bearingarms--2020-09-17--2A-Supporting Sheriff Walks Away From Democrat Party

A sheriff in western Pennsylvania has become the latest elected official to jump ship and abandon the Democratic Party , though he says that the party actually left him , not the other way around .
70-year old James Albert was elected sheriff of Westmoreland County last year as a Democrat , but he now believes that his political views align better with the Republicans than Democrats , in large part because of the anti-gun and anti-police rhetoric emanating from all levels of the Democratic Party .
“ I ’ ve been a lifelong Democrat , but a conservative Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m pro-life , a strong supporter of the Second Amendment , a lifetime member of the NRA ( National Rifle Association ) and , today , I feel my ideals are closer to the Republican Party than Democrats.
” Since May , Albert said he has watched news accounts of violent riots , “ arson , mob rule and attacks against law enforcement.
” “ I was saddened and enraged by the murder of David Dorn , a 77-year-old African American retired police captain , who was shot by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Louis , ” Albert said .
“ These outrageous , lawless acts have been met with silence , acquiescence and , in some instances , outright support from the local , state and national leadership of the Democratic Party.
” Albert ’ s been a fixture in Democratic politics in Westmoreland County for years , and before he was elected sheriff he served as a district judge in the county seat of Greensburg .
His decision to switch his affiliation to the GOP surprised some of his friends and former fellow Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner Gina Cerilli , a Democrat , admitted she is surprised with the political move .
Albert and Cerilli regularly campaigned together in 2019 .
“ First , if he says one of the reasons he is changing parties is because of violent acts that occurred elsewhere around the country , his reasoning has no bearing on Westmoreland County .
And if he is really concerned about the African American community , is that ( GOP ) truly the party he wants to join ?
” she asked .
“ On a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party that stands up for the African American community.
” Is it just me , or does Cerilli sound a little defensive ?
Perhaps it ’ s because she knows how important Pennsylvania is in this year ’ s elections , and any elected Democrat walking away from the party in the weeks before Election Day is bad news for the Biden-backers in the Keystone State .
As for her argument that Albert shouldn ’ t concern himself with violent acts outside of the county , you don ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effects and experience the chaos firsthand .
Pittsburgh , just up the road from Sheriff Albert ’ s jurisdiction , has seen sporadic violence and continued protests all summer .
In fact , just a couple of days ago three protesters were charged with disorderly conduct for harassing diners over Labor Day weekend .
The simple truth is that the Democratic Party ’ s hard-left turn over the past decade has left a lot of folks like Sheriff Albert feeling unwelcome in the party that they called home for decades .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republican policies that Albert doesn ’ t agree with , but as he said , overall he feels more in line with the GOP these days than the Democrats .
Rather than sniping at Albert ’ s decision , Democrats like Cerilli should actually listen to what he ’ s saying .
As I point out here recently that there ’ s just one Democrat left in Congress who ’ s “ A+ ” rated by the National Rifle Association , when as recently as 2010 nearly a quarter of the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA ’ s top grade .
Democrats have embraced an anti-gun agenda ( that coincidentally , depends on armed police to enforce their gun control laws ) , and party leadership has made it clear that there ’ s no room in today ’ s Democratic Party for those who embrace the right to keep and bear arms .
Where are Democrats like James Albert supposed to go ?
Are they supposed to just give up and become non-voters ?
Shrug their shoulders and walk away from politics altogether ?
Maybe that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not likely to get their wish .
Instead , more folks like James Albert will likely find refuge in the Republican Party as their longtime political home becomes downright hostile towards the issues that matter the most to them , including the right to keep and bear arms .

A sheriff in western Pennsylvania has become the latest elected official to jump ship and abandon the Democratic Party, though he says that the party actually left him, not the other way around. 70-year old James Albert was elected sheriff of Westmoreland County last year as a Democrat, but he now believes that his political views align better with the Republicans than Democrats, in large part because of the anti-gun and anti-police rhetoric emanating from all levels of the Democratic Party.
“I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, but a conservative Democrat at that,” he said. “I’m pro-life, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, a lifetime member of the NRA (National Rifle Association) and, today, I feel my ideals are closer to the Republican Party than Democrats.” Since May, Albert said he has watched news accounts of violent riots, “arson, mob rule and attacks against law enforcement.” “I was saddened and enraged by the murder of David Dorn, a 77-year-old African American retired police captain, who was shot by a pawn shop looter during a protest in St. Louis,” Albert said. “These outrageous, lawless acts have been met with silence, acquiescence and, in some instances, outright support from the local, state and national leadership of the Democratic Party.”
Albert’s been a fixture in Democratic politics in Westmoreland County for years, and before he was elected sheriff he served as a district judge in the county seat of Greensburg. His decision to switch his affiliation to the GOP surprised some of his friends and former fellow Democrats, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Commissioner Gina Cerilli, a Democrat, admitted she is surprised with the political move. Albert and Cerilli regularly campaigned together in 2019. “First, if he says one of the reasons he is changing parties is because of violent acts that occurred elsewhere around the country, his reasoning has no bearing on Westmoreland County. And if he is really concerned about the African American community, is that (GOP) truly the party he wants to join?” she asked. “On a national level, the Republican Party is not the party that stands up for the African American community.”
Is it just me, or does Cerilli sound a little defensive? Perhaps it’s because she knows how important Pennsylvania is in this year’s elections, and any elected Democrat walking away from the party in the weeks before Election Day is bad news for the Biden-backers in the Keystone State.
As for her argument that Albert shouldn’t concern himself with violent acts outside of the county, you don’t have to travel far outside Westmoreland County to see the effects and experience the chaos firsthand. Pittsburgh, just up the road from Sheriff Albert’s jurisdiction, has seen sporadic violence and continued protests all summer. In fact, just a couple of days ago three protesters were charged with disorderly conduct for harassing diners over Labor Day weekend.
One of the incidents occurred in front of Sienna Mercato on Penn Avenue. A social media video showed Black Lives Matter protesters yelling and cursing at people eating outside the restaurant. One woman walked up to a table and drank someone’s drink while several other people smashed glasses on the ground. In another video, demonstrators became aggressive toward a manager inside a McDonald’s restaurant.
The simple truth is that the Democratic Party’s hard-left turn over the past decade has left a lot of folks like Sheriff Albert feeling unwelcome in the party that they called home for decades. I’m sure that there are plenty of Republican policies that Albert doesn’t agree with, but as he said, overall he feels more in line with the GOP these days than the Democrats. Rather than sniping at Albert’s decision, Democrats like Cerilli should actually listen to what he’s saying.
As I point out here recently that there’s just one Democrat left in Congress who’s “A+” rated by the National Rifle Association, when as recently as 2010 nearly a quarter of the Democrats in the House of Representatives earned the NRA’s top grade. Democrats have embraced an anti-gun agenda (that coincidentally, depends on armed police to enforce their gun control laws), and party leadership has made it clear that there’s no room in today’s Democratic Party for those who embrace the right to keep and bear arms.
Where are Democrats like James Albert supposed to go? Are they supposed to just give up and become non-voters? Shrug their shoulders and walk away from politics altogether? Maybe that’s what Democrats want, but they’re not likely to get their wish. Instead, more folks like James Albert will likely find refuge in the Republican Party as their longtime political home becomes downright hostile towards the issues that matter the most to them, including the right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Study Claims Neighbors' Lax Gun Laws Thwart Gun Control Efforts

Let ’ s say you live in a state with relatively few gun laws .
Your state is relatively peaceful , too .
Oh , the bigger cities have their share of violence , to be sure , but most of your state is pretty chill .
Next door , though , is a state that has more problems .
Most of the state is fine , of course , but the large city there is reminiscent of Beirut in the 80s .
That state has tons of gun laws , but none of them have done much of anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know .
However , then someone comes along and blames your state for that other state ’ s problems .
How are you going to react ?
Some will somehow think it ’ s your state ’ s duty to restrict gun rights so that other state can get their house in order while more will wonder why that ’ s your state ’ s problem in the first place .
Yet now there ’ s a study making the claim that its your state ’ s fault .
Overall , research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale and ownership of firearms reduce firearm-related deaths .
However , some states have relatively high rates of gun deaths despite strict regulations .
To investigate why this might be the case , scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham , and the Boston University School of Public Health at Boston , MA , looked into the effects of firearm laws in neighboring states .
They used the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System to obtain figures for firearm-related deaths in the 48 adjacent U.S. states from 2000 to 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including homicides and suicides , but excluding deaths due to shootings by police or other law enforcement agents .
The scientists also searched the State Firearm Laws Database for laws in each state regarding : The team used the number of these laws as a proxy for gun control strength in each state .
Their first mistake was believing the incredibly flawed research they ’ re citing .
However , they go on .
Overall , stronger state gun laws were associated with reduced firearm deaths , but having a neighboring state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect .
Larger policy differences across state borders were associated with increased gun-related deaths , suicides , and homicides , though the results were statistically stronger for suicide than homicide .
“ This study adds to the growing literature emphasizing the role played by neighboring states ’ firearm regulations in addition to own-state firearm regulations in firearm deaths .
Failing to account for neighboring states with weaker laws , in some instances , can make a state ’ s own regulations appear less effective in reducing firearm deaths.
” The scientists calculate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for weaker firearm laws in neighboring states make it appear as though a state ’ s laws were about 20 % less effective at reducing deaths than they really were .
See , Chicago , as an example , continues to blame Indiana for their problems , yet Indiana doesn ’ t have anything like Chicago ’ s problems in the first place .
In other words , it isn ’ t the availability of firearms that ’ s the problem .
Further , federal law requires out-of-state purchases to follow the laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , if you buy a gun in Indiana and you ’ re from Illinois , you have to comply with Illinois state law .
So people can ’ t just roll into a less regulated state and lawfully bypass their state ’ s gun control laws .
In other words , if people are buying guns in other states , they ’ re either using straw buyers ( which are illegal ) or otherwise breaking federal law to do so .
Meanwhile , those states with laxer gun laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the states having issues .
Funny how that shakes out , isn ’ t it ?
However , for the sake of argument , let ’ s say the states around Illinois decide it ’ s their duty to help .
They enact Illinois-style gun control .
According to the study , this will stop people from buying guns , right ?
At worst , they ’ ll just drive further to get them illegally .
That ’ s it .
Look , the problem with violent crime in these cities isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is that for some reason , these cities can ’ t get a handle on violence .
If guns alone accounted for violent crime , the rural parts of the country would be completely unpopulated because of all the murders .
They ’ re not .
All this study has done is try to provide justification for some states to try and force their neighbors to adopt draconian gun restrictions .
That ’ s it .
It ’ s not going to work .

Let’s say you live in a state with relatively few gun laws. Your state is relatively peaceful, too. Oh, the bigger cities have their share of violence, to be sure, but most of your state is pretty chill.
Next door, though, is a state that has more problems. Most of the state is fine, of course, but the large city there is reminiscent of Beirut in the 80s. That state has tons of gun laws, but none of them have done much of anything to stop the violence. Shocking, I know.
However, then someone comes along and blames your state for that other state’s problems. How are you going to react?
Some will somehow think it’s your state’s duty to restrict gun rights so that other state can get their house in order while more will wonder why that’s your state’s problem in the first place.
Yet now there’s a study making the claim that its your state’s fault.
Overall, research indicates that stronger state laws governing the sale and ownership of firearms reduce firearm-related deaths. However, some states have relatively high rates of gun deaths despite strict regulations. To investigate why this might be the case, scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Boston University School of Public Health at Boston, MA, looked into the effects of firearm laws in neighboring states. They used the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System to obtain figures for firearm-related deaths in the 48 adjacent U.S. states from 2000 to 2017. There were 578,022 firearm deaths in total, including homicides and suicides, but excluding deaths due to shootings by police or other law enforcement agents. The scientists also searched the State Firearm Laws Database for laws in each state regarding: background checks
gun dealer regulations
buyer regulations
gun-trafficking laws The team used the number of these laws as a proxy for gun control strength in each state.
Their first mistake was believing the incredibly flawed research they’re citing.
However, they go on.
Overall, stronger state gun laws were associated with reduced firearm deaths, but having a neighboring state with more permissive laws undermined this protective effect. Larger policy differences across state borders were associated with increased gun-related deaths, suicides, and homicides, though the results were statistically stronger for suicide than homicide. The authors conclude: “This study adds to the growing literature emphasizing the role played by neighboring states’ firearm regulations in addition to own-state firearm regulations in firearm deaths. Failing to account for neighboring states with weaker laws, in some instances, can make a state’s own regulations appear less effective in reducing firearm deaths.” The scientists calculate that, on average, failure to account for weaker firearm laws in neighboring states make it appear as though a state’s laws were about 20% less effective at reducing deaths than they really were.
Except, I don’t buy it.
See, Chicago, as an example, continues to blame Indiana for their problems, yet Indiana doesn’t have anything like Chicago’s problems in the first place. In other words, it isn’t the availability of firearms that’s the problem.
Further, federal law requires out-of-state purchases to follow the laws of the buyer’s home state. In other words, if you buy a gun in Indiana and you’re from Illinois, you have to comply with Illinois state law. So people can’t just roll into a less regulated state and lawfully bypass their state’s gun control laws.
In other words, if people are buying guns in other states, they’re either using straw buyers (which are illegal) or otherwise breaking federal law to do so.
Meanwhile, those states with laxer gun laws tend to not be nearly as violent as the states having issues. Funny how that shakes out, isn’t it?
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the states around Illinois decide it’s their duty to help. They enact Illinois-style gun control. According to the study, this will stop people from buying guns, right?
Wrong.
At worst, they’ll just drive further to get them illegally. That’s it.
Look, the problem with violent crime in these cities isn’t guns and never has been. The problem is that for some reason, these cities can’t get a handle on violence. If guns alone accounted for violent crime, the rural parts of the country would be completely unpopulated because of all the murders. They’re not.
All this study has done is try to provide justification for some states to try and force their neighbors to adopt draconian gun restrictions. That’s it.
It’s not going to work.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Gun Rights Policy Conference Moves Online, Registration Open

The Gun Rights Policy Conference is one of the biggest gatherings of Second Amendment activists every year , and 2020 is no exception , even though the event is moving entirely online for the first time ever .
The GRPC was originally slated to be held this weekend in Orlando , Florida , but thanks to COVID-19 the Second Amendment Foundation , which hosts the event , decided several weeks ago to make this year ’ s conference an all-virtual affair .
The conference will take place this Saturday and Sunday ( September 19th and 20th ) with a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2A advocates like Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode ( who ’ s also the named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging California ’ s ban on online and out-of-state ammunition sales ) , Rep. Steve Scalise , Sen. Thom Tillis , Gun Talk host Tom Gresham , NRA-ILA executive director Jason Ouimet , and many more .
I ’ ll be speaking at GRPC for the first time as part of a panel on the media and the Second Amendment , and it should be a fantastic weekend .
You ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events live on YouTube and Facebook , but the SAF ’ s Alan Gottlieb says if you pre-register at www.saf.org/grpc you ’ ll also have access to a free Digital Second Amendment Library .
Gottlieb says the pre-registration has already set a GRPC record , and they ’ re hoping to add to the numbers of online attendees before the conference officially kicks off on Saturday .
In addition to the speeches and discussions , folks can also take part in several virtual events on both Friday and Saturday evenings via Zoom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online with many of the speakers .
I ’ m going to do my best to make it to as many events as possible , though my rural Internet connection may impede my ability to connect to the Zoom events in the evening .
The panel discussion on the media and the Second Amendment will take place on Saturday , September 19th at 2 p.m. Eastern , and I ’ ll be joined by my friends AWR Hawkins of Breitbart and the Washington Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski as talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fight to destroy it ) that takes place within the news media .
There are several other panels that I ’ m also really looking forward to watching , including a discussion that ’ s scheduled to take place Sunday afternoon just after 3 p.m. Eastern on “ Expanding the Second Amendment Family ” with some truly excellent Second Amendment advocates like No Other Choice ’ s Kevin Dixie , Detroit firearms instructor Rick Ector , Diversity Shoot founder Tony Simon , and Erin Palette and Nikki Stallard of the Pink Pistols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ updates from 2A attorneys like David Kopel of the Independence Institute , tips on how to use new media to advance a 2A message , and much more .
You can find a full schedule at www.saf.org/grpc , and I hope you ’ ll join me online this weekend as thousands of Second Amendment activists and supporters gather to elect freedom this November .

The Gun Rights Policy Conference is one of the biggest gatherings of Second Amendment activists every year, and 2020 is no exception, even though the event is moving entirely online for the first time ever. The GRPC was originally slated to be held this weekend in Orlando, Florida, but thanks to COVID-19 the Second Amendment Foundation, which hosts the event, decided several weeks ago to make this year’s conference an all-virtual affair.
The conference will take place this Saturday and Sunday (September 19th and 20th) with a full lineup of panel discussions and speeches from 2A advocates like Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode (who’s also the named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on online and out-of-state ammunition sales), Rep. Steve Scalise, Sen. Thom Tillis, Gun Talk host Tom Gresham, NRA-ILA executive director Jason Ouimet, and many more. I’ll be speaking at GRPC for the first time as part of a panel on the media and the Second Amendment, and it should be a fantastic weekend.
You’ll be able to watch all of the GRPC events live on YouTube and Facebook, but the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb says if you pre-register at www.saf.org/grpc you’ll also have access to a free Digital Second Amendment Library. Gottlieb says the pre-registration has already set a GRPC record, and they’re hoping to add to the numbers of online attendees before the conference officially kicks off on Saturday.
In addition to the speeches and discussions, folks can also take part in several virtual events on both Friday and Saturday evenings via Zoom, allowing virtual attendees to mix and mingle online with many of the speakers. I’m going to do my best to make it to as many events as possible, though my rural Internet connection may impede my ability to connect to the Zoom events in the evening.
The panel discussion on the media and the Second Amendment will take place on Saturday, September 19th at 2 p.m. Eastern, and I’ll be joined by my friends AWR Hawkins of Breitbart and the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski as talk about the fight for the Second Amendment (and the fight to destroy it) that takes place within the news media.
There are several other panels that I’m also really looking forward to watching, including a discussion that’s scheduled to take place Sunday afternoon just after 3 p.m. Eastern on “Expanding the Second Amendment Family” with some truly excellent Second Amendment advocates like No Other Choice’s Kevin Dixie, Detroit firearms instructor Rick Ector, Diversity Shoot founder Tony Simon, and Erin Palette and Nikki Stallard of the Pink Pistols.
There’ll also be legal updates from 2A attorneys like David Kopel of the Independence Institute, tips on how to use new media to advance a 2A message, and much more. You can find a full schedule at www.saf.org/grpc, and I hope you’ll join me online this weekend as thousands of Second Amendment activists and supporters gather to elect freedom this November.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Armed Oregon Woman Stops Attempted Wildfire Arsonist

The West Coast states are basically on fire .
Look at a map of wildfires going right now and you ’ re not going to see a lot of green beneath all the fire icons .
California , Oregon and Washington are having major issues .
Air quality is through the toilet making it extremely difficult just to live in those states right now , particularly if you have any breathing issues .
Wildfires are nasty , particularly when states don ’ t conduct controlled burns to take care of the underbrush .
Yet they can start by accident .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to get fancy with a gender reveal party of all things .
However , some have been started by arson , contrary to what some might want you to believe .
Some nimrod in Oregon apparently figured there weren ’ t enough wildfires going right now , so he allegedly decided he ’ d start one himself .
You know , as one apparently does when they ’ re a mentally-defective sociopath or something .
Unfortunately for this dipstick , he ran into a bit of a snag .
An Oregon woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at gunpoint after she found him on her property with matches , dramatic video footage shows .
“ What are you doing on my property ?
Did you light anything on fire ?
” Kat Cast shouts as she clutches a firearm , according to footage she posted on Facebook .
When the unidentified man responds that he was “ just passing through , ” she demands to know why he ’ s holding matches .
“ I smoke , ” he replies — to which Cast asks to see his cigarettes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ none , and she holds him there until police arrive and haul him away in handcuffs .
Yeah , doesn ’ t look good for our intrepid moron .
Frankly , the woman did the right thing .
Some will argue that she didn ’ t need the gun , but I disagree .
Fire has killed more than 30 people this year and this individual seems to have wanted to start one that could claim dozens more .
No , the gun was warranted .
Now , the suspect will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private property with matches and absolutely no reason to have been there with them .
To be clear , having matches in and of itself isn ’ t illegal .
I know people who carry matches or a lighter as a “ just in case ” kind of thing , part of their everyday carry because sometimes , they need fire .
That ’ s not illegal .
For this guy , though , it ’ s the confluence of events that raises suspicions .
First , he ’ s on private property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s seen with matches on that property .
Third , he makes an excuse but evidence suggests the excuse was bogus .
Yeah , I think this guy was trying to start a wildfire and good on this lady for not letting it happen .
Frankly , people who start these fires should be held personally liable for all the damages .
They should have their wages garnished until they repay everyone for those damages .
Yes , that will probably be for life , but so what ?
And no , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be discharged through bankruptcy .
Maybe then folks like this woman wouldn ’ t need to confront would-be arsonists on their property .

The West Coast states are basically on fire. Look at a map of wildfires going right now and you’re not going to see a lot of green beneath all the fire icons. California, Oregon and Washington are having major issues. Air quality is through the toilet making it extremely difficult just to live in those states right now, particularly if you have any breathing issues.
Wildfires are nasty, particularly when states don’t conduct controlled burns to take care of the underbrush. Yet they can start by accident. One California fire was caused by someone trying to get fancy with a gender reveal party of all things.
However, some have been started by arson, contrary to what some might want you to believe.
Some nimrod in Oregon apparently figured there weren’t enough wildfires going right now, so he allegedly decided he’d start one himself. You know, as one apparently does when they’re a mentally-defective sociopath or something.
Unfortunately for this dipstick, he ran into a bit of a snag.
An Oregon woman forced a suspected arsonist to the ground at gunpoint after she found him on her property with matches, dramatic video footage shows. “What are you doing on my property? Did you light anything on fire?” Kat Cast shouts as she clutches a firearm, according to footage she posted on Facebook. When the unidentified man responds that he was “just passing through,” she demands to know why he’s holding matches. “I smoke,” he replies — to which Cast asks to see his cigarettes. The man then admits that he has none, and she holds him there until police arrive and haul him away in handcuffs.
Yeah, doesn’t look good for our intrepid moron.
Frankly, the woman did the right thing. Some will argue that she didn’t need the gun, but I disagree. Fire has killed more than 30 people this year and this individual seems to have wanted to start one that could claim dozens more.
No, the gun was warranted.
Now, the suspect will have to justify to police why he was on private property with matches and absolutely no reason to have been there with them.
To be clear, having matches in and of itself isn’t illegal. I know people who carry matches or a lighter as a “just in case” kind of thing, part of their everyday carry because sometimes, they need fire. That’s not illegal.
For this guy, though, it’s the confluence of events that raises suspicions. First, he’s on private property without permission. Second, he’s seen with matches on that property. Third, he makes an excuse but evidence suggests the excuse was bogus.
Yeah, I think this guy was trying to start a wildfire and good on this lady for not letting it happen.
Frankly, people who start these fires should be held personally liable for all the damages. They should have their wages garnished until they repay everyone for those damages. Yes, that will probably be for life, but so what? And no, it shouldn’t be a debt that can be discharged through bankruptcy.
Maybe then folks like this woman wouldn’t need to confront would-be arsonists on their property.
It’s a thought, at least.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Accused Seattle Looter Now Facing Federal Gun Charges

Things just went from bad to worse for Al Talaga .
The 32-year old Washington man was already facing charges of looting after he allegedly smashed the windows of a sneaker store in Seattle during riots back on June 1st , and tried to take off with merchandise from the shop .
Now he ’ s facing federal charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm , which likely would never have been discovered if he hadn ’ t allegedly decided to go looting in the name of justice .
Once officers arrived at the Sneaker City in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one of the looters had been stashing merchandise in a Dodge Magnum parked nearby .
Police ended up impounding the car , and after a court order , searched the vehicle .
Not only did they find some stolen sneakers , they also found a stolen handgun ; a .40 caliber pistol that had been reported stolen from a Tacoma home during a home invasion robbery in 2019 .
A second handgun was found in the car as well .
It ’ s too bad for Talaga that the car itself wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to quickly trace the ownership back to the 32-year old felon .
On Wednesday , federal authorities moved in and arrested Talaga , thankfully without incident .
There ’ s a good chance that Talaga wouldn ’ t have faced serious consequences for his alleged crimes if this case had stayed in the local court system in Seattle .
With the charges filed by the U.S. Attorney , however , Talaga ’ s now facing five years in a federal prison .
Talaga ’ s not the first person charged federally with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late May and early June .
Two weeks ago federal prosecutors filed charges against 24-year old Jacob Little of Everett , Washington , who allegedly was caught on camera in possession of a rifle that had been stolen from a Seattle police cruiser on May 30th .
Using not only the images captured of the riot scene , but tips from the public , Seattle Police investigators linked LITTLE to the stolen firearm .
Images show a man that appears to be LITTLE removing the heavy bag from a Seattle Police vehicle parked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles were heavily damaged and ultimately burned by rioters .
The investigation reveals that in electronic messages following the theft , LITTLE appears to be negotiating the sale of the firearm .
He states in the messages that he has removed the sling and suppressor and the “ red dot ” ( a type of optical sight ) from the rifle .
All those accessories were present on the rifle when stolen from the Seattle Police vehicle .
Oddly , Little is facing ten years in a federal prison if convicted on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Al Talaga is facing half that sentence on the felon in possession charge .
Given the fact that one of the guns found in Talaga ’ s car had been reported stolen , it ’ s curious that federal officials didn ’ t charge him with possession of a stolen firearm as well .
Many of the rioters and looters likely thought that with all the chaos on the streets , there was no way that the police would be able to identify them and charge them with any crimes .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have rested easy in the mistaken belief that they ’ d gotten away with their looting and destruction .
I can ’ t imagine they ’ re resting as easily now while they cool their heels in a jail cell .
Whatever their reasons for participating in the looting , I doubt Talaga and Little feel like it was worth the prison sentences now hanging over their heads .

Things just went from bad to worse for Al Talaga. The 32-year old Washington man was already facing charges of looting after he allegedly smashed the windows of a sneaker store in Seattle during riots back on June 1st, and tried to take off with merchandise from the shop. Now he’s facing federal charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which likely would never have been discovered if he hadn’t allegedly decided to go looting in the name of justice.
Once officers arrived at the Sneaker City in downtown Seattle, several witnesses told them that one of the looters had been stashing merchandise in a Dodge Magnum parked nearby. Police ended up impounding the car, and after a court order, searched the vehicle. Not only did they find some stolen sneakers, they also found a stolen handgun; a .40 caliber pistol that had been reported stolen from a Tacoma home during a home invasion robbery in 2019.
A second handgun was found in the car as well. It’s too bad for Talaga that the car itself wasn’t stolen, because authorities were able to quickly trace the ownership back to the 32-year old felon. On Wednesday, federal authorities moved in and arrested Talaga, thankfully without incident.
There’s a good chance that Talaga wouldn’t have faced serious consequences for his alleged crimes if this case had stayed in the local court system in Seattle. With the charges filed by the U.S. Attorney, however, Talaga’s now facing five years in a federal prison.
Talaga’s not the first person charged federally with firearm offenses during the Seattle riots in late May and early June. Two weeks ago federal prosecutors filed charges against 24-year old Jacob Little of Everett, Washington, who allegedly was caught on camera in possession of a rifle that had been stolen from a Seattle police cruiser on May 30th.
Using not only the images captured of the riot scene, but tips from the public, Seattle Police investigators linked LITTLE to the stolen firearm. Images show a man that appears to be LITTLE removing the heavy bag from a Seattle Police vehicle parked outside the downtown Nordstrom store. The vehicles were heavily damaged and ultimately burned by rioters. The investigation reveals that in electronic messages following the theft, LITTLE appears to be negotiating the sale of the firearm. He states in the messages that he has removed the sling and suppressor and the “red dot” (a type of optical sight) from the rifle. All those accessories were present on the rifle when stolen from the Seattle Police vehicle.
Oddly, Little is facing ten years in a federal prison if convicted on the charge of possessing a stolen firearm, while Al Talaga is facing half that sentence on the felon in possession charge. Given the fact that one of the guns found in Talaga’s car had been reported stolen, it’s curious that federal officials didn’t charge him with possession of a stolen firearm as well.
Many of the rioters and looters likely thought that with all the chaos on the streets, there was no way that the police would be able to identify them and charge them with any crimes. As they weeks went on, they may have rested easy in the mistaken belief that they’d gotten away with their looting and destruction. I can’t imagine they’re resting as easily now while they cool their heels in a jail cell. Whatever their reasons for participating in the looting, I doubt Talaga and Little feel like it was worth the prison sentences now hanging over their heads.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Two Dead, Four Wounded In San Jose Shooting

One upside to the COVID response is that because large groups are tightly restricted , we tended to not have nearly as many mass shootings .
Oh , someone could have pulled one off if they wanted , I suppose , but many of their favorite targets were shut down , leaving mass shooters with nothing to do .
Now that restrictions have eased , we ’ ve seen more shootings of groups .
Last night , though , a vigil for the victim of a traffic accident in San Jose was marred by gunfire .
A family member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a late-night mass shooting near San Jose State University on Wednesday told KPIX 5 that her brother-in-law who was killed had no gang affiliation .
Police said two people were killed and four others injured when a gunman opened fire on a crowd gathered next to a sidewalk memorial for a traffic accident victim in a neighborhood near San Jose State late Tuesday night .
Friends and family members of one of the shooting victims gathered at the scene early Wednesday morning .
They said the crowd was there last night for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22-year-old Jose De Jesus Perez Leyva , who died in a crash on Tuesday .
Witnesses said for some reason , a gunman drove up in a white muscle car and opened fire on the crowd .
San Jose police said officers who responded to the 600 block of S. 8th Street late Tuesday night found a total of five gunshot victims .
Two of the victims were declared dead at the scene , police said , three others were taken to local hospitals and were expected to survive .
During the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person also has been shot .
That victim suffered a non-life threatening injury and was also being treated at a local hospital .
So the good news is that the two killed at the scene are likely to be the only two fatalities .
The bad news , of course , is that there were two fatalities .
Thus far , investigators say that don ’ t have any suspects , nor do they even have a motive .
Police reportedly spent 17 hours on the scene gathering evidence .
However , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family ’ s protestations that one of the victims wasn ’ t involved in gang activity , this may have been gang-related .
Of course , those two things aren ’ t mutually exclusive .
After all , gangs are notorious for hitting innocent bystanders and not really caring .
Since the lockdown more or less ended throughout the nation , we ’ ve seen more and more acts of violence .
This is particularly true since George Floyd ’ s death and the following madness that seems to have swept the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ mass shootings ” by the Gun Violence Archive , which has always had a looser definition of the term than most other sources .
No doubt , this one will be categorized as such by them as well .
Regardless , though , this incident will have an impact on a lot of people , including those who weren ’ t hit .
They all deserve our prayers .

One upside to the COVID response is that because large groups are tightly restricted, we tended to not have nearly as many mass shootings. Oh, someone could have pulled one off if they wanted, I suppose, but many of their favorite targets were shut down, leaving mass shooters with nothing to do.
Now that restrictions have eased, we’ve seen more shootings of groups.
Last night, though, a vigil for the victim of a traffic accident in San Jose was marred by gunfire.
A family member of one of the victims who died in a late-night mass shooting near San Jose State University on Wednesday told KPIX 5 that her brother-in-law who was killed had no gang affiliation. Police said two people were killed and four others injured when a gunman opened fire on a crowd gathered next to a sidewalk memorial for a traffic accident victim in a neighborhood near San Jose State late Tuesday night. Friends and family members of one of the shooting victims gathered at the scene early Wednesday morning. They said the crowd was there last night for a vigil at a makeshift sidewalk memorial for 22-year-old Jose De Jesus Perez Leyva, who died in a crash on Tuesday. Witnesses said for some reason, a gunman drove up in a white muscle car and opened fire on the crowd. San Jose police said officers who responded to the 600 block of S. 8th Street late Tuesday night found a total of five gunshot victims. Two of the victims were declared dead at the scene, police said, three others were taken to local hospitals and were expected to survive. During the investigation, it was discovered that a sixth person also has been shot. That victim suffered a non-life threatening injury and was also being treated at a local hospital.
So the good news is that the two killed at the scene are likely to be the only two fatalities.
The bad news, of course, is that there were two fatalities.
Thus far, investigators say that don’t have any suspects, nor do they even have a motive. Police reportedly spent 17 hours on the scene gathering evidence.
However, there appear to be indications that despite the family’s protestations that one of the victims wasn’t involved in gang activity, this may have been gang-related. Of course, those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. After all, gangs are notorious for hitting innocent bystanders and not really caring.
Since the lockdown more or less ended throughout the nation, we’ve seen more and more acts of violence. This is particularly true since George Floyd’s death and the following madness that seems to have swept the nation.
Many of these have been termed “mass shootings” by the Gun Violence Archive, which has always had a looser definition of the term than most other sources. No doubt, this one will be categorized as such by them as well.
Regardless, though, this incident will have an impact on a lot of people, including those who weren’t hit. They all deserve our prayers.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Details Emerge In Milwaukee Arrest Of Armed Homeowner

The Milwaukee media ’ s finally broken its embargo of the video that went viral on Tuesday evening showing a crowd of protesters outside of a man ’ s home yelling at him while he holds a long gun from inside the house before police showed up , went inside , and escorted the man out in handcuffs a short time later .
Local stations are now all reporting that the man was arrested on a variety of charges , including operating a firearm while intoxicated .
As the tweet above suggests , the speculation was that the man was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , says the Milwaukee Police Department .
Instead , they charged him with using a gun while under the influence , as well as several other charges .
And as it turns out , this wasn ’ t the first time police showed up at the man ’ s home this week .
According to the Milwaukee Police Department , officers were first called to 80th and Townsend on Monday , Sept. 14 , after the 56-year-old man threatened to physically harm his neighbor as he held a chainsaw .
The victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The man was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed .
On Tuesday , Sept. 15 , officers were called to the same location where a crowd had gathered to protest outside the man ’ s residence .
Around 8:30 p.m. , officers were notified by a witness that the 56-year-old man was inside by a window , and motioned with a long gun “ as if he chambered a round , ” and pointed the gun at the crowd .
When officers made contact with the man , they became suspicious that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report by CBS 58 doesn ’ t mention whether they gave the man a field sobriety test , asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test , or tested his blood alcohol level after his arrest , which kind of strikes me as odd .
I ’ d like to know just how intoxicated this guy was .
Are we talking one beer , or had he been steadily pounding back whisky for the three hours that protesters were yelling at him from the street ?
The man , who has yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges of endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon while under the influence of an intoxicant , disorderly conduct while armed and bail jumping .
While the first media accounts do give us some more details , there are still other questions that remain to be answered , starting with “ Why were no protesters also cited for disorderly conduct ?
” The Milwaukee Police Department ’ s statement on the matter simply affirms its support for the right of peaceful protest .
Obviously we need to wait for more facts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Milwaukee Police does at least explain why the homeowner ended up in cuffs on Tuesday evening ( though I ’ m still curious what his BAC was when officers tested him ) .
What their story leaves out , however , is why police apparently don ’ t believe that any of the protesters themselves met the definition of disorderly conduct , which is defined in Wisconsin statute this way : Whoever , in a public or private place , engages in violent , abusive , indecent , profane , boisterous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor .
( 2 ) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply , a person is not in violation of , and may not be charged with a violation of , this section for loading a firearm , or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife , without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried .
I ’ m assuming the homeowner ’ s disorderly conduct charge stems from him allegedly pointing his long gun at the crowd , though police will have to show that it was meant with criminal or malicious intent .
The homeowner ’ s best argument is that he had a mob of people outside his home , the police were apparently present but doing nothing , and he wanted the crowd to know that he was armed and would act in self-defense if necessary .
However , it ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in “ abusive , indecent , profane , boisterous , and unreasonably loud conduct ” that was intended to cause or provoke a disturbance .
According to police , it sounds like the protest outside of the home had been going on for at least three hours .
Where is the line drawn from “ peaceful protest ” to “ disorderly conduct ” ?
Is the line different for a demonstration downtown versus a quiet residential street ?
Heck , for that matter at what point does that mob become a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that ’ s forbidden under Gov .
Tony Evers ’ COVID-19 emergency orders ?
I don ’ t know any of the parties involved here , and I ’ m not about to vouch for the character of strangers .
It could very well be that this guy is innocent .
It ’ s also quite possible that he ’ s guilty of everything he ’ s been charged with .
What I still can ’ t understand why police were only interested in the homeowner alone , and not the mob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .

The Milwaukee media’s finally broken its embargo of the video that went viral on Tuesday evening showing a crowd of protesters outside of a man’s home yelling at him while he holds a long gun from inside the house before police showed up, went inside, and escorted the man out in handcuffs a short time later. Local stations are now all reporting that the man was arrested on a variety of charges, including operating a firearm while intoxicated.
BLM protesters in Milwaukee, Wisc. surround a man’s house. He has a Trump & US flag on the outside. He appears to ready a gun from inside the home. He was reportedly arrested for brandishing the weapon. https://t.co/tMKFUGVCa5 — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 16, 2020
As the tweet above suggests, the speculation was that the man was arrested for brandishing a firearm. Not so, says the Milwaukee Police Department. Instead, they charged him with using a gun while under the influence, as well as several other charges. And as it turns out, this wasn’t the first time police showed up at the man’s home this week.
According to the Milwaukee Police Department, officers were first called to 80th and Townsend on Monday, Sept. 14, after the 56-year-old man threatened to physically harm his neighbor as he held a chainsaw. The victim feared for his safety, police say. The man was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed. On Tuesday, Sept. 15, officers were called to the same location where a crowd had gathered to protest outside the man’s residence. Around 8:30 p.m., officers were notified by a witness that the 56-year-old man was inside by a window, and motioned with a long gun “as if he chambered a round,” and pointed the gun at the crowd.
When officers made contact with the man, they became suspicious that he was under the influence. The report by CBS 58 doesn’t mention whether they gave the man a field sobriety test, asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test, or tested his blood alcohol level after his arrest, which kind of strikes me as odd. I’d like to know just how intoxicated this guy was. Are we talking one beer, or had he been steadily pounding back whisky for the three hours that protesters were yelling at him from the street?
The man, who has yet to be publicly identified, is now facing charges of endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon while under the influence of an intoxicant, disorderly conduct while armed and bail jumping.
While the first media accounts do give us some more details, there are still other questions that remain to be answered, starting with “Why were no protesters also cited for disorderly conduct?” The Milwaukee Police Department’s statement on the matter simply affirms its support for the right of peaceful protest.
Suspect arrested for pointing and aiming a long gun at protesters pic.twitter.com/K7OFuW4Lda — Milwaukee Police (@MilwaukeePolice) September 16, 2020
Obviously we need to wait for more facts to emerge, but the story as told by the Milwaukee Police does at least explain why the homeowner ended up in cuffs on Tuesday evening (though I’m still curious what his BAC was when officers tested him). What their story leaves out, however, is why police apparently don’t believe that any of the protesters themselves met the definition of disorderly conduct, which is defined in Wisconsin statute this way:
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. (2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried.
I’m assuming the homeowner’s disorderly conduct charge stems from him allegedly pointing his long gun at the crowd, though police will have to show that it was meant with criminal or malicious intent. The homeowner’s best argument is that he had a mob of people outside his home, the police were apparently present but doing nothing, and he wanted the crowd to know that he was armed and would act in self-defense if necessary.
However, it’s also pretty clear that the protesters themselves were engaged in “abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, and unreasonably loud conduct” that was intended to cause or provoke a disturbance.
According to police, it sounds like the protest outside of the home had been going on for at least three hours. Where is the line drawn from “peaceful protest” to “disorderly conduct”? Is the line different for a demonstration downtown versus a quiet residential street? Heck, for that matter at what point does that mob become a “large gathering” of more than 50 people that’s forbidden under Gov. Tony Evers’ COVID-19 emergency orders?
I don’t know any of the parties involved here, and I’m not about to vouch for the character of strangers. It could very well be that this guy is innocent. It’s also quite possible that he’s guilty of everything he’s been charged with. What I still can’t understand why police were only interested in the homeowner alone, and not the mob that had gathered outside of his house as well.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Negligent Discharge Takes Woman's Life

Negligent Discharge Takes Woman's Life

Millions of people derive enjoyment from firearms .
They ’ re mechanical marvels that still fascinate us despite the overall premise of modern firearms being quite old .
They ’ re great in so many ways .
But guns have to be respected .
If you don ’ t , bad things can happen .
It ’ s something most gun owners know and understand , but far too many people go through life without being taught that respect .
Then they get guns and they can get stupid .
One such case has claimed the life of an innocent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man cried out “ Oh my God , I didn ’ t mean to ” and “ Don ’ t die ” after he discharged a pistol , fatally striking a woman at a Gurnee residence .
Isaiah J. Cole , 19 , of Gurnee , was charged with involuntary manslaughter , possession of a stolen firearm , unlawful possession of a firearm without a FOID card , three counts of unlawful possession of a control substance , and two counts of unlawful possession of cannabis .
Cole was charged in connection with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 , of Gurnee , which occurred around 12:10 a.m. Sunday in the 600 block of Creekside Circle in Gurnee .
Lake County Assistant State ’ s Attorney Tara Ferrari said that Cole racked the slide on a semi-automatic pistol and ejected a bullet in the gun ’ s chamber .
He then removed the gun ’ s magazine and reinserted it before the gun fired , Ferrari said .
Brewton was struck in the arm and rib cage by the round .
Now , Cole was clearly not the kind of guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also obvious that he wasn ’ t exactly the type to call up an NRA certified instructor and get some classes .
And that may be part of why Brewton is dead .
See , so many people go through life not really learning about firearm safety .
Their parents didn ’ t own guns so they didn ’ t pass anything along .
Maybe they didn ’ t even know gun safety themselves .
As a result , they don ’ t know what to do or what not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun and start screwing around with it .
They don ’ t understand that ejecting a round and then removing the magazine doesn ’ t tend to do much for keeping the chamber cleared .
They don ’ t know anything and there was no one to teach them .
Regardless of how it ’ s done , we need to make sure people understand at least some basics of firearm safety .
Yes , even the criminals who are getting guns .
I don ’ t give a damn about them blasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet .
That ’ s just trash taking out other trash .
What I care about , though , is when other people get hurt because these knuckleheads don ’ t know how to work the weapons they bought illegal or stole from somewhere else .
In an ideal world , there wouldn ’ t be criminals in the first place , but we don ’ t live in an ideal world .
We live in this one .
I ’ ve long advocated for broader dissemination of gun safety education and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an incident like this .
Yes , Cole was apparently a bad man .
Brewton was associating with a bad man .
That doesn ’ t mean she deserved to die .
It especially doesn ’ t mean the it couldn ’ t have been some child walking through the neighborhood , either .

Millions of people derive enjoyment from firearms. They’re mechanical marvels that still fascinate us despite the overall premise of modern firearms being quite old. They’re great in so many ways.
But guns have to be respected. If you don’t, bad things can happen. It’s something most gun owners know and understand, but far too many people go through life without being taught that respect. Then they get guns and they can get stupid.
One such case has claimed the life of an innocent woman.
Prosecutors said that a Gurnee man cried out “Oh my God, I didn’t mean to” and “Don’t die” after he discharged a pistol, fatally striking a woman at a Gurnee residence. Isaiah J. Cole, 19, of Gurnee, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, possession of a stolen firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm without a FOID card, three counts of unlawful possession of a control substance, and two counts of unlawful possession of cannabis. Cole was charged in connection with the shooting of Ameyah T. Brewton, 21, of Gurnee, which occurred around 12:10 a.m. Sunday in the 600 block of Creekside Circle in Gurnee. Lake County Assistant State’s Attorney Tara Ferrari said that Cole racked the slide on a semi-automatic pistol and ejected a bullet in the gun’s chamber. He then removed the gun’s magazine and reinserted it before the gun fired, Ferrari said. Brewton was struck in the arm and rib cage by the round.
Now, Cole was clearly not the kind of guy who can legally buy a gun and it’s also obvious that he wasn’t exactly the type to call up an NRA certified instructor and get some classes.
And that may be part of why Brewton is dead.
See, so many people go through life not really learning about firearm safety. Their parents didn’t own guns so they didn’t pass anything along. Maybe they didn’t even know gun safety themselves. As a result, they don’t know what to do or what not to do. They simply get a gun and start screwing around with it. They don’t understand that ejecting a round and then removing the magazine doesn’t tend to do much for keeping the chamber cleared.
They don’t know anything and there was no one to teach them.
Regardless of how it’s done, we need to make sure people understand at least some basics of firearm safety. Yes, even the criminals who are getting guns. I don’t give a damn about them blasting each other off the face of the planet. That’s just trash taking out other trash. What I care about, though, is when other people get hurt because these knuckleheads don’t know how to work the weapons they bought illegal or stole from somewhere else.
In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be criminals in the first place, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in this one.
I’ve long advocated for broader dissemination of gun safety education and I stand by that, especially in light of an incident like this. Yes, Cole was apparently a bad man. Brewton was associating with a bad man. That doesn’t mean she deserved to die. It especially doesn’t mean the it couldn’t have been some child walking through the neighborhood, either.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--When The First And Second Amendments Collide

Originally , I was hoping to use today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about this video shot on Tuesday night in Milwaukee , Wisconsin .
The video shows a crowd of people gathered outside of a home with a Trump sign and a Thin Blue Line flag hanging by the front door .
The mob is yelling and chanting at the man inside ( apparently named Pete ) and you can see him holding what appears to be a shotgun .
Eventually police arrive , but the man himself is taken into custody , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man .
It would appear that this is the latest collision between the First and Second Amendments , but as much as I ’ d love to delve into the nitty gritty details , I haven ’ t been able to find any actual news stories that provide any details or context to what happened .
As far as Milwaukee news outlets are concerned , this never happened .
Even the Milwaukee Police department has been silent on their social media as far as announcing any arrest or information about why the homeowner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m still working to gather information about what actually happened and what , if any , charges the homeowner is facing here , but in the meantime today ’ s show focuses on a few other cases involving protesters and guns , starting with a California man who ’ s now been accused of assault with a deadly weapon for pointing a gun at a pro-Trump parade of cars near his apartment in Los Angeles County .
Andre Allen Young was identified as the suspect who pointed at a person participating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had stopped in front of the Avalon Woodland Hills apartments , 20544 Ventura Blvd.
, according to Los Angeles police .
The day before , shots had reportedly been fired at a pro-Trump parade , but the shooter was not found .
Police say the next day , a Monday , several vehicles taking part in a parade stopped in front of the apartment complex .
Several people in the apartment complex began to shout and throw glass bottles at the caravan , and one of them pointed a rifle at one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
No suspects were found at the time of the incident , police said , but a rifle was recovered during the search of one of the apartments .
Superficially , this case bears some resemblance to the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis .
Both involve residents walking out of their doors and displaying firearms at nearby protesters .
In the case of the McCloskeys , however , the protesters were marching down a private street and were trespassing .
The pro-Trump parade , on the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There also doesn ’ t appear to have been any threats by the pro-Trump parade participants , while the McCloskeys allege that many in the crowd were threatening them , and one man held up a couple of ammunition magazines and clacked them together , as if indicating that the bullets inside were meant for the couple .
In other words , I think the McCloskeys have a much stronger case for self-defense than Andre Allen Young does .
We also talk about the recent case from Gainesville , Florida , where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped by prosecutors after he was arrested for pointing a gun at protesters who ’ d surrounded his car .
The state ’ s attorney says that after further investigation , the man ’ s vehicle had been the target of protesters , who ultimately broke the car ’ s windshield .
The driver displayed his legally-owned firearm , but not as some act of aggression .
Instead , according to the prosecutor , he was trying to get the protesters to back away so that he could leave the area .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin to the case of Daniel Perry in Austin , Texas , there are no shortage of stories where firearms have played a role ; both for the protesters and agitators as well as counter-protesters or individuals who simply find themselves caught up in the middle of a mob .
During today ’ s VIP Gold live chat with Ed Morrissey , we were asked if leftist prosecutors are going after people who acted in self-defense for political purposes .
In my opinion , it is happening , but you have to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I firmly believe that St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner used the couple as political cannon fodder , and in fact some newly leaked emails from the prosecutor ’ s office certainly seem like there was a rush to judgement and what the McCloskey ’ s attorney calls a “ sense of urgency ” to charge the couple before the Democratic primary in the city of St. Louis .
In cases ( like the case of Kyle Rittenhouse ) , I think it ’ s more likely that prosecutors are trying to send a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up here armed , ” rather than promote a particular politician or the Democratic agenda .
Given the fact that most of the prosecutors are elected officials , however , there ’ s always at least a chance that prosecutors will play politics with these types of cases , and in some jurisdictions it may be an outright certainty .

Originally, I was hoping to use today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about this video shot on Tuesday night in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
BLM protesters in Milwaukee, Wisc. surround a man’s house. He has a Trump & US flag on the outside. He appears to ready a gun from inside the home. He was reportedly arrested for brandishing the weapon. https://t.co/tMKFUGVCa5 — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 16, 2020
The video shows a crowd of people gathered outside of a home with a Trump sign and a Thin Blue Line flag hanging by the front door. The mob is yelling and chanting at the man inside (apparently named Pete) and you can see him holding what appears to be a shotgun. Eventually police arrive, but the man himself is taken into custody, while the crowd outside cheers and taunts the man.
It would appear that this is the latest collision between the First and Second Amendments, but as much as I’d love to delve into the nitty gritty details, I haven’t been able to find any actual news stories that provide any details or context to what happened. As far as Milwaukee news outlets are concerned, this never happened. Even the Milwaukee Police department has been silent on their social media as far as announcing any arrest or information about why the homeowner was taken away in handcuffs.
I’m still working to gather information about what actually happened and what, if any, charges the homeowner is facing here, but in the meantime today’s show focuses on a few other cases involving protesters and guns, starting with a California man who’s now been accused of assault with a deadly weapon for pointing a gun at a pro-Trump parade of cars near his apartment in Los Angeles County.
Andre Allen Young was identified as the suspect who pointed at a person participating in the Aug. 31 pro-Trump parade, which had stopped in front of the Avalon Woodland Hills apartments, 20544 Ventura Blvd., according to Los Angeles police. The day before, shots had reportedly been fired at a pro-Trump parade, but the shooter was not found. Police say the next day, a Monday, several vehicles taking part in a parade stopped in front of the apartment complex. Several people in the apartment complex began to shout and throw glass bottles at the caravan, and one of them pointed a rifle at one of the people who had been arguing with them. No suspects were found at the time of the incident, police said, but a rifle was recovered during the search of one of the apartments.
Superficially, this case bears some resemblance to the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis. Both involve residents walking out of their doors and displaying firearms at nearby protesters. In the case of the McCloskeys, however, the protesters were marching down a private street and were trespassing. The pro-Trump parade, on the other hand, was on a public street.
There also doesn’t appear to have been any threats by the pro-Trump parade participants, while the McCloskeys allege that many in the crowd were threatening them, and one man held up a couple of ammunition magazines and clacked them together, as if indicating that the bullets inside were meant for the couple.
In other words, I think the McCloskeys have a much stronger case for self-defense than Andre Allen Young does.
We also talk about the recent case from Gainesville, Florida, where a 64-year old man had aggravated assault charges dropped by prosecutors after he was arrested for pointing a gun at protesters who’d surrounded his car. The state’s attorney says that after further investigation, the man’s vehicle had been the target of protesters, who ultimately broke the car’s windshield. The driver displayed his legally-owned firearm, but not as some act of aggression. Instead, according to the prosecutor, he was trying to get the protesters to back away so that he could leave the area.
From the Kyle Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin to the case of Daniel Perry in Austin, Texas, there are no shortage of stories where firearms have played a role; both for the protesters and agitators as well as counter-protesters or individuals who simply find themselves caught up in the middle of a mob.
During today’s VIP Gold live chat with Ed Morrissey, we were asked if leftist prosecutors are going after people who acted in self-defense for political purposes. In my opinion, it is happening, but you have to look at each of these cases individually. I firmly believe that St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner used the couple as political cannon fodder, and in fact some newly leaked emails from the prosecutor’s office certainly seem like there was a rush to judgement and what the McCloskey’s attorney calls a “sense of urgency” to charge the couple before the Democratic primary in the city of St. Louis.
In cases (like the case of Kyle Rittenhouse), I think it’s more likely that prosecutors are trying to send a message of “don’t show up here armed,” rather than promote a particular politician or the Democratic agenda. Given the fact that most of the prosecutors are elected officials, however, there’s always at least a chance that prosecutors will play politics with these types of cases, and in some jurisdictions it may be an outright certainty.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Everytown Drops $200K To Defeat Pro-Gun Lawmaker

The National Rifle Association is accused of buying lawmakers all the time .
Anyone who takes a pro-gun stance is accused of being bought and paid for by the gun lobby in general and the NRA in particular .
Time and time again , we hear this claim despite there being zero evidence of bribery or anything of the sort .
And considering the way some have been dishing dirt on the group , if they ’ d done anything of the sort , we ’ d have probably heard about it .
Meanwhile , though , Everytown is dropping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it count as buying candidates ?
A national gun violence prevention group on Tuesday launched a $ 200,000 Spanish-language digital ad campaign slamming Tony Gonzales , the Republican running to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Will Hurd .
The two ads released by the Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund attack Gonzales ’ positions on gun control and health care .
They are the latest in a frenzy of ad purchases in the 23rd Congressional District , a sprawling purple district stretching from San Antonio to El Paso , that Democrats are targeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ni un dedo ” or “ Not even a finger ” – criticizes Gonzales ’ stand against restrictions on gun ownership .
The ad shows images of the August 2019 mass shooting in El Paso , where a gunman opened fire in a Walmart parking lot and killed 23 .
“ Every parent asks , what wouldn ’ t we do to protect our children ?
” a narrator says in Spanish .
“ On the other hand , Republican Tony Gonzales says he wouldn ’ t even lift a finger.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ Protectors ” – focuses on Gonzales ’ support for repealing the Affordable Care Act , as a narrator says those efforts would hurt those with pre-existing conditions during a pandemic .
The ad clips language from a candidate questionnaire in which Gonzales does voice support for repealing Obamacare but specifically notes that “ Pre-existing conditions will be covered to ensure that citizens are covered and not left between the cracks.
” Nevermind that the El Paso shooter obtained his firearm after apparently passing a background check .
What further restrictions would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried out with handguns , not WASR-10s , after all .
And , of course , let ’ s note that Everytown is straying from the gun control that is supposed to be their single issue .
That was something the NRA got blasted over .
More importantly , though , why is it that when they spend money to defeat a candidate , it ’ s good and noble and pure , but if the NRA or any other gun rights group does it , it ’ s buying candidates ?
See @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the most .
I can accept that people disagree with me about guns .
They have a right to be wrong , after all .
What I can ’ t accept is the rank hypocrisy that allows them to justify doing the same stuff they ’ re criticizing their opponents for .
They know damn good and well the NRA isn ’ t doing anything wrong or immoral with their campaign spending .
They know it because they do the exact same thing .
They just don ’ t have the integrity @ @ @ @ @

The National Rifle Association is accused of buying lawmakers all the time. Anyone who takes a pro-gun stance is accused of being bought and paid for by the gun lobby in general and the NRA in particular. Time and time again, we hear this claim despite there being zero evidence of bribery or anything of the sort.
And considering the way some have been dishing dirt on the group, if they’d done anything of the sort, we’d have probably heard about it.
Meanwhile, though, Everytown is dropping piles of cash. At what point does it count as buying candidates?
A national gun violence prevention group on Tuesday launched a $200,000 Spanish-language digital ad campaign slamming Tony Gonzales, the Republican running to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Will Hurd. The two ads released by the Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund attack Gonzales’ positions on gun control and health care. They are the latest in a frenzy of ad purchases in the 23rd Congressional District, a sprawling purple district stretching from San Antonio to El Paso, that Democrats are targeting this fall. The first ad – “Ni un dedo” or “Not even a finger” – criticizes Gonzales’ stand against restrictions on gun ownership. The ad shows images of the August 2019 mass shooting in El Paso, where a gunman opened fire in a Walmart parking lot and killed 23. “Every parent asks, what wouldn’t we do to protect our children?” a narrator says in Spanish. “On the other hand, Republican Tony Gonzales says he wouldn’t even lift a finger.” The second ad – “Protectores” or “Protectors” – focuses on Gonzales’ support for repealing the Affordable Care Act, as a narrator says those efforts would hurt those with pre-existing conditions during a pandemic. The ad clips language from a candidate questionnaire in which Gonzales does voice support for repealing Obamacare but specifically notes that “Pre-existing conditions will be covered to ensure that citizens are covered and not left between the cracks.”
Nevermind that the El Paso shooter obtained his firearm after apparently passing a background check. What further restrictions would they want? Most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not WASR-10s, after all.
And, of course, let’s note that Everytown is straying from the gun control that is supposed to be their single issue. That was something the NRA got blasted over.
More importantly, though, why is it that when they spend money to defeat a candidate, it’s good and noble and pure, but if the NRA or any other gun rights group does it, it’s buying candidates?
See, that’s what pisses me off the most. I can accept that people disagree with me about guns. They have a right to be wrong, after all. What I can’t accept is the rank hypocrisy that allows them to justify doing the same stuff they’re criticizing their opponents for. They know damn good and well the NRA isn’t doing anything wrong or immoral with their campaign spending. They know it because they do the exact same thing.
They just don’t have the integrity to acknowledge that fact.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Gun Control Activists Attempt To Shoot Down School Guardian Program

In the wake of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida in 2018 , the state legislature established the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program to ensure that trained and vetted volunteer school staff could serve as an immediate armed response in the case of another active assailant attack on a school .
The program requires that all staff members serving as a Guardian undergo 144 hours of training , as well as pass psychological tests and a drug screening .
So far , according to the Florida Department of Education , 43 counties in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control activists have been fighting to scrap the idea ever since the Guardian program was enacted into law .
Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety lobbied against an expansion of the law last year , even as a group of parents and the Florida League of Women Voters filed suit to shut down the program through the courts .
A Duval County judge originally ruled that while school guardians are not specifically included in exceptions to the state law allowing firearms on school campuses , the 2018 law authorizing Guardians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed the volunteers to be armed on campus .
The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the state ’ s 1st District Court of Appeals , and on Tuesday a three-judge panel heard oral arguments from both sides .
School-safety laws passed in 2018 and amended in 2019 don ’ t specifically authorize school guardians to carry weapons , Southern Poverty Law Center lawyer Rachel Miller-Ziegler , who represents the plaintiffs , argued Tuesday .
The plaintiffs are relying in part on a provision in Florida law that prohibits people from possessing any firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ razor blade or box cutter , except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities.
” The exception for “ school-sanctioned activities ” for school-safety officers applies only to box cutters and razor blades , not to guns , Miller-Ziegler argued Tuesday .
Yeah , you read that right .
The SPLC attorney is actually arguing that school safety officers can carry a box cutter or a razor blade to protect students , but not a firearm .
That argument was greeted with a great deal of skepticism by Judge Timothy Osterhaus , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel .
Sonja Harrell , who ’ s representing the school board in Duval County , agreed that interpreting state statutes to allow Guardians to carry box cutters but not firearms is ludicrous .
She pointed out that there are multiple parts of the legislation that refer to the carrying and discharge of firearms , but nothing that mentions box cutters or razor blades .
“ They have to report a discharge of a firearm in the performance of his or her duties .
That right there contemplates that these school guardians are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance of their duties , ” she argued .
“ To go through all that training by the sheriff … and then only allow them to have box cutters would not be a reasonable construction of the statute.
” But Judge Scott Makar said the Legislature “ could have made this clear and they didn ’ t. ” The result is a “ compendium of statues ” that includes a law that gives “ clues about ” lawmakers ’ intent , the judge said .
“ It ’ s almost like if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a duck , well maybe it ’ s a duck , but the Legislature didn ’ t actually say that specifically , ” Makar said .
I disagree .
The intent of the state legislature in establishing the Guardian program was clear ; to have an armed response on school campuses in case of an active shooter .
The program requires that Guardians undergo more than 100 hours of training , including the use of firearms .
It requires that applicants possess a concealed carry license in Florida .
It makes no sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Guardian legislation really only wanted to school staff to take on an active shooter with a razor blade .
No matter what the appeals court decides , this case is likely going up to the Florida State Supreme Court , where hopefully a majority of judges will reach the common sense decision that that the state ’ s Guardian program isn ’ t meant to ensure that students are protected by staff armed with box cutters .
Supporters of the program in the state legislature might want to start working on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another bill that makes it crystal clear that school safety officers have the legal authority to carry on school grounds in defense of the students in their care .

In the wake of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018, the state legislature established the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program to ensure that trained and vetted volunteer school staff could serve as an immediate armed response in the case of another active assailant attack on a school. The program requires that all staff members serving as a Guardian undergo 144 hours of training, as well as pass psychological tests and a drug screening.
So far, according to the Florida Department of Education, 43 counties in the state have adopted the program, but gun control activists have been fighting to scrap the idea ever since the Guardian program was enacted into law. Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety lobbied against an expansion of the law last year, even as a group of parents and the Florida League of Women Voters filed suit to shut down the program through the courts.
A Duval County judge originally ruled that while school guardians are not specifically included in exceptions to the state law allowing firearms on school campuses, the 2018 law authorizing Guardians “in support of school-sanctioned activities” allowed the volunteers to be armed on campus.
The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the state’s 1st District Court of Appeals, and on Tuesday a three-judge panel heard oral arguments from both sides.
School-safety laws passed in 2018 and amended in 2019 don’t specifically authorize school guardians to carry weapons, Southern Poverty Law Center lawyer Rachel Miller-Ziegler, who represents the plaintiffs, argued Tuesday. The plaintiffs are relying in part on a provision in Florida law that prohibits people from possessing any firearm or other weapon, “including a razor blade or box cutter, except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities.” The exception for “school-sanctioned activities” for school-safety officers applies only to box cutters and razor blades, not to guns, Miller-Ziegler argued Tuesday.
Yeah, you read that right. The SPLC attorney is actually arguing that school safety officers can carry a box cutter or a razor blade to protect students, but not a firearm. That argument was greeted with a great deal of skepticism by Judge Timothy Osterhaus, one of the three judges on the appellate panel.
“I mean, come on, really,” he said, pointing out that her interpretation would mean that the law authorizes box cutters but not guns for someone who has “more shooting training than somebody” who served in Vietnam. “It goes a little bit beyond box cutters.”
Sonja Harrell, who’s representing the school board in Duval County, agreed that interpreting state statutes to allow Guardians to carry box cutters but not firearms is ludicrous. She pointed out that there are multiple parts of the legislation that refer to the carrying and discharge of firearms, but nothing that mentions box cutters or razor blades.
“They have to report a discharge of a firearm in the performance of his or her duties. That right there contemplates that these school guardians are going to be using firearms in their performance of their duties,” she argued. “To go through all that training by the sheriff … and then only allow them to have box cutters would not be a reasonable construction of the statute.” But Judge Scott Makar said the Legislature “could have made this clear and they didn’t.” The result is a “compendium of statues” that includes a law that gives “clues about” lawmakers’ intent, the judge said. “It’s almost like if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, well maybe it’s a duck, but the Legislature didn’t actually say that specifically,” Makar said.
I disagree. The intent of the state legislature in establishing the Guardian program was clear; to have an armed response on school campuses in case of an active shooter. The program requires that Guardians undergo more than 100 hours of training, including the use of firearms. It requires that applicants possess a concealed carry license in Florida. It makes no sense to presume that the lawmakers who approved the Guardian legislation really only wanted to school staff to take on an active shooter with a razor blade.
No matter what the appeals court decides, this case is likely going up to the Florida State Supreme Court, where hopefully a majority of judges will reach the common sense decision that that the state’s Guardian program isn’t meant to ensure that students are protected by staff armed with box cutters. Supporters of the program in the state legislature might want to start working on a backup plan, however, and introduce another bill that makes it crystal clear that school safety officers have the legal authority to carry on school grounds in defense of the students in their care.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Former San Deigo Sheriff's Captain Pleads Guilty On Gun Charges

For better or worse , there are rules about guns .
Yes , they ’ re all pretty much BS , of course , but those rules exist .
In theory , they exist to keep people safe .
They do no such thing , of course , but that ’ s why proponents support those laws .
Law enforcement is also supposed to keep people safe .
Again , at least in theory .
Sure , we know that they may try , but they can ’ t really protect each individual from harm , but some want certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because we plebes can ’ t be trusted with certain weapons but police can .
A former San Diego County sheriff ’ s captain pleaded guilty Tuesday to running an illegal arms trafficking operation , in which he bought and resold guns available only to law enforcement for both financial and professional gain .
Marco Garmo , 52 , the former captain of the sheriff ’ s Rancho San Diego station and a 27-year member of the department , illegally purchased and resold “ off roster ” firearms , which may be purchased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the general public , according to the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office .
In addition to receiving cash for the firearms , federal prosecutors say that between March 2013 and February 2019 , Garmo conducted the gun sales to create goodwill among potential donors for his planned campaign to run for San Diego County sheriff .
Prosecutors said Garmo made a series of “ straw purchases , ” in which he told gun dealers he was purchasing guns for himself , when in reality , he was buying them for people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law .
He acquired around 144 firearms during that time and transferred 98 of them to others , all while lacking the required license to do so , according to prosecutors .
Now , first , let me say that it ’ s total BS that law enforcement can buy guns anywhere in this country that the average citizen can ’ t .
That ain ’ t how the Second Amendment is supposed to work , folks .
Hell , I personally believe the military shouldn ’ t be able to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much less police .
Yet , that ’ s the law in many places .
As a result , though , there ’ s an incentive for law enforcement officers to potentially break the law by running a hustle like this .
Sure , it ’ s illegal , but police are neither angels nor demons .
They ’ re flesh and blood people that come from our society , which means you ’ re going to get some who are damn near angels and some who are damn near demons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a little extra money in a way that few others can manage .
In the process , though , it showed a big problem with gun control .
See , unless you ban everything–something the Supreme Court has said can ’ t be done–there will always be those with legal access to firearms .
That means there will always be those who will be in a position to sell what they can legally buy to those who can ’ t .
Gun control doesn ’ t stop the flow of guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bypass laws they ’ ve been sworn to uphold for some extra cash .
Police are people , which means all that being human entails .

For better or worse, there are rules about guns. Yes, they’re all pretty much BS, of course, but those rules exist. In theory, they exist to keep people safe. They do no such thing, of course, but that’s why proponents support those laws.
Law enforcement is also supposed to keep people safe. Again, at least in theory. Sure, we know that they may try, but they can’t really protect each individual from harm, but some want certain weapons restricted just for law enforcement use because we plebes can’t be trusted with certain weapons but police can.
Well…that thought aged well.
A former San Diego County sheriff’s captain pleaded guilty Tuesday to running an illegal arms trafficking operation, in which he bought and resold guns available only to law enforcement for both financial and professional gain. Marco Garmo, 52, the former captain of the sheriff’s Rancho San Diego station and a 27-year member of the department, illegally purchased and resold “off roster” firearms, which may be purchased by members of law enforcement, but not the general public, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In addition to receiving cash for the firearms, federal prosecutors say that between March 2013 and February 2019, Garmo conducted the gun sales to create goodwill among potential donors for his planned campaign to run for San Diego County sheriff. Prosecutors said Garmo made a series of “straw purchases,” in which he told gun dealers he was purchasing guns for himself, when in reality, he was buying them for people who could not directly buy the firearms under state law. He acquired around 144 firearms during that time and transferred 98 of them to others, all while lacking the required license to do so, according to prosecutors.
Now, first, let me say that it’s total BS that law enforcement can buy guns anywhere in this country that the average citizen can’t. That ain’t how the Second Amendment is supposed to work, folks. Hell, I personally believe the military shouldn’t be able to buy weapons that we can’t buy, much less police.
Yet, that’s the law in many places.
As a result, though, there’s an incentive for law enforcement officers to potentially break the law by running a hustle like this. Sure, it’s illegal, but police are neither angels nor demons. They’re flesh and blood people that come from our society, which means you’re going to get some who are damn near angels and some who are damn near demons. Some are going to be tempted to make a little extra money in a way that few others can manage.
In the process, though, it showed a big problem with gun control.
See, unless you ban everything–something the Supreme Court has said can’t be done–there will always be those with legal access to firearms. That means there will always be those who will be in a position to sell what they can legally buy to those who can’t. Gun control doesn’t stop the flow of guns, it creates a perverse incentive for some to bypass laws they’ve been sworn to uphold for some extra cash.
Police are people, which means all that being human entails.


bearingarms--2020-09-16--Gutfeld Nails It On Anti-Police Climate

Gutfeld Nails It On Anti-Police Climate

There ’ s a lot of anti-police sentiment .
I mean , when a mob tries to actively cause the deaths of injured officers , it ’ s safe to say there ’ s some anti-police sentiment .
Right now , it seems people are losing their ever-loving minds about police .
And yet , the media seems to be either quiet about it or clearly taking the side of those who despise law enforcement .
While I ’ ve never viewed law enforcement officers as some near-mythical paragons of truth , justice , and the American way–I grew up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
They ’ re people , which means all that being people would imply–I have a serious problem with folks actively wanting law enforcement dead simply because they ’ re police and the media not calling it out .
I ’ m not the only one , either .
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld is there as well .
The two Los Angeles Sheriff ’ s deputies shot in the head over the weekend in Compton , Calif. , are expected to survive .
One is a 31-year-old mother of a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The officers had been sitting in their car in Compton on Saturday night , when a man , or something , attempted to assassinate them .
If this were any other type of victim , not the police — this would be the time that the media would talk about “ climate.
” We ’ ve created a climate of hate and intolerance , where horrible attacks against this group are possible .
It ’ s a climate where certain people are hunted because of who they are .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the victims are cops .
So you don ’ t hear that .
Even if it ’ s true .
Let ’ s remember that these are the same people who claimed Sarah Palin fostered a climate of hate and violence simply because she used crosshairs over districts where some felt they could flip the seats .
She did that , then Gabby Giffords was shot and it was all Sarah Palin ’ s fault despite no evidence the shooter even knew the fundraising material in question ever existed .
President Trump makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s fostering a climate where any manner of evil can fester .
And yet , people are actively hunting police officers and this same media is silent about the anti-police climate .
That ’ s because “ climates ” only exist when it ’ s convenient for the media .
They don ’ t benefit from calling this a climate .
Not personally and not politically .
As a result , they ’ ll remain silent .
Meanwhile , people have been hurt .
Police officers are being hunted .
Mobs are trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care they need to survive .
When President Trump referred to the media as an enemy of the people , the left lost their minds .
However , he wasn ’ t really wrong , either , and the ridiculously biased way they present information and try to manipulate public opinion is precisely why he was right .
As a one-time newspaper man , I had to say it , but the media really is an enemy of the people .
And they ’ re proving it by failing to respond to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far less dire .

There’s a lot of anti-police sentiment. I mean, when a mob tries to actively cause the deaths of injured officers, it’s safe to say there’s some anti-police sentiment. Right now, it seems people are losing their ever-loving minds about police.
And yet, the media seems to be either quiet about it or clearly taking the side of those who despise law enforcement.
Frankly, it’s disgusting.
While I’ve never viewed law enforcement officers as some near-mythical paragons of truth, justice, and the American way–I grew up around them. I know better than that. They’re people, which means all that being people would imply–I have a serious problem with folks actively wanting law enforcement dead simply because they’re police and the media not calling it out.
I’m not the only one, either. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld is there as well.
The two Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies shot in the head over the weekend in Compton, Calif., are expected to survive. One is a 31-year-old mother of a young child, the other a 24-year-old man. The officers had been sitting in their car in Compton on Saturday night, when a man, or something, attempted to assassinate them. He’s still on the loose. If this were any other type of victim, not the police — this would be the time that the media would talk about “climate.” We’ve created a climate of hate and intolerance, where horrible attacks against this group are possible. It’s a climate where certain people are hunted because of who they are. It’s a climate that fosters oppression. But the victims are cops. So you don’t hear that. Even if it’s true.
Exactly.
Let’s remember that these are the same people who claimed Sarah Palin fostered a climate of hate and violence simply because she used crosshairs over districts where some felt they could flip the seats. She did that, then Gabby Giffords was shot and it was all Sarah Palin’s fault despite no evidence the shooter even knew the fundraising material in question ever existed.
President Trump makes a mean tweet and suddenly he’s fostering a climate where any manner of evil can fester.
And yet, people are actively hunting police officers and this same media is silent about the anti-police climate. That’s because “climates” only exist when it’s convenient for the media. They don’t benefit from calling this a climate. Not personally and not politically. As a result, they’ll remain silent.
Meanwhile, people have been hurt. Police officers are being hunted. Mobs are trying to keep them from receiving the medical care they need to survive.
The media, however, remains silent.
When President Trump referred to the media as an enemy of the people, the left lost their minds. However, he wasn’t really wrong, either, and the ridiculously biased way they present information and try to manipulate public opinion is precisely why he was right. As a one-time newspaper man, I had to say it, but the media really is an enemy of the people.
And they’re proving it by failing to respond to this climate as they have situations that were far less dire.