how these young people are impacted in their executive function. It’s akin to mental illness in their development,” Leighton said. Compared to the time and place where he grew up, “this is a different world in the urban Western District of Washington.” In arguing the age restriction violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, [plaintiff’s attorney Joel] Ard said, “No other enumerated right has been withdrawn from adult citizens.” Leighton countered: “They’re not adults.”
Uhh, in what world are 18-year olds not adults? They’re eligible to vote, they can serve in the military and die for our country, they can run for many state offices, and the criminal justice system considers an 18-year old to have reached the age of adulthood.
The judge’s comment that young people today are basically suffering from a form of mental illness may be good for a chuckle or two, but it’s an incredibly weak argument to deny young adults their Second Amendment rights. It certainly looks like Judge Leighton will uphold the state’s ban on semi-automatic rifles for adults under the age of 21, but we’ll see what the Ninth Circuit has to say in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Attorney Argues Alleged Neo-Nazis Guns Should Be Returned

If you want to protect your own rights , it means you have to protect the rights of people you can ’ t stand .
It sucks , but it ’ s something you have to do .
That means , in the case of defending the Second Amendment , you sometimes have to defend the gun rights of people you might rather not have a gun in the first place .
Especially if they ’ ve never actually broken the law .
That ’ s the position I keep finding myself in when it comes to Andrew Casarez , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his attorney is arguing Casarez should have his guns back .
An attorney for Andrew Casarez , a 27-year-old man who is accused of being the ringleader of an online neo-Nazi group and was forced to forfeit his 9mm handgun to sheriff ’ s deputies , is arguing that the seizure was unconstitutional .
In an opposition filed Aug. 10 in Sacramento County , criminal defense attorney Alan Donato argues that the court should not extend a 21-day temporary Gun Violence Restraining Order because the Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Office has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his client is a danger to the community .
Donato claims the sheriff ’ s department violated Casarez ’ s right to due process and “ fueled a media spectacle ” that was used to “ strip Mr. Casarez of his constitutional rights.
” The attorney declined J.
’ s request for comment .
On July 15 , the Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Office seized the handgun at Casarez ’ s residence in the suburb of Orangevale , where he lives with his parents and grandmother , over concerns that he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was publicly outed by Anonymous Comrades Collective , a group of anti-fascist researchers .
Here ’ s the problem with the case against Casarez , though : He didn ’ t actually do anything .
While Casarez is alleged to have made a lot of horrible statements support racially-fueled mass murder , he apparently didn ’ t make any statements that suggested he would carry out any such attack .
That ’ s not surprising since many of those who celebrate such monstrous behavior rarely carry it out themselves .
They tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s guns were seized using a gun violence restraining order–a red flag order–despite anything that looks from here like credible evidence he was even considering an attack .
In other words , it sure as hell looks like Casarez was targeted because he said things other folks didn ’ t like .
Well , I don ’ t like what he said , either .
I have absolutely no use for racial supremacists of any stripe , after all .
But we don ’ t go around stripping people of their rights simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have to say .
That ’ s not how a free society works and if you want a free society , you simply can ’ t do things like this simply because you don ’ t like the words that have come out of people ’ s mouths .
Honestly , I ’ ve seen some outright hateful rhetoric coming out of the left , for example .
I ’ ve seen feminists talking about how all men should be herded into camps and kept separate from society , used only for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen people talk about how people who disagree with global warming should be imprisoned .
And yet , I don ’ t want to see any of these people imprisoned or punished because of such hateful rhetoric .
Instead , I want to beat their ideas .
Until they cross the line from talking and into action , I don ’ t want any action taken against them except for mockery .
Casarez ’ s attorney makes the case that his guns should be returned , and he ’ s right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgusting things , what he hasn ’ t done is do anything to warrant having his weapon taken away .
Not yet , anyway .

If you want to protect your own rights, it means you have to protect the rights of people you can’t stand. It sucks, but it’s something you have to do. That means, in the case of defending the Second Amendment, you sometimes have to defend the gun rights of people you might rather not have a gun in the first place.
Especially if they’ve never actually broken the law.
That’s the position I keep finding myself in when it comes to Andrew Casarez, an alleged neo-Nazi leader.
Now, his attorney is arguing Casarez should have his guns back.
An attorney for Andrew Casarez, a 27-year-old man who is accused of being the ringleader of an online neo-Nazi group and was forced to forfeit his 9mm handgun to sheriff’s deputies, is arguing that the seizure was unconstitutional. In an opposition filed Aug. 10 in Sacramento County, criminal defense attorney Alan Donato argues that the court should not extend a 21-day temporary Gun Violence Restraining Order because the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office has not met the burden of proof establishing that his client is a danger to the community. Donato claims the sheriff’s department violated Casarez’s right to due process and “fueled a media spectacle” that was used to “strip Mr. Casarez of his constitutional rights.” The attorney declined J.’s request for comment. On July 15, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office seized the handgun at Casarez’s residence in the suburb of Orangevale, where he lives with his parents and grandmother, over concerns that he would commit an act of violence after he was publicly outed by Anonymous Comrades Collective, a group of anti-fascist researchers.
Here’s the problem with the case against Casarez, though: He didn’t actually do anything.
While Casarez is alleged to have made a lot of horrible statements support racially-fueled mass murder, he apparently didn’t make any statements that suggested he would carry out any such attack. That’s not surprising since many of those who celebrate such monstrous behavior rarely carry it out themselves. They tend to lack the cajones.
Yet Casarez’s guns were seized using a gun violence restraining order–a red flag order–despite anything that looks from here like credible evidence he was even considering an attack.
In other words, it sure as hell looks like Casarez was targeted because he said things other folks didn’t like.
Well, I don’t like what he said, either. I have absolutely no use for racial supremacists of any stripe, after all. But we don’t go around stripping people of their rights simply because we don’t like what they have to say. That’s not how a free society works and if you want a free society, you simply can’t do things like this simply because you don’t like the words that have come out of people’s mouths.
Honestly, I’ve seen some outright hateful rhetoric coming out of the left, for example. I’ve seen feminists talking about how all men should be herded into camps and kept separate from society, used only for manual labor and reproductive purposes. I’ve seen people talk about how people who disagree with global warming should be imprisoned.
And yet, I don’t want to see any of these people imprisoned or punished because of such hateful rhetoric. Instead, I want to beat their ideas. Until they cross the line from talking and into action, I don’t want any action taken against them except for mockery.
Casarez’s attorney makes the case that his guns should be returned, and he’s right. While the man has said some disgusting things, what he hasn’t done is do anything to warrant having his weapon taken away.
Not yet, anyway.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--It's Time To Scrap This "Pistol Purchase Permit" Law

North Carolina residents have to jump through an extra bureaucratic hoop before they can purchase a handgun by applying for a “ pistol purchase permit ” issued by their local sheriff , and that requirement is forcing thousands of residents to wait for months on end before they ’ re given permission to go buy a handgun for self-defense in their home or business .
The problem is particularly acute around Charlotte , where the Mecklenburg County Sheriff ’ s Office says demand for the purchase permits is up by more than 300 % compared to the same time period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sheriff is looking at a growing backlog of applications , and right now the office is several months behind .
Under North Carolina law , sheriffs have 14 days to conduct their background investigation and approve or deny an applicant , but at the moment the wait in Mecklenburg County is between 57 to 90 days .
Unfortunately , while state law says sheriffs “ shall ” approve or deny an application within 14 days , there ’ s no penalty for sheriffs who take 20 , 30 , or even 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I understand that many sheriff ’ s offices are dealing with coronavirus-related cuts to their budget , and it may be impossible for them to ramp up staffing of their licensing division in order to keep up with the record demand .
I ’ m not accusing any sheriff of intentionally slow-walking the approval process , but at the same time , if the sheriffs can ’ t meet the deadline established under state law , something ’ s got to give .
The easiest thing to do would be to simply get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is relic of the state ’ s Jim Crow laws anyway .
Laws like this historically allowed for white sheriffs to deny many black residents the ability to purchase a handgun , while white residents were typically approved with little or no questions .
Public safety wouldn ’ t be injured by scrapping the pistol purchase permit law , but the Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians would be greatly enhanced .
North Carolina ’ s pistol purchase permit law should have been repealed long ago along with the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately it remains on the books as a reminder of the racist roots of gun control in the United States while serving as an impediment on the rights of North Carolinians to purchase a handgun for self-defense .
Folks shouldn ’ t have to wait 90 days for their sheriff to allow them to purchase a handgun , especially when they can go through a background check in just minutes at their local gun store .
The state ’ s pistol purchase permit has done more than enough damage to the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s time for the law to be repealed in the name of freedom and equality .

North Carolina residents have to jump through an extra bureaucratic hoop before they can purchase a handgun by applying for a “pistol purchase permit” issued by their local sheriff, and that requirement is forcing thousands of residents to wait for months on end before they’re given permission to go buy a handgun for self-defense in their home or business.
The problem is particularly acute around Charlotte, where the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office says demand for the purchase permits is up by more than 300% compared to the same time period in 2019. As a result, the sheriff is looking at a growing backlog of applications, and right now the office is several months behind.
“The holdup is the process,” the sheriff said. “Same staff, same entrance, same space with COVID-19 and everything else that’s going on in America. ” Sheriff McFadden said he has just six to eight employees assigned to permits but is trying to streamline the process. “To me, it looks like everybody needs a gun permit or a gun,” he said. “We’re going to work with them, but these numbers, they’re pretty high.” According to MCSO, there is a currently a two-month backlog of purchase permits. The agency is currently processing purchase permit applications from the week of June 15 and concealed weapon permits from the week of June 1.
Under North Carolina law, sheriffs have 14 days to conduct their background investigation and approve or deny an applicant, but at the moment the wait in Mecklenburg County is between 57 to 90 days. Unfortunately, while state law says sheriffs “shall” approve or deny an application within 14 days, there’s no penalty for sheriffs who take 20, 30, or even 90 days to wrap up their investigation.
I understand that many sheriff’s offices are dealing with coronavirus-related cuts to their budget, and it may be impossible for them to ramp up staffing of their licensing division in order to keep up with the record demand. I’m not accusing any sheriff of intentionally slow-walking the approval process, but at the same time, if the sheriffs can’t meet the deadline established under state law, something’s got to give.
The easiest thing to do would be to simply get rid of the pistol purchase permit law, which is relic of the state’s Jim Crow laws anyway. Laws like this historically allowed for white sheriffs to deny many black residents the ability to purchase a handgun, while white residents were typically approved with little or no questions. Public safety wouldn’t be injured by scrapping the pistol purchase permit law, but the Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians would be greatly enhanced.
North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit law should have been repealed long ago along with the state’s other Jim Crow laws, but unfortunately it remains on the books as a reminder of the racist roots of gun control in the United States while serving as an impediment on the rights of North Carolinians to purchase a handgun for self-defense. Folks shouldn’t have to wait 90 days for their sheriff to allow them to purchase a handgun, especially when they can go through a background check in just minutes at their local gun store. The state’s pistol purchase permit has done more than enough damage to the Second Amendment rights of residents over the years. It’s time for the law to be repealed in the name of freedom and equality.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Some Still Claiming Higher Capacity Mags Aren't Needed

With the Ninth Circuit ruling that bans on higher capacity magazines was unconstitutional , the court level a massive blow to anti-gunners in some of the most anti-gun states in the country .
Hawaii , California , Oregon , and Washington all saw a sacred shibboleth of gun control come crashing down with a proverbial stroke of the pen .
You see , the stay of a previous ruling is still in effect , meaning that it ’ s still temporarily in effect .
Yet since the judge who issued the previous ruling also issued the stay , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment .
When that happens , a whole lot of happy gun owners will have a decent capacity for their firearms again .
Meanwhile , some are still pushing the idea that such magazines aren ’ t needed .
Days following the anniversary of one of the nation ’ s worst weekends of senseless bloodshed , the killing of 32 victims in mass shootings in El Paso , Texas , and Dayton , Ohio , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a California ban of the very type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Approved in 2016 by a healthy voter majority , Proposition 63 outlawed magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
“ California ’ s near-categorical ban of ( large-capacity magazines ) strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense , ” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the court majority .
However , it is hard to imagine a situation in which some law-abiding gun owner would need to shoot off dozens of rounds in defense of self or others .
It is a stretch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horde of armed intruders , so many that a rapid-fire response would be required to ward off the threat .
How is it a stretch to conceive of “ a home invasion by a horde of armed intruders ” when it ’ s happened ?
I can see having a hard time conceiving of things that never happen , but this one has .
Further , it doesn ’ t take a horde to warrant the need for more than 10 rounds .
Especially since a home invasion is one of those things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you harm , weapon or not .
For example , take this home invasion in Georgia .
Three people in masks .
That ’ s not a horde by any stretch , but that leaves you just three rounds per person , with some lucky contestant getting a fourth .
While that might sound like enough , actually firing a weapon at a living being isn ’ t as cut and dried as the movies make it look .
You see , the bad guys get a vote in what to do and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here like a stationary target at the range.
” Damn inconsiderate of them , but what can ya do ?
Of course , this author isn ’ t really anyone to take too seriously on the topic .
Why ’ s that ?
Probably because while he goes on to discuss mass shootings , he makes an admission immediately before making a comment supporting higher-capacity magazine bans .
The Virginia Tech gunman managed to kill 32 students and faculty using two handguns accessorized with magazines capable of holding 10-15 bullets .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide , there are countless already in circulation for anyone determined enough to purchase one privately .
But whatever the magnitude of the impact , a national sales ban would be the right thing to do symbolically and might eventually shrink the supply .
In other words , mass shooters can still kill scores of people with lower-capacity magazines , but we should still inhibit people ’ s natural right to self-defense to make people feel better .
The truth is that such magazines have a definite role in our society .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight off “ hordes ” that might invade our homes .
They also give us enough capacity to protect our families in a real life-or-death situation .
I ’ m not giving that up for “ symbolism ” or anything else .

With the Ninth Circuit ruling that bans on higher capacity magazines was unconstitutional, the court level a massive blow to anti-gunners in some of the most anti-gun states in the country. Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington all saw a sacred shibboleth of gun control come crashing down with a proverbial stroke of the pen.
Well, sorta.
You see, the stay of a previous ruling is still in effect, meaning that it’s still temporarily in effect. Yet since the judge who issued the previous ruling also issued the stay, we can expect that to lift at any given moment.
When that happens, a whole lot of happy gun owners will have a decent capacity for their firearms again.
Meanwhile, some are still pushing the idea that such magazines aren’t needed.
Days following the anniversary of one of the nation’s worst weekends of senseless bloodshed, the killing of 32 victims in mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a California ban of the very type of large-capacity magazine that facilitated the two massacres. Approved in 2016 by a healthy voter majority, Proposition 63 outlawed magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. “California’s near-categorical ban of (large-capacity magazines) strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense,” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the court majority. However, it is hard to imagine a situation in which some law-abiding gun owner would need to shoot off dozens of rounds in defense of self or others. It is a stretch to conceive of a home invasion by a horde of armed intruders, so many that a rapid-fire response would be required to ward off the threat.
How is it a stretch to conceive of “a home invasion by a horde of armed intruders” when it’s happened? I can see having a hard time conceiving of things that never happen, but this one has. Further, it doesn’t take a horde to warrant the need for more than 10 rounds. Especially since a home invasion is one of those things where it’s assumed they mean you harm, weapon or not.
For example, take this home invasion in Georgia. Three people in masks. That’s not a horde by any stretch, but that leaves you just three rounds per person, with some lucky contestant getting a fourth. While that might sound like enough, actually firing a weapon at a living being isn’t as cut and dried as the movies make it look. You see, the bad guys get a vote in what to do and it’s rarely “stand right here like a stationary target at the range.”
Damn inconsiderate of them, but what can ya do?
Of course, this author isn’t really anyone to take too seriously on the topic. Why’s that? Probably because while he goes on to discuss mass shootings, he makes an admission immediately before making a comment supporting higher-capacity magazine bans.
The Virginia Tech gunman managed to kill 32 students and faculty using two handguns accessorized with magazines capable of holding 10-15 bullets. Even if all sales of large-capacity magazines were blocked nationwide, there are countless already in circulation for anyone determined enough to purchase one privately. But whatever the magnitude of the impact, a national sales ban would be the right thing to do symbolically and might eventually shrink the supply.
In other words, mass shooters can still kill scores of people with lower-capacity magazines, but we should still inhibit people’s natural right to self-defense to make people feel better.
Give me a break.
The truth is that such magazines have a definite role in our society. For one thing, they do allow us to fight off “hordes” that might invade our homes. They also give us enough capacity to protect our families in a real life-or-death situation.
I’m not giving that up for “symbolism” or anything else.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Mike DeWine's Gun Control Bill Isn't The Answer To Ohio's Rising Crime

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine ’ s generally been pretty good on Second Amendment issues , at least during his time as the state ’ s chief executive ( his record in Congress , on the other hand , left a lot to be desired ) .
After the mass shooting in Dayton last August , however , DeWine called for a change to Ohio ’ s gun laws .
Legislators in the Republican-dominated statehouse have so far resisted the governor ’ s gun control push , but with violent crime on the rise in many Ohio cities , the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio bill in the name of public safety .
“ Murders overall are up in Ohio , ” he said .
“ The majority of victims are African American .
We know from law enforcement that many of Ohio ’ s shootings are committed with handguns that are stolen or illegally obtained and used by convicted criminals who have no legal right to have them.
” “ By our unofficial tally , we counted a total of 56 people shot across Ohio – 17 of them killed – from Friday , Aug. 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeWine has diagnosed the problem , but his course of treatment isn ’ t going to be particularly effective .
As the governor noted , criminals are using illegally obtained firearms in order to help facilitate their crimes .
His STRONG Ohio bill , however , focuses an awful lot of attention on legal gun owners , though it does increase the sentence for using the gun in the commission of a violent crime .
Unfortunately , the legislation also creates a “ red flag ” -style process to remove individuals firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for private gun sellers to ensure that buyers have passed a background check .
I believe the bill is well-intended , and I think that the folks who put the proposal together actually did listen to the concerns of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates .
The problem is that Mike DeWine seemed to be looking for a gun control bill that gun owners could live with , and beyond the increased penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime , there ’ s just not much in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crime rate .
Let ’ s take a look at what ’ s happening in Cincinnati right now .
Shootings are up 55 % compared to 2019 , and homicides could set a single-year record if they continue at their current pace .
At least four people were killed and eighteen people were shot last weekend .
Does Gov .
DeWine really think that some sort of voluntary background check system for private sales of firearms is the answer to what ’ s happening on Cincinnati streets ?
The Inquirer newspaper recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the violence , and not one of them mentioned anything about the governor ’ s gun plan .
Gun violence this year in Cincinnati has had neighborhood leaders and officials concerned for months .
About two weeks ago , [ Assistant Police Chief Paul ] Neudigate attributed the rise in violence to the novel coronavirus pandemic , which has prevented officers from being as much a part of the community as in years past .
The Rev .
Ennis Tait , pastor of New Beginnings of the Living God in Avondale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a collaborative approach in the city .
“ More importantly , call this for what it really is , a public health crisis , ” Tait said.
” Black , white , rich , poor , urban , suburban , preachers , police and politicians .
It ’ s going to take us working together to get to the root cause of this problem in our city.
” Tait said he ’ s bringing two initiatives to the city soon : “ Positive Force Collaborative and Project Lifeline , ” and that details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , officers have no suspects .
Isaac said that while police work to identify shooters , the department will shift officers from other assignments to augment the number of uniformed officers in the affected neighborhoods .
Note that last bolded part .
That ’ s a big reason why Cincinnati ’ s crime rate is spiraling upward .
You ’ re telling me that with all those shootings , there isn ’ t one person that knows who fired at least a few of those rounds ?
Of course the code of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in beefs , but there ’ s a good reason why many residents may be afraid to come forward ; their own safety .
Cincinnati really is caught between a rock and a hard place right now .
Shootings are increasing because criminals are feeling emboldened and less likely to get caught .
In order for crime to come down , residents need to cooperate with police and provide their account and even testimony in a court of law .
If they ’ re concerned for their own safety , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads to more emboldened criminals terrorizing more of their own neighborhoods .
In order to build that trust with the community , police need to be on the ground and actively engaging constructively with the residents they serve , but protesters and anti-police agitators want to make it impossible to do so , and may even go after any residents who dare to talk to the police as “ collaborators.
” Mike DeWine ’ s STRONG Ohio plan does nothing to address what ’ s actually happening in to the good people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even gun control , it ’ s self-control .
Guns aren ’ t going off by themselves .
Someone is pulling the trigger in every circumstance .
In order to truly address violent crime in Cincinnati , Cleveland , Columbus , or Ohio cities that don ’ t begin with the letter “ C ” , you have to deal with the individuals who are committing these acts of violence .
They have names .
They ’ re real people , not philosophical constructs .
The police generally know who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community , but whenever they ’ re arrested they ’ re usually quickly back on the streets and are inevitably offered a plea bargain ( if their case isn ’ t simply suspended ) that amounts to a slap on the wrist and a few months behind bars .
Many of these young men do want a better and a safer life , and I believe that programs that help gang members escape the life and build a life of their own are incredibly important .
So too , however , are real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take advantage of the opportunity to make better choices , which gets back to building the relationships necessary for police to do their jobs effectively .
Mike DeWine should decouple the proposals to increase sentences for using a gun in the commission of a crime from his other gun control proposals , and package them instead with measures to implement Project Ceasefire-style programs that combine resources for gang members who want to escape their current situation with greater prosecution , including referring cases to the Department of Justice , for those offenders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime .
He should work with local mayors , activists , and ( most importantly ) police officers to develop strategies to build those relationships between law enforcement and the neighborhoods they serve .
He needs to find a way to increase witness protection services at the local and state level to ensure that witnesses feel safe enough to testify , lessening the chances of a plea bargain and increasing the chances of a substantial sentence .
What Mike DeWine does not need to do , however , is pretend that gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , government can only do so much .
Ultimately its the hearts and minds of this small group of men that decide to grab a gun to settle a beef , to whip out their gun at the first perceived insult to their manhood or reputation , and to bang away at each other on the streets of their own neighborhood with no regard for the lives around them .
This is almost always left out of the gun control debate because the solutions lie far outside of the reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ souls of men .

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s generally been pretty good on Second Amendment issues, at least during his time as the state’s chief executive (his record in Congress, on the other hand, left a lot to be desired). After the mass shooting in Dayton last August, however, DeWine called for a change to Ohio’s gun laws. Legislators in the Republican-dominated statehouse have so far resisted the governor’s gun control push, but with violent crime on the rise in many Ohio cities, the Republican governor is once again pushing his STRONG Ohio bill in the name of public safety.
“Murders overall are up in Ohio,” he said. “The majority of victims are African American. We know from law enforcement that many of Ohio’s shootings are committed with handguns that are stolen or illegally obtained and used by convicted criminals who have no legal right to have them.” “By our unofficial tally, we counted a total of 56 people shot across Ohio – 17 of them killed – from Friday, Aug. 14 through today,” DeWine said.
DeWine has diagnosed the problem, but his course of treatment isn’t going to be particularly effective. As the governor noted, criminals are using illegally obtained firearms in order to help facilitate their crimes. His STRONG Ohio bill, however, focuses an awful lot of attention on legal gun owners, though it does increase the sentence for using the gun in the commission of a violent crime. Unfortunately, the legislation also creates a “red flag”-style process to remove individuals firearms, and establishes a clunky and burdensome process for private gun sellers to ensure that buyers have passed a background check.
I believe the bill is well-intended, and I think that the folks who put the proposal together actually did listen to the concerns of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. The problem is that Mike DeWine seemed to be looking for a gun control bill that gun owners could live with, and beyond the increased penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, there’s just not much in the legislation that would actually help bring down the crime rate.
Let’s take a look at what’s happening in Cincinnati right now. Shootings are up 55% compared to 2019, and homicides could set a single-year record if they continue at their current pace. At least four people were killed and eighteen people were shot last weekend. Does Gov. DeWine really think that some sort of voluntary background check system for private sales of firearms is the answer to what’s happening on Cincinnati streets? The Inquirer newspaper recently spoke to some local officials and activists about the violence, and not one of them mentioned anything about the governor’s gun plan.
Gun violence this year in Cincinnati has had neighborhood leaders and officials concerned for months. About two weeks ago, [Assistant Police Chief Paul] Neudigate attributed the rise in violence to the novel coronavirus pandemic, which has prevented officers from being as much a part of the community as in years past. The Rev. Ennis Tait, pastor of New Beginnings of the Living God in Avondale, said the shootings can end only with a collaborative approach in the city. “More importantly, call this for what it really is, a public health crisis,” Tait said.”Black, white, rich, poor, urban, suburban, preachers, police and politicians. It’s going to take us working together to get to the root cause of this problem in our city.” Tait said he’s bringing two initiatives to the city soon: “Positive Force Collaborative and Project Lifeline,” and that details would be released soon. So far, officers have no suspects. Isaac said that while police work to identify shooters, the department will shift officers from other assignments to augment the number of uniformed officers in the affected neighborhoods.
Note that last bolded part. That’s a big reason why Cincinnati’s crime rate is spiraling upward. You’re telling me that with all those shootings, there isn’t one person that knows who fired at least a few of those rounds? Of course the code of the street is to not involve law enforcement in beefs, but there’s a good reason why many residents may be afraid to come forward; their own safety.
Cincinnati really is caught between a rock and a hard place right now. Shootings are increasing because criminals are feeling emboldened and less likely to get caught. In order for crime to come down, residents need to cooperate with police and provide their account and even testimony in a court of law. If they’re concerned for their own safety, they’re less likely to do so, which leads to more emboldened criminals terrorizing more of their own neighborhoods. In order to build that trust with the community, police need to be on the ground and actively engaging constructively with the residents they serve, but protesters and anti-police agitators want to make it impossible to do so, and may even go after any residents who dare to talk to the police as “collaborators.”
Mike DeWine’s STRONG Ohio plan does nothing to address what’s actually happening in to the good people in these bad neighborhoods. The issue isn’t even gun control, it’s self-control. Guns aren’t going off by themselves. Someone is pulling the trigger in every circumstance. In order to truly address violent crime in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, or Ohio cities that don’t begin with the letter “C”, you have to deal with the individuals who are committing these acts of violence. They have names. They’re real people, not philosophical constructs. The police generally know who they are, as do members of the community, but whenever they’re arrested they’re usually quickly back on the streets and are inevitably offered a plea bargain (if their case isn’t simply suspended) that amounts to a slap on the wrist and a few months behind bars.
Many of these young men do want a better and a safer life, and I believe that programs that help gang members escape the life and build a life of their own are incredibly important. So too, however, are real consequences for those who don’t take advantage of the opportunity to make better choices, which gets back to building the relationships necessary for police to do their jobs effectively.
Mike DeWine should decouple the proposals to increase sentences for using a gun in the commission of a crime from his other gun control proposals, and package them instead with measures to implement Project Ceasefire-style programs that combine resources for gang members who want to escape their current situation with greater prosecution, including referring cases to the Department of Justice, for those offenders who decide to stick with a life of crime. He should work with local mayors, activists, and (most importantly) police officers to develop strategies to build those relationships between law enforcement and the neighborhoods they serve. He needs to find a way to increase witness protection services at the local and state level to ensure that witnesses feel safe enough to testify, lessening the chances of a plea bargain and increasing the chances of a substantial sentence.
What Mike DeWine does not need to do, however, is pretend that gun control is going to make a difference here. In fact, government can only do so much. Ultimately its the hearts and minds of this small group of men that decide to grab a gun to settle a beef, to whip out their gun at the first perceived insult to their manhood or reputation, and to bang away at each other on the streets of their own neighborhood with no regard for the lives around them. This is almost always left out of the gun control debate because the solutions lie far outside of the reach of government, and deep within the souls of men.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--When Organizations Push Members Away Over Gun Control

There are a lot of organizations out there that support gun control .
I ’ m not talking about the groups like Brady and Giffords that have made it their mission to cram gun control down our throats , either .
I ’ m talking about groups that supposedly stand for something else , yet somehow manage to make gun control part of their rhetoric for some idiotic reason .
And there are a lot of them .
I recently came across a story that addresses the problems for members of these organizations who may also support the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such proposals can vote accordingly .
They can also choose to support nonprofits that agree with their views .
Major activist groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , Everytown for Gun Safety , and Giffords vigorously push gun control nationwide .
Because they explicitly state this mission , there is no risk of confusion over their stance on the issue .
Americans who support gun rights can simply decline to support such organizations , without affecting their ability to get involved in other issues they care about .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that exist for apparently unrelated purposes nevertheless stake out definitive positions on gun policy .
This leaves supporters and members of such organizations who also support the Second Amendment with three options : • Remain unaware of the group ’ s stance on guns , unwittingly supporting a position they oppose .
• Drop support for the organization ( and all the organization ’ s other causes that they value ) due to its stance on guns .
• Compromise their own values by continuing to support the organization despite its pro–gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good outcomes , but regrettably , many nonprofits present their pro–gun rights members and supporters with exactly this conundrum .
It is , unfortunately , true .
Further , many of these organizations are professional organizations that many in a given field may feel almost obligated to be part of in order to stay abreast of their profession .
The author , Robert Stilson , presents some examples .
And honestly , there are many others .
Those who are part of these organizations find themselves stuck , especially since there often aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sure , there may be a pro-gun group for doctors ( there actually is ) or for social workers , but they ’ re not the same kind of professional organizations that will also distribute the latest research or whatever else groups like the AMA may do for its members .
Hell , it may be an actual requirement to be members of some of these groups whether you want to or not .
This represents a real problem within these groups .
For many , it ’ s better to just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rocking the boat may hurt job prospects down the road , after all , and that ’ s something no one wants to do .
Again , that ’ s part of the problem , though , because anti-gun members don ’ t even blink at rocking the boat .
As a result , these groups end up driving further toward the anti-gunners because they don ’ t think there ’ s really much opposition .
I don ’ t have an answer , though .
What I do have , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unions engaging in political advocacy that doesn ’ t directly impact their profession .
At some point , they ’ re all but begging for someone to step in to put a stop to it , and no one is going to like it when that happens .

There are a lot of organizations out there that support gun control. I’m not talking about the groups like Brady and Giffords that have made it their mission to cram gun control down our throats, either. I’m talking about groups that supposedly stand for something else, yet somehow manage to make gun control part of their rhetoric for some idiotic reason.
And there are a lot of them.
I recently came across a story that addresses the problems for members of these organizations who may also support the Second Amendment.
Americans who agree or disagree with such proposals can vote accordingly. They can also choose to support nonprofits that agree with their views. Major activist groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords vigorously push gun control nationwide. Because they explicitly state this mission, there is no risk of confusion over their stance on the issue. Americans who support gun rights can simply decline to support such organizations, without affecting their ability to get involved in other issues they care about. But the situation is rather different when groups that exist for apparently unrelated purposes nevertheless stake out definitive positions on gun policy. This leaves supporters and members of such organizations who also support the Second Amendment with three options: Remain unaware of the group’s stance on guns, unwittingly supporting a position they oppose. Drop support for the organization (and all the organization’s other causes that they value) due to its stance on guns. Compromise their own values by continuing to support the organization despite its pro–gun control position. None of these are particularly good outcomes, but regrettably, many nonprofits present their pro–gun rights members and supporters with exactly this conundrum.
It is, unfortunately, true.
Further, many of these organizations are professional organizations that many in a given field may feel almost obligated to be part of in order to stay abreast of their profession. The author, Robert Stilson, presents some examples.
And honestly, there are many others.
Those who are part of these organizations find themselves stuck, especially since there often aren’t alternatives for these groups. Sure, there may be a pro-gun group for doctors (there actually is) or for social workers, but they’re not the same kind of professional organizations that will also distribute the latest research or whatever else groups like the AMA may do for its members.
Hell, it may be an actual requirement to be members of some of these groups whether you want to or not.
This represents a real problem within these groups.
For many, it’s better to just be quiet and keep your head down. Rocking the boat may hurt job prospects down the road, after all, and that’s something no one wants to do. Again, that’s part of the problem, though, because anti-gun members don’t even blink at rocking the boat. As a result, these groups end up driving further toward the anti-gunners because they don’t think there’s really much opposition.
I don’t have an answer, though.
What I do have, however, is a deep disgust of professional organizations and unions engaging in political advocacy that doesn’t directly impact their profession. At some point, they’re all but begging for someone to step in to put a stop to it, and no one is going to like it when that happens.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Dems Embrace Anti-Gun Agenda At Convention, But What About The Campaign Trail?

Wednesday was “ Gun Control Day ” at the DNC , with anti-gun activists Emma Gonzalez and former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords getting some screen time to push for “ common sense gun safety reform.
” On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , National Review ‘ s Jim Geraghty joins me to talk about how hard the Democrats will be pushing the issue between now and Election Day , starting with the fact that no matter how hard the Left tries to spin it , the Democrats ’ anti-gun agenda is anything but common sense , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun safety.
” Geraghty notes the gun control proposals in the Democrats platform are bad enough , but pointed back to Kamala Harris ’ laughter during one of the Democratic debates earlier this year when none other than Joe Biden tried to warn Harris off of her plan to impose gun control through executive actions .
“ The denial of the Second Amendment as a constitutional objection is really bad , but trying to laugh it off and being cute ; that ’ s a refusal to even engage on the issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris doesn ’ t care if her gun control plans violate the Constitution .
She wants to do what she wants to do.
” Would Joe Biden really serve as some guard at the gates of the Constitution and impose himself between his fellow Democrats and their attacks on the Second Amendment ?
Of course not .
Biden will be leading the charge .
Well , as much as he ’ s going to be leading anything if Democrats win in November .
As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s new “ assault weapons ban ” goes much further than his original gun ban back in the 1990s .
His plan would require anyone who legally owns one of the so-called assault weapons to either turn them into the government during a buyback or pay to register them under the same law that regulates machineguns and explosives .
Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris ( D. ) went even further during her failed primary campaign by supporting the outright confiscation of assault weapons .
She advocated for a mandatory buyback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 10 million legally owned firearms .
“ We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program , ” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives .
“ We ’ re going to have to have smart public policy that ’ s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.
” As Geraghty and I discuss , I think Democrats are starting to get a little worried about their embrace of the most anti-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record-setting gun sales and pollsters reporting steep declines in support for gun control .
Even the anti-gun stalwarts at Vox are trying to soft-pedal the Democrats love of gun control by claiming that , if the Biden/Harris ticket wins in November , gun control might not be a big priority for the administration .
I ’ m not buying it .
Anti-gun kingpin Michael Bloomberg is spending tens of millions of dollars to help elect Joe Biden in November , and he ’ s spending tens of millions more backing anti-gun congressional candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have literal weapons of war being sold over the counter , but Vox doesn ’ t think that gun control will be a top priority for Democrats if they take control of the White House and the Senate ?
All you have to do is look at what happened in Virginia when the Democrats took complete control of the state government last year .
Gun control was the top priority for the party , though they ’ re not talking much about it at the moment .
Democrats may actually downplay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Election Day , but if they win in November I guarantee that they ’ ll be ramming through gun control legislation as soon as they can in 2021 .

Wednesday was “Gun Control Day” at the DNC, with anti-gun activists Emma Gonzalez and former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords getting some screen time to push for “common sense gun safety reform.” On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, National Review‘s Jim Geraghty joins me to talk about how hard the Democrats will be pushing the issue between now and Election Day, starting with the fact that no matter how hard the Left tries to spin it, the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda is anything but common sense, and has little to do with actual “gun safety.”
Geraghty notes the gun control proposals in the Democrats platform are bad enough, but pointed back to Kamala Harris’ laughter during one of the Democratic debates earlier this year when none other than Joe Biden tried to warn Harris off of her plan to impose gun control through executive actions.
“The denial of the Second Amendment as a constitutional objection is really bad, but trying to laugh it off and being cute; that’s a refusal to even engage on the issue. And I think the suspicion is that Kamala Harris doesn’t care if her gun control plans violate the Constitution. She wants to do what she wants to do.”
Would Joe Biden really serve as some guard at the gates of the Constitution and impose himself between his fellow Democrats and their attacks on the Second Amendment? Of course not. Biden will be leading the charge. Well, as much as he’s going to be leading anything if Democrats win in November.
As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon points out in a new piece today, Biden’s new “assault weapons ban” goes much further than his original gun ban back in the 1990s.
His plan would require anyone who legally owns one of the so-called assault weapons to either turn them into the government during a buyback or pay to register them under the same law that regulates machineguns and explosives. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris (D.) went even further during her failed primary campaign by supporting the outright confiscation of assault weapons. She advocated for a mandatory buyback of what she estimated to be up to 10 million legally owned firearms. “We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. “We’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”
As Geraghty and I discuss, I think Democrats are starting to get a little worried about their embrace of the most anti-gun agenda in history at a time of record-setting gun sales and pollsters reporting steep declines in support for gun control. Even the anti-gun stalwarts at Vox are trying to soft-pedal the Democrats love of gun control by claiming that, if the Biden/Harris ticket wins in November, gun control might not be a big priority for the administration.
I’m not buying it. Anti-gun kingpin Michael Bloomberg is spending tens of millions of dollars to help elect Joe Biden in November, and he’s spending tens of millions more backing anti-gun congressional candidates from coast-to-coast. They’re claiming that we have literal weapons of war being sold over the counter, but Vox doesn’t think that gun control will be a top priority for Democrats if they take control of the White House and the Senate? All you have to do is look at what happened in Virginia when the Democrats took complete control of the state government last year. Gun control was the top priority for the party, though they’re not talking much about it at the moment. Democrats may actually downplay their love of gun control between now and Election Day, but if they win in November I guarantee that they’ll be ramming through gun control legislation as soon as they can in 2021.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Anti-Hunters In CA Say They Want To Help Animals, But Are Enabling Poachers Instead

Many people in this country get really spun up when it comes to African big game hunting .
They see it as nothing but a pastime for reach jackwagons to go over to Africa , kill some precious species , then place the trophy on their mantle .
Superficially , that does tend to be the case , yet there ’ s so much more that goes on under the surface .
For example , those hunters actually fund many African nations ’ anti-poaching operations .
While Thurston Howell III is out there bagging his trophy , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity .
He ’ s directed to which animals to bag as well , meaning any problematic animals or old ones who have reached near the end of their life anyway .
Then , while he ’ s doing that , his money is paying for local game wardens to carry on a covert war with people who bag these animals outside of the law .
Yet a California bill wants to try and undo part of that and the Los Angeles Times is supporting that move .
Wildlife across the globe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , war , wildfires and poaching .
Yet even as populations of vulnerable animals dwindle , hunting them for trophies remains legal in a number of countries .
For instance , most conservation groups consider African elephants and lions to be threatened or endangered .
The amount of protection afforded the animals , however , depends on the country they happen to be roaming in , and some continue to sell the rights to hunt and kill them .
That ’ s why a California man last year could legally kill an elephant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the animal collapsed on its knees , injured but not dead .
( A video of the shooting was obtained by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals . )
And even though lions in southern and eastern Africa have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act since 2015 ( after their numbers had plummeted 43 % over the previous two decades ) , the Trump administration allowed a hunter ’ s lion trophy to be brought into the U.S. from Tanzania this year for the first time since 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to keep new trophies in their California homes if a bill winding its way through the state Legislature becomes law .
Senate Bill 1175 , authored by State Sen. Henry Stern ( D-Canoga Park ) , would prohibit possession of trophies — the taxidermist-stuffed heads or other body parts of dead animals — from any of 13 iconic African species , including African lions , African elephants , leopards , black rhinoceros , white rhinoceros , giraffes , two species of zebras and baboons .
In other words , the bill wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to venture to Africa and hunt for these animals .
Now , let ’ s remember that these hunts are carried out in accordance with local game laws , laws that are designed to protect these species .
They don ’ t just kill any old animal they find and then slide enough money to make it acceptable .
While that might happen from time to time , it ’ s not as common as you might think .
Sure , a lot of people can ’ t afford to go on these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ re not all rich people .
Some people scrimp and save for years to carry out their dream hunt and they simply want a memento of their trip .
The problem is that so many anti-hunting activists have presented it like these hunters are somehow bringing about the extinction of these species .
What they miss is that the hunters have a vested interest in the exact opposite .
Is taking a lion worth it if there are no lions to hunt down the road ?
Of course not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that the real threat to these animals are poachers .
Poachers don ’ t care about anything but the short term .
They ’ ll kill as many animals as they can so they can sell whatever parts are profitable and keep on going .
They ’ ll kill as many as they can as often as they can and they don ’ t care about whether the animals will be there tomorrow .
It ’ s why so many hunters actually support conservation efforts .
They love the hunt , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for generations to come .
By supporting a bill that removes a significant incentive for hunting these animals , California isn ’ t preserving these species .
Instead , they ’ re likely creating a situation where these animals are even more imperiled .
If African governments don ’ t get hunters , they don ’ t get money for anti-poaching operations , thus making it easier on the people who are the real problem .

Many people in this country get really spun up when it comes to African big game hunting. They see it as nothing but a pastime for reach jackwagons to go over to Africa, kill some precious species, then place the trophy on their mantle. Superficially, that does tend to be the case, yet there’s so much more that goes on under the surface.
For example, those hunters actually fund many African nations’ anti-poaching operations.
While Thurston Howell III is out there bagging his trophy, he’s paying a ton of money for the opportunity. He’s directed to which animals to bag as well, meaning any problematic animals or old ones who have reached near the end of their life anyway. Then, while he’s doing that, his money is paying for local game wardens to carry on a covert war with people who bag these animals outside of the law.
Yet a California bill wants to try and undo part of that and the Los Angeles Times is supporting that move.
Wildlife across the globe is imperiled by habitat destruction, climate change, war, wildfires and poaching. Yet even as populations of vulnerable animals dwindle, hunting them for trophies remains legal in a number of countries. For instance, most conservation groups consider African elephants and lions to be threatened or endangered. The amount of protection afforded the animals, however, depends on the country they happen to be roaming in, and some continue to sell the rights to hunt and kill them. That’s why a California man last year could legally kill an elephant in South Africa — shooting it repeatedly after the animal collapsed on its knees, injured but not dead. (A video of the shooting was obtained by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) And even though lions in southern and eastern Africa have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act since 2015 (after their numbers had plummeted 43% over the previous two decades), the Trump administration allowed a hunter’s lion trophy to be brought into the U.S. from Tanzania this year for the first time since 2016. But hunters won’t be able to keep new trophies in their California homes if a bill winding its way through the state Legislature becomes law. Senate Bill 1175, authored by State Sen. Henry Stern (D-Canoga Park), would prohibit possession of trophies — the taxidermist-stuffed heads or other body parts of dead animals — from any of 13 iconic African species, including African lions, African elephants, leopards, black rhinoceros, white rhinoceros, giraffes, two species of zebras and baboons.
In other words, the bill wants to remove a primary motivation for hunters to venture to Africa and hunt for these animals.
Now, let’s remember that these hunts are carried out in accordance with local game laws, laws that are designed to protect these species. They don’t just kill any old animal they find and then slide enough money to make it acceptable. While that might happen from time to time, it’s not as common as you might think.
Sure, a lot of people can’t afford to go on these African hunts, but many others do and they’re not all rich people. Some people scrimp and save for years to carry out their dream hunt and they simply want a memento of their trip.
The problem is that so many anti-hunting activists have presented it like these hunters are somehow bringing about the extinction of these species. What they miss is that the hunters have a vested interest in the exact opposite. Is taking a lion worth it if there are no lions to hunt down the road? Of course not, and hunters know that just like they know that the real threat to these animals are poachers.
Poachers don’t care about anything but the short term. They’ll kill as many animals as they can so they can sell whatever parts are profitable and keep on going. They’ll kill as many as they can as often as they can and they don’t care about whether the animals will be there tomorrow.
It’s why so many hunters actually support conservation efforts. They love the hunt, but they want to be able to hunt for generations to come.
By supporting a bill that removes a significant incentive for hunting these animals, California isn’t preserving these species. Instead, they’re likely creating a situation where these animals are even more imperiled. If African governments don’t get hunters, they don’t get money for anti-poaching operations, thus making it easier on the people who are the real problem.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Chris Wallace Defends Biden On Gun Control, Calls AR-15's "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"

Not the best take from the Fox News Sunday host here .
Chris Wallace had some harsh things to say about former president Barak Obama ’ s speech at the DNC on Wednesday night , noting that Obama spent about a third of his speech talking about things other than his former running mate and the current Democratic presidential nominee , but Wallace ’ s analysis of the Democrats ’ convention went off the rails when he turned to the topic of Joe Biden and gun control .
Earlier in the hour , Wallace praised an address by former congresswoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Kelly , is seeking to unseat Sen. Martha McSally , R-Ariz. , in November — as “ enormously powerful ” and called her “ a living embodiment of the concern ” most Americans have about gun violence .
“ In a shopping center , some twisted nut to came up with a gun and shot her and then shot a number of other people as well , ” Wallace said , recalling the 2011 mass shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others , including Giffords .
“ I understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take away your Second Amendment rights , ” Wallace added .
“ The only problem with that is , Biden has made it clear over and over [ that ] he ’ s not interested in taking away Second Amendment rights , he ’ s interested in taking away weapons of mass destruction like assault weapons.
” Yeesh .
I hardly know where to begin here , but let ’ s start with Joe Biden and what he ’ s actually said about the Second Amendent .
Wallace claims that Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not interested in taking away anyone ’ s Second Amendment rights .
I think there ’ s a better case to be made that Biden simply believes that none of the gun control proposals of the Biden/Harris campaign violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans , because he doesn ’ t view the right to keep and bear arms as a real right in the first place .
Reason magazine ’ s Jacob Sullum pointed out as much in a recent column .
“ I respect the Second Amendment , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Detroit autoworker about gun control .
But the evidence he offered was not exactly reassuring .
“ I have a shotgun , ” Biden said .
“ My sons hunt.
” He notably omitted any mention of the right to self-defense , which the Supreme Court has recognized as the Second Amendment ’ s “ central component , ” or of handguns , which the justices described as the “ quintessential self-defense weapon.
” In explaining his plan to ban “ high-capacity magazines , ” Biden also talks about hunting .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun , ” his campaign says .
“ That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.
” The three-round limit suggested by that non sequitur would be unconstitutional , effectively banning all semi-automatic firearms and revolvers .
But judging from an expired federal law that Biden supported , he would be more generous , allowing magazines with capacities up to 10 rounds — the same as the limit set by California , which made it a crime to manufacture , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazines.
” It ’ s easy for a politician to claim that their gun control laws are in line with the Second Amendment , but too few reporters ever actually bother to dig deeper and ask what exactly those politicians think the Second Amendment actually protects .
Sure , Joe Biden has said that he ’ s not interested in taking away anyone ’ s right to keep and bear arms , but what does the Second Amendment mean to Joe Biden ?
We ’ ve already pointed out that Kamala Harris appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms .
Maybe Chris Wallace can ask Joe Biden what he thinks the Second Amendment is all about the next time he interviews Biden from his basement .
As for Wallace ’ s assertion that modern sporting rifles are “ weapons of mass destruction , ” keep in mind that rifles of any kind , including AR-15s , are used in a small fraction of homicides and shootings every year .
Between 2007 and 2017 , nearly four times as many people were killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifle .
If Chris Wallace is on board with the idea of banning our way to safety , why not ban knives ?
For that matter , why not ban handguns ?
I ’ ve been writing about the Wallace family and their support for gun control for 15 years now .
Back in 2005 , Chris Wallace ’ s dad Mike actually hosted a fundraiser for the Brady Campaign at the French Embassy .
I raised questions about Wallace ’ s emceeing a gun control event , and eventually Wallace wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue for 60 Minutes any longer .
As I said at the time : Chris Wallace has that same right to his opinion , and thankfully he ’ s not hosted any gun control galas as far as I ’ m aware , but I believe his support for things like a ban on semi-automatic rifles has clouded his judgement about Joe Biden and his supposed support for the Second Amendment .
Joe Biden wants to ban the most commonly sold rifle in the country .
He wants to make it illegal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He wants to encourage states to adopt restrictive gun licensing laws .
He even believes the federal government should impose a one-size-fits-all storage law on all legal gun owners .
Biden may say that all of those things can be done while still supporting the Second Amendment , but the only way that ’ s true is if he doesn ’ t think the Second Amendment protects a real individual right in the first place .

Not the best take from the Fox News Sunday host here. Chris Wallace had some harsh things to say about former president Barak Obama’s speech at the DNC on Wednesday night, noting that Obama spent about a third of his speech talking about things other than his former running mate and the current Democratic presidential nominee, but Wallace’s analysis of the Democrats’ convention went off the rails when he turned to the topic of Joe Biden and gun control.
Earlier in the hour, Wallace praised an address by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — whose husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, is seeking to unseat Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., in November — as “enormously powerful” and called her “a living embodiment of the concern” most Americans have about gun violence. “In a shopping center, some twisted nut to came up with a gun and shot her and then shot a number of other people as well,” Wallace said, recalling the 2011 mass shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Giffords. “I understand that Republicans will say that Joe Biden wants to take away your Second Amendment rights,” Wallace added. “The only problem with that is, Biden has made it clear over and over [that] he’s not interested in taking away Second Amendment rights, he’s interested in taking away weapons of mass destruction like assault weapons.”
Yeesh. I hardly know where to begin here, but let’s start with Joe Biden and what he’s actually said about the Second Amendent. Wallace claims that Biden has “made it clear” that he’s not interested in taking away anyone’s Second Amendment rights. I think there’s a better case to be made that Biden simply believes that none of the gun control proposals of the Biden/Harris campaign violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans, because he doesn’t view the right to keep and bear arms as a real right in the first place. Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum pointed out as much in a recent column.
“I respect the Second Amendment,” Biden insisted last March while arguing with a Detroit autoworker about gun control. But the evidence he offered was not exactly reassuring. “I have a shotgun,” Biden said. “My sons hunt.” He notably omitted any mention of the right to self-defense, which the Supreme Court has recognized as the Second Amendment’s “central component,” or of handguns, which the justices described as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”
In explaining his plan to ban “high-capacity magazines,” Biden also talks about hunting. “Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun,” his campaign says. “That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.” The three-round limit suggested by that non sequitur would be unconstitutional, effectively banning all semi-automatic firearms and revolvers. But judging from an expired federal law that Biden supported, he would be more generous, allowing magazines with capacities up to 10 rounds — the same as the limit set by California, which made it a crime to manufacture, transfer, or even possess “large-capacity magazines.”
It’s easy for a politician to claim that their gun control laws are in line with the Second Amendment, but too few reporters ever actually bother to dig deeper and ask what exactly those politicians think the Second Amendment actually protects. Sure, Joe Biden has said that he’s not interested in taking away anyone’s right to keep and bear arms, but what does the Second Amendment mean to Joe Biden? We’ve already pointed out that Kamala Harris appears to believe the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Maybe Chris Wallace can ask Joe Biden what he thinks the Second Amendment is all about the next time he interviews Biden from his basement.
As for Wallace’s assertion that modern sporting rifles are “weapons of mass destruction,” keep in mind that rifles of any kind, including AR-15s, are used in a small fraction of homicides and shootings every year. Between 2007 and 2017, nearly four times as many people were killed by someone wielding a knife than a rifle. If Chris Wallace is on board with the idea of banning our way to safety, why not ban knives? For that matter, why not ban handguns?
I’ve been writing about the Wallace family and their support for gun control for 15 years now. Back in 2005, Chris Wallace’s dad Mike actually hosted a fundraiser for the Brady Campaign at the French Embassy. I raised questions about Wallace’s emceeing a gun control event, and eventually Wallace wasn’t allowed to cover the gun control issue for 60 Minutes any longer. As I said at the time:
“He’s a trusted reporter, praised even by ‘conservatives’ like Bill O’Reilly as ‘the best American broadcaster in history.’ He’s had a long and distinguished at CBS News, winning 19 Emmy Awards, 3 Peabody Awards, and is in the Television Academy Hall of Fame. … I’ve got no problem with Mike Wallace having an opinion on an issue like gun control. I disagree with Wallace’s position on gun control, but he has a right to his opinion.”
Chris Wallace has that same right to his opinion, and thankfully he’s not hosted any gun control galas as far as I’m aware, but I believe his support for things like a ban on semi-automatic rifles has clouded his judgement about Joe Biden and his supposed support for the Second Amendment. Joe Biden wants to ban the most commonly sold rifle in the country. He wants to make it illegal to own the most commonly possessed ammunition magazines. He wants to encourage states to adopt restrictive gun licensing laws. He even believes the federal government should impose a one-size-fits-all storage law on all legal gun owners. Biden may say that all of those things can be done while still supporting the Second Amendment, but the only way that’s true is if he doesn’t think the Second Amendment protects a real individual right in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Shreveport Anti-Violence Rally Ends In Irony

It seems that pretty much every city in this country is dealing with an increase in violence .
Unsurprisingly , people want to do something to try and address the problem .
For lawmakers , that means trying to talk about legislation .
Unfortunately , all too often , that means gun control legislation .
However , for many activists , it means they need to do something so they can feel proactive .
That ’ s likely what led to a Stop the Violence rally in Shreveport , Louisiana that took place over the weekend .
What ended it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of irony .
Please understand , I ’ m not making light of what happened .
Calling it irony is simply an observation based on the facts involved , not a joke .
“ Irony ” isn ’ t always humorous , and a shooting isn ’ t funny .
However , I do think it highlights just how little these rallies actually accomplish .
Look , I don ’ t have any moral objections to them on principle .
What I have an issue with is the ridiculousness of the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
I mean , how many people watch the news and see a rally and think , “ Oh , well , all these people are against violence so maybe I should stop shooting people ” ?
Instead , what we see is a bunch of well-meaning people who are trying to address a problem but aren ’ t looking at the problem rationally .
It ’ s a salve on their soul , a way to feel that they ’ re doing something without having to do anything of substance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world they oppose what every decent person already opposes .
It ’ s a virtue signal .
If such a thing would actually accomplish anything , you ’ d think there wouldn ’ t be gunshots at such a rally .
If the rally would actually change hearts and minds , it should start with the people who are physically there .
The fact that at least one decided to open fire really kind of says it all , now doesn ’ t it ?
So far , there don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violence , which is a shame .
While I think these events are pointless , I don ’ t like people who would take a shot at folks trying to do what they believe to be a good thing , especially when they ’ re not trying to hurt anyone else .
Even if they ’ re misguided , they don ’ t deserve to be shot at .

It seems that pretty much every city in this country is dealing with an increase in violence. Unsurprisingly, people want to do something to try and address the problem.
For lawmakers, that means trying to talk about legislation. Unfortunately, all too often, that means gun control legislation.
However, for many activists, it means they need to do something so they can feel proactive. That’s likely what led to a Stop the Violence rally in Shreveport, Louisiana that took place over the weekend.
What ended it, however, was a serious case of irony.
A Mooretown event aimed to stop the violence ends abruptly after a series of shots nearby. Ronald Collins was videoing the event for the Shreveport Sun. While in the middle of an interview, gunfire rang out. Moments after the first series of shots rang out, Kenneth Thompson, a minister who spoke at the event used the opportunity to explain why the rally was being held in the first place. “That’s what I am talking about right there. This is what I am talking about… Why we are out here to stop the violence, already we got three, four, or five shots that went off and we don’t know how many people have been hit.” … No one at the scene appeared injured, although a 74-year-old resident fell to the ground trying to run as the sounds of gunfire rang out.
Please understand, I’m not making light of what happened. Calling it irony is simply an observation based on the facts involved, not a joke. “Irony” isn’t always humorous, and a shooting isn’t funny.
However, I do think it highlights just how little these rallies actually accomplish.
Look, I don’t have any moral objections to them on principle. What I have an issue with is the ridiculousness of the idea that such a rally actually does anything at all. I mean, how many people watch the news and see a rally and think, “Oh, well, all these people are against violence so maybe I should stop shooting people”?
Zero.
Instead, what we see is a bunch of well-meaning people who are trying to address a problem but aren’t looking at the problem rationally.
It’s a salve on their soul, a way to feel that they’re doing something without having to do anything of substance. It’s a way to show the world they oppose what every decent person already opposes. It’s a virtue signal.
If such a thing would actually accomplish anything, you’d think there wouldn’t be gunshots at such a rally. If the rally would actually change hearts and minds, it should start with the people who are physically there. The fact that at least one decided to open fire really kind of says it all, now doesn’t it?
So far, there don’t appear to have been any arrests regarding the violence, which is a shame. While I think these events are pointless, I don’t like people who would take a shot at folks trying to do what they believe to be a good thing, especially when they’re not trying to hurt anyone else. Even if they’re misguided, they don’t deserve to be shot at.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--Can Philly Talk Its Way Out Of Its Crime Spike?

Homicides and shootings in Philadelphia are up by more than 30 % this year , reaching levels not seen for over a decade .
While Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner continue to talk up the need for more gun control laws , there are some signs that the old school approach to reducing “ gun violence ” isn ’ t sitting well with Philadelphia residents .
Check out the replies to Mayor Kenney ’ s tweet , and you won ’ t see much support for his demand for “ smart gun control , ” and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Group Violence Intervention program has noted , the shootings in Philadelphia are committed by a small fraction of the city ’ s overall population ; one half of one percent of all residents .
The vast majority of Philadelphians who own guns or want to own one aren ’ t ever going to commit a violent crime , so why target them and their Second Amendment rights when city leaders could focus on the small number of individuals driving the violence and bloodshed instead ?
That ’ s the goal of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are willing to get behind the project , it could have a major impact .
I ’ ve written about programs like this before and the success that they ’ ve had in reducing homicides and gang-related shootings in cities around the country , but in order for Philadelphia ’ s program to succeed , District Attorney Larry Krasner is going to have to buy in to the idea of referring cases to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution .
While social services , job training and mental health services are the “ carrot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring that there are actual consequences for shooting someone , and that means taking persistent violent offenders out of the local courts and prosecuting them in federal court , where those convicted will typically serve longer sentences and are not eligible for early release until at least 85 % of their sentence has been served .
Unfortunately , Krasner and U.S. Attorney William McSwain haven ’ t seen eye-to-eye on many criminal justice issues , with McSwain accusing the D.A .
of a soft-on-crime approach .
It remains to be seen if Krasner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city ’ s most violent offenders if it means working hand-in-hand with the federal Department of Justice .
In addition to the Gun Violence Intervention program , there ’ s another anti-violence initiative in Philadelphia that ’ s worth highlighting .
CBS Philly recently profiled the Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout ( or YEAH Philly ) , a program that enables teens and local police to sit down and talk with one another in the hopes of dispelling mistrust and suspicion on both sides .
“ When people in the hood see cops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out the way , ” Tyree Rudolph said .
“ Being able to speak to a cop face to face and not have no boundaries on what I have to say , is probably the best thing you can do for my generation.
” Officer [ Ian ] Nance coordinates with YEAH Philly getting groups of Philadelphia patrol officers to take part in sessions with the teens , sometimes even simulating shooting situations .
These are kids who say they are frustrated , not only by police but also by the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t feel like they care about the community and the youngsters , ” a YEAH Philly member said .
“ In the climate that we ’ re currently in , we need to have some very serious conversations , ” Officer Nance said .
“ The uniform doesn ’ t make you perfect and it doesn ’ t absolve you of your sins .
We have good people in the department , we have bad people in the department .
People have to be accountable , and we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring down the homicide rate , police have to be able to make arrests , and prosecutors have to be able to make a case .
That can be tough to do when witnesses may view law enforcement with as much suspicion as they do the gang members making life miserable on their block , or if they ’ re concerned about their own safety if they do testify .
Breaking down those barriers of distrust is hugely important , and conversations like these can go a long way towards redefining the relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As both a Second Amendment supporter and someone who has come to the conclusion that fighting crime by trying to reduce the supply of illicit firearms isn ’ t nearly as important as reducing the demand for them , I applaud these efforts to take on the city ’ s growing homicides without trying to impose more restrictions on the law-abiding residents of Philadelphia .
I ’ m just concerned that with anti-gun politicians like Mayor Kenney and D.A .
Krasner in charge these programs aren ’ t going to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will still be seen as the primary strategy to fight crime , despite its failures .

Homicides and shootings in Philadelphia are up by more than 30% this year, reaching levels not seen for over a decade. While Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner continue to talk up the need for more gun control laws, there are some signs that the old school approach to reducing “gun violence” isn’t sitting well with Philadelphia residents.
Military-grade weapons should not be on our streets. We need smart gun control to keep guns like this out of the wrong hands. https://t.co/d7i1vZbMH8 — Jim #MaskUpPHL Kenney (@PhillyMayor) August 16, 2020
Check out the replies to Mayor Kenney’s tweet, and you won’t see much support for his demand for “smart gun control,” and for good reason. As the city’s Group Violence Intervention program has noted, the shootings in Philadelphia are committed by a small fraction of the city’s overall population; one half of one percent of all residents. The vast majority of Philadelphians who own guns or want to own one aren’t ever going to commit a violent crime, so why target them and their Second Amendment rights when city leaders could focus on the small number of individuals driving the violence and bloodshed instead?
That’s the goal of the GVI effort, and if city leaders are willing to get behind the project, it could have a major impact.
I’ve written about programs like this before and the success that they’ve had in reducing homicides and gang-related shootings in cities around the country, but in order for Philadelphia’s program to succeed, District Attorney Larry Krasner is going to have to buy in to the idea of referring cases to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. While social services, job training and mental health services are the “carrot,” the “stick” involves ensuring that there are actual consequences for shooting someone, and that means taking persistent violent offenders out of the local courts and prosecuting them in federal court, where those convicted will typically serve longer sentences and are not eligible for early release until at least 85% of their sentence has been served.
Unfortunately, Krasner and U.S. Attorney William McSwain haven’t seen eye-to-eye on many criminal justice issues, with McSwain accusing the D.A. of a soft-on-crime approach. It remains to be seen if Krasner is willing to get tough on the city’s most violent offenders if it means working hand-in-hand with the federal Department of Justice.
In addition to the Gun Violence Intervention program, there’s another anti-violence initiative in Philadelphia that’s worth highlighting. CBS Philly recently profiled the Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout (or YEAH Philly), a program that enables teens and local police to sit down and talk with one another in the hopes of dispelling mistrust and suspicion on both sides.
“When people in the hood see cops, it’s either run or get out the way,” Tyree Rudolph said. “Being able to speak to a cop face to face and not have no boundaries on what I have to say, is probably the best thing you can do for my generation.” Officer [Ian] Nance coordinates with YEAH Philly getting groups of Philadelphia patrol officers to take part in sessions with the teens, sometimes even simulating shooting situations. These are kids who say they are frustrated, not only by police but also by the people causing crime in their communities. “I don’t feel like they care about the community and the youngsters,” a YEAH Philly member said. “In the climate that we’re currently in, we need to have some very serious conversations,” Officer Nance said. “The uniform doesn’t make you perfect and it doesn’t absolve you of your sins. We have good people in the department, we have bad people in the department. People have to be accountable, and we have to hold people accountable.”
In order to bring down the homicide rate, police have to be able to make arrests, and prosecutors have to be able to make a case. That can be tough to do when witnesses may view law enforcement with as much suspicion as they do the gang members making life miserable on their block, or if they’re concerned about their own safety if they do testify. Breaking down those barriers of distrust is hugely important, and conversations like these can go a long way towards redefining the relationship between police and the residents they serve.
As both a Second Amendment supporter and someone who has come to the conclusion that fighting crime by trying to reduce the supply of illicit firearms isn’t nearly as important as reducing the demand for them, I applaud these efforts to take on the city’s growing homicides without trying to impose more restrictions on the law-abiding residents of Philadelphia. I’m just concerned that with anti-gun politicians like Mayor Kenney and D.A. Krasner in charge these programs aren’t going to get the support they need, and gun control will still be seen as the primary strategy to fight crime, despite its failures.


bearingarms--2020-08-20--"Gun Suicides" Already Increasing Prior To Pandemic

In response to COVID-19 concerns , many Americans went out and bought a firearm .
Since then , the gun surge hasn ’ t really let up .
Then again , riots every night for months on end don ’ t really make people feel safe enough to go without a gun , by and large .
Yet one thing we ’ ve seen over and over again since then are people popping off about how suicides are going to increase .
After all , we have all these new gun owners and the world is crap and that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , the usual .
However , it seems that while we may see suicide by firearm increase , it may not be because of the pandemic , the gun buying surge , or any of those factors .
How can I say that ?
Well , because it was happening before any of that .
Even before the pandemic , suicide rates in the United States were rising , according to a new government report .
While suicide rates in both urban and rural areas rose steadily between 2000 and 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas after 2007 , rising 3 % every year compared to the 1 % increase seen each year between 2000 and 2007 , the National Center for Health Statistics report found .
Of course , the media can ’ t get away from blaming the pandemic for a potential increase .
There are , however , early indicators that the pandemic is taking a toll on mental health , which could potentially drive the country ’ s suicide rate even higher .
A CDC survey from late June found that 40 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or substance use issues during the pandemic .
There was also a striking number of those surveyed who reported seriously having considered suicide in the 30 days prior to taking the survey .
Among those respondents , those mostly likely to say they had considered suicide were young , Hispanic or front-line workers .
A quarter of people between the ages of 18 and 24 ; 19 % of Hispanic respondents ; 31 % of caregivers for adults ; and 22 % of essential workers said they had seriously considered suicide in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be surprised if the pandemic did drive more people to kill themselves .
They shouldn ’ t , of course , and if you ’ re someone who might be thinking of this , then please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 .
Yet despite that , some may well decide that living their life stuck at home , not able to go anywhere without wearing a dystopian nightmare mask is just something they don ’ t want to deal with , especially while being called racist because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular organization .
With that , though , we ’ re likely to see many people use that suicide spike–a spike we can ’ t be certain was caused by any one factor–as evidence that we need more gun control , that we need to somehow interfere with the rights of the majority because of the acts of a distinct minority .
That ’ s not remotely sane , yet gun control tends not to be .
We have to remember that the spike started before the pandemic , the riots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been driven by people trying to escape the Michael Bloomberg ads on YouTube , but that seems a bit drastic .
Seriously , we don ’ t know what ’ s driving any of this .
Not yet , anyway , so don ’ t let people try to convince you the surge in suicides is simply because more people bought guns .
That dog don ’ t hunt .

In response to COVID-19 concerns, many Americans went out and bought a firearm. Since then, the gun surge hasn’t really let up. Then again, riots every night for months on end don’t really make people feel safe enough to go without a gun, by and large.
Yet one thing we’ve seen over and over again since then are people popping off about how suicides are going to increase. After all, we have all these new gun owners and the world is crap and that means people are going to die.
You know, the usual.
However, it seems that while we may see suicide by firearm increase, it may not be because of the pandemic, the gun buying surge, or any of those factors. How can I say that? Well, because it was happening before any of that.
Even before the pandemic, suicide rates in the United States were rising, according to a new government report. While suicide rates in both urban and rural areas rose steadily between 2000 and 2018, the pace of increase quickened in rural areas after 2007, rising 3% every year compared to the 1% increase seen each year between 2000 and 2007, the National Center for Health Statistics report found.
Of course, the media can’t get away from blaming the pandemic for a potential increase.
There are, however, early indicators that the pandemic is taking a toll on mental health, which could potentially drive the country’s suicide rate even higher. A CDC survey from late June found that 40% of U.S. adults reported struggling with mental health or substance use issues during the pandemic. There was also a striking number of those surveyed who reported seriously having considered suicide in the 30 days prior to taking the survey. Among those respondents, those mostly likely to say they had considered suicide were young, Hispanic or front-line workers. A quarter of people between the ages of 18 and 24; 19% of Hispanic respondents; 31% of caregivers for adults; and 22% of essential workers said they had seriously considered suicide in the past month.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the pandemic did drive more people to kill themselves. They shouldn’t, of course, and if you’re someone who might be thinking of this, then please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.
Yet despite that, some may well decide that living their life stuck at home, not able to go anywhere without wearing a dystopian nightmare mask is just something they don’t want to deal with, especially while being called racist because they won’t bend the knee to a particular organization.
With that, though, we’re likely to see many people use that suicide spike–a spike we can’t be certain was caused by any one factor–as evidence that we need more gun control, that we need to somehow interfere with the rights of the majority because of the acts of a distinct minority. That’s not remotely sane, yet gun control tends not to be.
We have to remember that the spike started before the pandemic, the riots, and everything else. I suppose it might have been driven by people trying to escape the Michael Bloomberg ads on YouTube, but that seems a bit drastic.
Seriously, we don’t know what’s driving any of this. Not yet, anyway, so don’t let people try to convince you the surge in suicides is simply because more people bought guns. That dog don’t hunt.