bearingarms--2020-05-11--Florida's Fried Faces Lawsuit Over Carry Permits

Florida Secretary of Agriculture Nikki Fried is the highest Democrat elected official in the state of Florida .
Oddly , though , that puts her ultimately in charge of the concealed carry permits for the state .
Of course , Florida is a “ shall issue ” state , so it ’ s not like Fried can really do all that much to inhibit people from getting permits .
Unless , of course , there ’ s a pandemic .
Then she can shut down key points in the process , which she has .
Now , she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The gun-rights group Young Americans for Liberty sued Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried claiming she ’ s depriving Floridians of their rights .
The suit aims to lift a suspensionof online concealed weapons permit applications .
“ Nikki Fried thinks that your right to self-defense is negotiable .
She ’ s wrong , ” said Cliff Maloney , YAL President .
“ This is a blatant disregard for the rule of law , and I will not idly sit by while Nikki Fried uses this crisis to enact her gun-grabbing agenda .
I encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our rights .
We either believe in liberty in times of crisis or we do not believe in liberty at all.
” Fried has defended her move vigorously , repeatedly noting permits continue to be processed , but the online mechanism can not be used right now because of issues such as fingerprint collection during a pandemic .
“ Commissioner Fried has not restricted processing of concealed weapons license applications ; on the contrary , our department has processed more than 54,000 concealed weapons license applications since March 1 , with an average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , ” said Franco Ripple , Fried ’ s Communications Director .
The problem is that Fried has shut down the fingerprint locations answerable to her while she ’ s responsible for issuing permits .
That means if someone ’ s local police station or sheriff ’ s department is shut down , they can ’ t get fingerprints .
Now , them being shutdown isn ’ t Fried ’ s responsibility .
However , her office is responsible for the issuance of permits .
That means it ’ s her responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ s not lies in the fact that she doesn ’ t believe people should get permits , so she ’ s not really interested in helping anyone get one .
While some have been able to sidestep the problem , that doesn ’ t mean she should be considered as being in the clear on this .
The fact that anyone can ’ t get a permit because of the decisions her office has made is a major problem .
Of course , I expect Fried to pretend that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that none of this is anything but a calm and rational response to the situation and that any problems is really someone else ’ s fault .
After all , that ’ s what gun grabbers do , now isn ’ t it ?
The real question is whether the lawsuit will move through the system fast enough to have any real impact or whether the state will open back up before it sees its day in court .
The truth is , no one can really tell at this point , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their permits taken care of quick , fast , and in a hurry regardless of why it happens .
On the flip side , Nikki Friend needs to remember that stuff like this is how you become a one-term official .
Just because the state reeled a bit after Parkland doesn ’ t mean they forgot they were pro-gun .

Florida Secretary of Agriculture Nikki Fried is the highest Democrat elected official in the state of Florida. Oddly, though, that puts her ultimately in charge of the concealed carry permits for the state. Of course, Florida is a “shall issue” state, so it’s not like Fried can really do all that much to inhibit people from getting permits.
Unless, of course, there’s a pandemic. Then she can shut down key points in the process, which she has.
Now, she’s facing a lawsuit over her decisions.
The gun-rights group Young Americans for Liberty sued Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried claiming she’s depriving Floridians of their rights. The suit aims to lift a suspensionof online concealed weapons permit applications. “Nikki Fried thinks that your right to self-defense is negotiable. She’s wrong,” said Cliff Maloney, YAL President. “This is a blatant disregard for the rule of law, and I will not idly sit by while Nikki Fried uses this crisis to enact her gun-grabbing agenda. I encourage all Americans to join this fight for our rights. We either believe in liberty in times of crisis or we do not believe in liberty at all.” Fried has defended her move vigorously, repeatedly noting permits continue to be processed, but the online mechanism cannot be used right now because of issues such as fingerprint collection during a pandemic. “Commissioner Fried has not restricted processing of concealed weapons license applications; on the contrary, our department has processed more than 54,000 concealed weapons license applications since March 1, with an average review time of just 1 to 2 days,” said Franco Ripple, Fried’s Communications Director.
The problem is that Fried has shut down the fingerprint locations answerable to her while she’s responsible for issuing permits. That means if someone’s local police station or sheriff’s department is shut down, they can’t get fingerprints.
Now, them being shutdown isn’t Fried’s responsibility. However, her office is responsible for the issuance of permits. That means it’s her responsibility to facilitate those permits.
The fact that she’s not lies in the fact that she doesn’t believe people should get permits, so she’s not really interested in helping anyone get one. While some have been able to sidestep the problem, that doesn’t mean she should be considered as being in the clear on this. The fact that anyone can’t get a permit because of the decisions her office has made is a major problem.
Of course, I expect Fried to pretend that she’s as pure as snow and that none of this is anything but a calm and rational response to the situation and that any problems is really someone else’s fault. After all, that’s what gun grabbers do, now isn’t it?
The real question is whether the lawsuit will move through the system fast enough to have any real impact or whether the state will open back up before it sees its day in court. The truth is, no one can really tell at this point, though my hope is that people can get their permits taken care of quick, fast, and in a hurry regardless of why it happens.
On the flip side, Nikki Friend needs to remember that stuff like this is how you become a one-term official. Just because the state reeled a bit after Parkland doesn’t mean they forgot they were pro-gun.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Anti-Gunners Want To Take Texas Like They Did Virginia

The state of Virginia turning so blue almost overnight was stunning , to say the least .
The Old Dominion state had been making serious inroads into overturning years of ridiculous gun control laws and then , WHAM !
Just like that , all those good works were erased .
In fact , many of the repealed gun control laws are already back on the books .
It was a key motivator for anti-gun lawmakers and the anti-gun groups that backed them .
Now , the brains behind that turnover in Virginia are turning their attention to Texas .
Gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas their top political battleground in November .
Everytown for Gun Safety announced in February that it would spend at least $ 8 million this election cycle in the state , mainly focusing on U.S. House and state House races .
On Monday , the Michael Bloomberg-backed group announced the first round of that spending — a $ 250,000 digital ad campaign targeting Republicans in five key congressional races .
And on Thursday , the group is naming three staffers to help with its Texas campaign , including two veteran Democratic operatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the biggest players in down-ballot races this cycle in Texas , outside of the Democratic and Republican party committees .
Texas is “ clearly emerging as a top battleground state — there ’ s just no question about it — and it ’ s why we ’ re investing $ 8 million in the state this cycle , ” Everytown senior political adviser Charlie Kelly said .
“ Between the investment and our network of 400,000 grassroots supporters , our goal is to do whatever it takes to elect gun sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state.
” Their goal is , at least in part , to push gun control down the throats of the people of Texas , much like they did in Virginia .
The key difference is that Virginia had some Democratic-leaning sympathies as a state , mostly because so much of their population were really D.C. liberals who use Virginia as a suburb of Washington .
That gave them another high-population stronghold from which to build from .
While Texas looks like another opportunity for that , Texas isn ’ t Virginia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s been enough Californians moving to Texas to flip the state ’ s politics , especially since at least some Californians moved to Texas explicitly because of the state ’ s politics .
After all , Democrats haven ’ t done particularly well statewide as of late , even heavily-touts and heavily backed candidates like Beto O ’ Rourke couldn ’ t make much headway against Ted Cruz , for example .
Sure , there are Democratic , anti-gun strongholds throughout the state .
That ’ s true of any state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of their Democratic voters are pro-gun .
I don ’ t think this is going to pan out well for Everytown , but I ’ m all in favor of them throwing their money away however they want , especially as there are millions more gun owners in this country than there were just a few months ago .
If they don ’ t like having flush bank accounts , though , I suppose stimulating the economy is just as good a way to get rid of their funds as anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t overlook them either .
Virginia did and look what happened .
Instead , stomp Everytown into the dirt so they know not to come back again .
That is , unless they want to stimulate some local economies a bit .

The state of Virginia turning so blue almost overnight was stunning, to say the least. The Old Dominion state had been making serious inroads into overturning years of ridiculous gun control laws and then, WHAM!
Just like that, all those good works were erased. In fact, many of the repealed gun control laws are already back on the books. It was a key motivator for anti-gun lawmakers and the anti-gun groups that backed them.
Now, the brains behind that turnover in Virginia are turning their attention to Texas.
Gun control advocates are gearing up to make Texas their top political battleground in November. Everytown for Gun Safety announced in February that it would spend at least $8 million this election cycle in the state, mainly focusing on U.S. House and state House races. On Monday, the Michael Bloomberg-backed group announced the first round of that spending — a $250,000 digital ad campaign targeting Republicans in five key congressional races. And on Thursday, the group is naming three staffers to help with its Texas campaign, including two veteran Democratic operatives. The moves set up Everytown to be one of the biggest players in down-ballot races this cycle in Texas, outside of the Democratic and Republican party committees. Texas is “clearly emerging as a top battleground state — there’s just no question about it — and it’s why we’re investing $8 million in the state this cycle,” Everytown senior political adviser Charlie Kelly said. “Between the investment and our network of 400,000 grassroots supporters, our goal is to do whatever it takes to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot in the state.”
Their goal is, at least in part, to push gun control down the throats of the people of Texas, much like they did in Virginia.
The key difference is that Virginia had some Democratic-leaning sympathies as a state, mostly because so much of their population were really D.C. liberals who use Virginia as a suburb of Washington. That gave them another high-population stronghold from which to build from.
While Texas looks like another opportunity for that, Texas isn’t Virginia. I’m not quite sure that there’s been enough Californians moving to Texas to flip the state’s politics, especially since at least some Californians moved to Texas explicitly because of the state’s politics.
After all, Democrats haven’t done particularly well statewide as of late, even heavily-touts and heavily backed candidates like Beto O’Rourke couldn’t make much headway against Ted Cruz, for example.
Sure, there are Democratic, anti-gun strongholds throughout the state. That’s true of any state.
With Texas, though, even a lot of their Democratic voters are pro-gun.
I don’t think this is going to pan out well for Everytown, but I’m all in favor of them throwing their money away however they want, especially as there are millions more gun owners in this country than there were just a few months ago. If they don’t like having flush bank accounts, though, I suppose stimulating the economy is just as good a way to get rid of their funds as anything else.
That said, don’t overlook them either. Virginia did and look what happened.
Instead, stomp Everytown into the dirt so they know not to come back again. That is, unless they want to stimulate some local economies a bit.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--MI Capitol Commission Delays Vote To Ban Guns From State Capitol

Days after Michigan ’ s attorney general issued an opinion stating that firearms could be banned from the state capitol building in Lansing without a vote by the legislature , the body that oversees the capitol building decided on Monday to appoint a special committee to investigate a gun ban instead of simply giving the green light to any new restrictions .
At least a few members of the Capitol Commission appeared willing to endorse a ban on carrying firearms inside the capitol building , but none of them pressed hard for an immediate ban .
Instead , the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look into the issue further .
John Truscott , a member of the Capitol Commission , said the issue is probably the most serious that the commission has ever had to deal with , which is why the commission wants to take its time in making a decision .
Gary Randall , chair of the commission , replied that the committee members will set out “ an aggressive schedule ” to deal with the proposed gun ban , and said members could be back as early as next week with recommendations .
Several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls to ban guns from the capitol building after armed protestors poured into the capitol during a protest of Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home order in late April .
While there were no arrests made during the protest , some legislators complained that they felt intimidated by the armed protestors in the legislative galleries , and one Lansing-area Democrat received an armed escort by six individuals just days after the protest took place .
State House Speaker Lee Chatfield says he believes banning firearms from the capitol building isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional right to protest and you have a right to keep and bare arms , but you don ’ t have a constitutional right to do both at the same time , ” Chatfield said .
“ I think we have to be very careful about that.
” Chatfield believes it ’ s his duty to uphold those constitutional rights regardless of the circumstances .
“ Constitutional rights are very important to me and I think it ’ s only right that we honor those because the people give us our constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , I was a little confused by Rep. Chatfield ’ s comments about having to pick and choose between exercising your First Amendment rights and your Second Amendment rights , but as it turns out , Michigan ’ s capitol prohibits protest signs from inside the building , which Chatfield brought up while speaking to a Michigan-based podcast last week .
“ You have to be very careful before you say you can exercise one constitutional right by coming in and protesting , but you can ’ t exercise another .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exercise their constitutional rights in a responsible way , and I ’ m certainly not going to say anything different than that.
” However , Chatfield supports a separate rule that prohibits signs in the Michigan Capitol , which he said is “ appropriate and should stay in place.
” That long-standing regulation , which has prompted criticism from First Amendment advocates , is ostensibly designed to protect the building from inadvertent damage by signs mounted on sticks , which has happened before .
In other words , Chatfield ’ s issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but signage carried by protestors .
Personally , I ’ d like to see the rule prohibiting signs face a legal challenge , but that ’ s a court fight for another day .
For the time being , the lawful carrying of firearms is still allowed inside the state capitol building , and lawmakers can expect more protestors , armed and unarmed , in the days ahead .

At least a few members of the Capitol Commission appeared willing to endorse a ban on carrying firearms inside the capitol building, but none of them pressed hard for an immediate ban. Instead, the group established a special, five-person committee to look into the issue further.
John Truscott, a member of the Capitol Commission, said the issue is probably the most serious that the commission has ever had to deal with, which is why the commission wants to take its time in making a decision.
Gary Randall, chair of the commission, replied that the committee members will set out “an aggressive schedule” to deal with the proposed gun ban, and said members could be back as early as next week with recommendations.
Several lawmakers in the state have backed the calls to ban guns from the capitol building after armed protestors poured into the capitol during a protest of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order in late April. While there were no arrests made during the protest, some legislators complained that they felt intimidated by the armed protestors in the legislative galleries, and one Lansing-area Democrat received an armed escort by six individuals just days after the protest took place.
State House Speaker Lee Chatfield says he believes banning firearms from the capitol building isn’t the answer.
“You have a constitutional right to protest and you have a right to keep and bare arms, but you don’t have a constitutional right to do both at the same time,” Chatfield said. “I think we have to be very careful about that.” Chatfield believes it’s his duty to uphold those constitutional rights regardless of the circumstances. “Constitutional rights are very important to me and I think it’s only right that we honor those because the people give us our constitution,” Chatfield said.
I have to say, I was a little confused by Rep. Chatfield’s comments about having to pick and choose between exercising your First Amendment rights and your Second Amendment rights, but as it turns out, Michigan’s capitol prohibits protest signs from inside the building, which Chatfield brought up while speaking to a Michigan-based podcast last week.
“You have to be very careful before you say you can exercise one constitutional right by coming in and protesting, but you can’t exercise another. And so I support people having the ability to exercise their constitutional rights in a responsible way, and I’m certainly not going to say anything different than that.” However, Chatfield supports a separate rule that prohibits signs in the Michigan Capitol, which he said is “appropriate and should stay in place.” That long-standing regulation, which has prompted criticism from First Amendment advocates, is ostensibly designed to protect the building from inadvertent damage by signs mounted on sticks, which has happened before.
In other words, Chatfield’s issue isn’t with protests themselves, but signage carried by protestors. Personally, I’d like to see the rule prohibiting signs face a legal challenge, but that’s a court fight for another day. For the time being, the lawful carrying of firearms is still allowed inside the state capitol building, and lawmakers can expect more protestors, armed and unarmed, in the days ahead.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Ahmaud Arbery Prosecutor Called It "Justifiable Homicide" Before Recusing Himself

What happened to Ahmaud Arbery is an absolute tragedy .
I know that not everyone agrees with me , but as I pointed out over the weekend , what happened to that young man was nothing less than murder .
However , the situation surrounding the shooting and the lack of prosecution thus far is perhaps even more troubling .
While it ’ s possible it wasn ’ t a coverup per se , it sure does look like it from the outside .
Then again , maybe it was just incompetence by all parties involved .
The thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you encounter things like this .
A Georgia prosecutor who recused himself from the Ahmaud Arbery case waited to bow out until after he told cops the killing was “ justifiable homicide ” — and sent them a five-point letter outlining why the suspects should not be charged , according to reports .
District Attorney George Barnhill told police after the Feb. 23 fatal shooting that there was insufficient evidence to charge the two white men , Gregory McMichael , 64 , and his 34-year-old son , Travis McMichael , after they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a shotgun , according to a statement released Saturday by the Glynn County Police Department .
“ Detectives met with DA George Barnhill Sr. of the Waycross Judicial Circuit the following day and reviewed their findings with him , ” said the statement , published Saturday by The Brunswick News .
“ DA Barnhill , Sr. , advised the detectives before noon on Feb. 24 , that the act was justifiable homicide and for detectives to continue their investigation and provide him with lab reports and any additional information.
” Barnhill recused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because his son is a prosecutor in the Brunswick district attorney ’ s office , where Gregory McMichael , a former cop , also worked as an investigator .
But Barnhill didn ’ t bow out of the case until after he received the autopsy report on Arbery ’ s death and wrote a letter to police explaining why the McMichaels should not be charged , the report said .
So , Barnhill recused himself , but not until after he basically scuttled any investigation going on at the time .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says there ’ s no case , then there ’ s little reason for law enforcement to really continue the investigation except as a PR move .
That ’ s not really an investigation , though .
That ’ s covering your butt .
I ’ m sorry , but this doesn ’ t pass the sniff test .
Luckily , there ’ s a chance to see justice done , one way or the other .
Cobb County is a long way from where Arbery was killed , which means there aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties with much of anyone there .
Oh , and anyone was worried about a white prosecutor letting a white shooter walk over the killing of a black man , don ’ t .
Holmes is a black woman , so I doubt that will play a factor .
Further , if she finds there ’ s insufficient evidence to prosecute , that should be that .
However , I doubt that will be the case .
I haven ’ t seen the first lick of evidence to justify chasing someone down and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While it does look like Arbery walked through a construction site without permission , that was trespassing , not burglary or any other felony .
Further , state law doesn ’ t allow people to put together a posse to chase down a supposed burglar .
Still , we ’ ll just have to wait and see what happens .

What happened to Ahmaud Arbery is an absolute tragedy. I know that not everyone agrees with me, but as I pointed out over the weekend, what happened to that young man was nothing less than murder.
However, the situation surrounding the shooting and the lack of prosecution thus far is perhaps even more troubling. While it’s possible it wasn’t a coverup per se, it sure does look like it from the outside. Then again, maybe it was just incompetence by all parties involved.
The thing is, that’s hard to swallow when you encounter things like this.
A Georgia prosecutor who recused himself from the Ahmaud Arbery case waited to bow out until after he told cops the killing was “justifiable homicide” — and sent them a five-point letter outlining why the suspects should not be charged, according to reports. District Attorney George Barnhill told police after the Feb. 23 fatal shooting that there was insufficient evidence to charge the two white men, Gregory McMichael, 64, and his 34-year-old son, Travis McMichael, after they chased down Arbery and gunned him down with a shotgun, according to a statement released Saturday by the Glynn County Police Department. “Detectives met with DA George Barnhill Sr. of the Waycross Judicial Circuit the following day and reviewed their findings with him,” said the statement, published Saturday by The Brunswick News. “DA Barnhill, Sr., advised the detectives before noon on Feb. 24, that the act was justifiable homicide and for detectives to continue their investigation and provide him with lab reports and any additional information.” Barnhill recused himself from the investigation on April 6 because his son is a prosecutor in the Brunswick district attorney’s office, where Gregory McMichael, a former cop, also worked as an investigator. But Barnhill didn’t bow out of the case until after he received the autopsy report on Arbery’s death and wrote a letter to police explaining why the McMichaels should not be charged, the report said.
So, Barnhill recused himself, but not until after he basically scuttled any investigation going on at the time.
Let’s be honest, if a DA says there’s no case, then there’s little reason for law enforcement to really continue the investigation except as a PR move. That’s not really an investigation, though. That’s covering your butt.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Luckily, there’s a chance to see justice done, one way or the other.
Channel 2′s Richard Belcher has learned that Georgia’s attorney general will appoint a new prosecutor in the Ahmaud Arbery case. Attorney General Chris Carr will name Cobb District Attorney Joyette Holmes to take over the case, Belcher learned. Belcher spoke to Holmes, who did not deny it but instead just referred him to the current special prosecutor, Thomas Durden.
Cobb County is a long way from where Arbery was killed, which means there aren’t likely to be any local ties with much of anyone there. Oh, and anyone was worried about a white prosecutor letting a white shooter walk over the killing of a black man, don’t. Holmes is a black woman, so I doubt that will play a factor.
Further, if she finds there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute, that should be that.
However, I doubt that will be the case. I haven’t seen the first lick of evidence to justify chasing someone down and confronting them with firearms. None. While it does look like Arbery walked through a construction site without permission, that was trespassing, not burglary or any other felony. Further, state law doesn’t allow people to put together a posse to chase down a supposed burglar.
Still, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Northam Relents: Indoor Ranges To Reopen May 15th

Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam has issued a new executive order allowing some businesses declared to be “ non-essential ” to resume operations this coming Friday , including indoor ranges around the state that have been closed for the past two months .
According to the governor ’ s Executive Order 61 , indoor ranges , which the governor had declared to be “ places of amusement , ” can reopen on May 15th , as long as they follow certain social distancing guidelines .
• Occupancy must be limited to 50 % of the lowest occupancy load on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet of physical distancing between individuals at all times .
Use every other lane to achieve six feet of physical distancing .
• Employees working in customer-facing areas are required to wear face coverings over their nose and mouth at all times .
• Perform thorough cleaning and disinfection of frequently contacted surfaces every 60 minutes in operation , while disinfecting all equipment between each customer use and prohibiting the use of equipment that can not be thoroughly disinfected .
• Either thoroughly clean shared or borrowed equipment in between uses , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the range .
• It is recommended that facilities strongly encourage patrons , members , and guests to wear face coverings over their nose and mouth while in the facility .
• If any such indoor shooting range can not adhere to these requirements , it must close .
Northam ’ s previous executive order that closed indoor gun ranges in the state was successfully challenged in court by a Lynchburg gun range , but the judge ’ s decision only impacted Safeside Lynchburg , leaving other indoor ranges across the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t appealed that decision , even though the judge said that Northam ’ s executive order overstepped his constitutional bounds and violated the Second Amendment rights of Virginia residents , as well as violating their rights under the Virginia state constitution as well .
Instead of continuing a court fight that Northam was likely to lose , the governor has chosen the option of least resistance by reopening ranges around the state .
In fact , all other “ places of indoor public amusement , ” including bowling alleys , escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and private social clubs will remain closed under Northam ’ s new executive order .
Why did the governor suddenly decide that indoor ranges are different than the other places of amusement ?
He hasn ’ t said , but it seems clear that the decision in the Safeside Lynchburg case had an impact on the governor ’ s thinking .
If Northam had stuck to his guns , indoor ranges wouldn ’ t be preparing to reopen later this week .
Instead , he would have ordered them to remain closed just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trampoline parks .
I think Northam realized that his unconstitutional actions regarding gun ranges would face another court challenge , and this time around a loss might result in a judicial smackdown that would be impossible for him to ignore or downplay .
I have no doubt that Northam ’ s change of heart is based entirely on politics and not some newfound appreciation for the Second Amendment rights of Virginians .
While I ’ m glad to see his new executive order reopening ranges , the governor ’ s anti-gun agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights of every resident in the state .

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has issued a new executive order allowing some businesses declared to be “non-essential” to resume operations this coming Friday, including indoor ranges around the state that have been closed for the past two months.
According to the governor’s Executive Order 61, indoor ranges, which the governor had declared to be “places of amusement,” can reopen on May 15th, as long as they follow certain social distancing guidelines.
Occupancy must be limited to 50% of the lowest occupancy load on the certificate of occupancy with at least six feet of physical distancing between individuals at all times. Use every other lane to achieve six feet of physical distancing. Employees working in customer-facing areas are required to wear face coverings over their nose and mouth at all times. Perform thorough cleaning and disinfection of frequently contacted surfaces every 60 minutes in operation, while disinfecting all equipment between each customer use and prohibiting the use of equipment that cannot be thoroughly disinfected. Either thoroughly clean shared or borrowed equipment in between uses, or only allow the use of personal equipment at the range. It is recommended that facilities strongly encourage patrons, members, and guests to wear face coverings over their nose and mouth while in the facility. If any such indoor shooting range cannot adhere to these requirements, it must close.
Northam’s previous executive order that closed indoor gun ranges in the state was successfully challenged in court by a Lynchburg gun range, but the judge’s decision only impacted Safeside Lynchburg, leaving other indoor ranges across the state dark. So far, the governor hasn’t appealed that decision, even though the judge said that Northam’s executive order overstepped his constitutional bounds and violated the Second Amendment rights of Virginia residents, as well as violating their rights under the Virginia state constitution as well.
Instead of continuing a court fight that Northam was likely to lose, the governor has chosen the option of least resistance by reopening ranges around the state. In fact, all other “places of indoor public amusement,” including bowling alleys, escape rooms, amusement parks, and public and private social clubs will remain closed under Northam’s new executive order. Why did the governor suddenly decide that indoor ranges are different than the other places of amusement? He hasn’t said, but it seems clear that the decision in the Safeside Lynchburg case had an impact on the governor’s thinking.
If Northam had stuck to his guns, indoor ranges wouldn’t be preparing to reopen later this week. Instead, he would have ordered them to remain closed just like museums, zoos, aquariums, and trampoline parks. I think Northam realized that his unconstitutional actions regarding gun ranges would face another court challenge, and this time around a loss might result in a judicial smackdown that would be impossible for him to ignore or downplay.
I have no doubt that Northam’s change of heart is based entirely on politics and not some newfound appreciation for the Second Amendment rights of Virginians. While I’m glad to see his new executive order reopening ranges, the governor’s anti-gun agenda still poses a threat to the Second Amendment rights of every resident in the state.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--NY Killer's Release Prompts Change Of Heart For Gun Control Advocate

A New York man held in prison since 1984 for the murder of a 21-year old woman who spurned his advances is about to be set free from prison , and the impending release has caused the victim ’ s sister to rethink her positions on guns and gun control .
The New York Post reports that Lisa Sharon has been begging the state parole board to keep Bruce Haims locked up , alleging that the man who killed Pamela Sharon still poses a threat to the public .
Despite her pleas , the parole board recently voted to allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of May , and as a result Lisa Sharon says she ’ s been forced to re-evaluate her views on self-defense .
“ I ’ ve always been a gun-control advocate .
But if the state of New York refuses to protect me and my family from a vicious murderer , we ’ re left with no choice but to protect ourselves .
I am therefore applying for a gun license , ’ ’ said Lisa Sharon , the older sister of slay victim Pamela Sharon , to The Post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all over again.
’ ’ The 61-year old convicted killer has been eligible for parole for more than a decade , but his parole was rejected at every hearing until the parole board accepted his request for release at a hearing in April .
Lisa Sharon says she doesn ’ t believe the decades behind bars has changed Haim ’ s nature , and worries about the safety of the public if he ’ s released .
The Nassau County District Attorney ’ s Office and other officials have consistently joined the victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lisa Sharon said in her letter to the board that Haims — a former family neighbor who also worked with her sister — was nothing short of a “ pathological liar ” who had psychological disorders that made him “ impulsive and violent .
“ Haims has never been able to withstand rejection , especially by females .
He snaps when someone rebuffs him in any way , ” Lisa Sharon insisted to the panel .
“ Outside of prison , without prison structure and without enforced medical management of his disorders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a casual rejection could precipitate an unforeseen danger , most likely for women.
’ ’ I ’ m glad to see that Lisa Sharon is taking steps to protect herself with the release of her sister ’ s killer , but I hope that she goes further that simply exercising her own right to keep and bear arms .
I ’ d love to see her become an advocate for gun ownership , instead of advocating for gun control .
After all , if Sharon is concerned enough about Haims ’ release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she believes that other women would be safer if they too could protect themselves from guys like Haims with a gun of their own .
Sharon has been a victim ’ s right advocate for decades , and I would encourage her to add Second Amendment advocacy to her resume as well .
She has a powerful story to tell , even if the state ’ s parole board isn ’ t listening .

A New York man held in prison since 1984 for the murder of a 21-year old woman who spurned his advances is about to be set free from prison, and the impending release has caused the victim’s sister to rethink her positions on guns and gun control.
The New York Post reports that Lisa Sharon has been begging the state parole board to keep Bruce Haims locked up, alleging that the man who killed Pamela Sharon still poses a threat to the public. Despite her pleas, the parole board recently voted to allow Haims to be released from custody by the end of May, and as a result Lisa Sharon says she’s been forced to re-evaluate her views on self-defense.
“I’ve always been a gun-control advocate. But if the state of New York refuses to protect me and my family from a vicious murderer, we’re left with no choice but to protect ourselves. I am therefore applying for a gun license,’’ said Lisa Sharon, the older sister of slay victim Pamela Sharon, to The Post. “It’s the Wild West all over again.’’
The 61-year old convicted killer has been eligible for parole for more than a decade, but his parole was rejected at every hearing until the parole board accepted his request for release at a hearing in April. Lisa Sharon says she doesn’t believe the decades behind bars has changed Haim’s nature, and worries about the safety of the public if he’s released.
The Nassau County District Attorney’s Office and other officials have consistently joined the victim’s family in opposing freeing him. Lisa Sharon said in her letter to the board that Haims — a former family neighbor who also worked with her sister — was nothing short of a “pathological liar” who had psychological disorders that made him “impulsive and violent. “Haims has never been able to withstand rejection, especially by females. He snaps when someone rebuffs him in any way,” Lisa Sharon insisted to the panel. “Outside of prison, without prison structure and without enforced medical management of his disorders, it’s almost a certainty that a casual rejection could precipitate an unforeseen danger, most likely for women.’’
I’m glad to see that Lisa Sharon is taking steps to protect herself with the release of her sister’s killer, but I hope that she goes further that simply exercising her own right to keep and bear arms. I’d love to see her become an advocate for gun ownership, instead of advocating for gun control. After all, if Sharon is concerned enough about Haims’ release to become a gun owner, surely she believes that other women would be safer if they too could protect themselves from guys like Haims with a gun of their own. Sharon has been a victim’s right advocate for decades, and I would encourage her to add Second Amendment advocacy to her resume as well. She has a powerful story to tell, even if the state’s parole board isn’t listening.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--L.A. Sheriff Calls For Regulation of "Ghost Gun" Parts

Picture yourself at the range for a bit of practice .
You ’ re shooting away when you realize that something is wrong .
You ’ ve got a part that ’ s not quite right .
Maybe the weapon is malfunctioning or maybe something is showing signs of stress .
Luckily for you , it ’ s not the lower receiver , so you can just order a part of the internet and swap it out .
However , if the L.A. County Sheriff gets his way , you won ’ t .
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun ” parts in an interview to be broadcast Sunday night on CBS ’ “ 60 Minutes.
” Ghost guns , also known as kit guns or 80-percent guns , are virtually untraceable weapons that can be made at home using legally purchased parts to complete the 80 % already assembled .
They are sold at gun shows and online .
The unfinished parts are not required under federal law to have serial numbers or a background check to purchase .
A ghost gun was used in the Nov. 14 shooting attack at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wounded three others before the 16-year-old shooter turned the gun on himself and later died , Villanueva said shortly after the shooting .
Under a bill signed into law by Gov .
Gavin Newsom on Oct. 11 , the sale of firearm precursor parts would be required to be conducted by or processed through a licensed firearm-precursor-part vendor effective July 1 , 2024 .
Other states also have moved to restrict the sale of ghost gun parts , but Villanueva says that ’ s not the solution .
“ You can just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Villanueva said .
In other words , Los Angeles is having a problem with this , so the rest of us should be penalized for it .
The problem here is that there ’ s no part on a firearm that is so difficult to produce that it can ’ t be made otherwise .
Even the lower receiver , the very part the ATF has ruled constitutes a firearm , isn ’ t an insurmountable challenge .
Hell , there have been people who built AK-pattern rifles receivers out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing useful , at the very least , but it will make things more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to repair their firearms .
Further , it should be noted that it ’ s already illegal for criminals to manufacture their own weapons .
It ’ s also illegal for you to build a gun with the intention of selling it unless you have a license to manufacture firearms .
In other words , what these criminals Villaneuva is complaining about are doing is already illegal .
What he ’ s calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are supposed to stop people from being in a position to do something bad , yet the only people ever stopped by those laws are the very people you don ’ t need to prevent from having these items in the first place .
If there ’ s an upside to this , it ’ s that Villaneuva ’ s influence stops at the California state line .
Because he ’ s the sheriff of a large count population-wise , he probably has a great deal of pull within the state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one has to pay any damn attention to anything he said about anything .
Oh , anti-gunners will use Villanueva ’ s comments as fodder for their mailings and their assaults on the Second Amendment , but he himself doesn ’ t have the pull to make this happen .

Picture yourself at the range for a bit of practice. You’re shooting away when you realize that something is wrong. You’ve got a part that’s not quite right. Maybe the weapon is malfunctioning or maybe something is showing signs of stress.
Luckily for you, it’s not the lower receiver, so you can just order a part of the internet and swap it out.
However, if the L.A. County Sheriff gets his way, you won’t.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva calls for increased regulation of “ghost gun” parts in an interview to be broadcast Sunday night on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” Ghost guns, also known as kit guns or 80-percent guns, are virtually untraceable weapons that can be made at home using legally purchased parts to complete the 80% already assembled. They are sold at gun shows and online. The unfinished parts are not required under federal law to have serial numbers or a background check to purchase. A ghost gun was used in the Nov. 14 shooting attack at Saugus High School that killed two students and wounded three others before the 16-year-old shooter turned the gun on himself and later died, Villanueva said shortly after the shooting. Under a bill signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 11, the sale of firearm precursor parts would be required to be conducted by or processed through a licensed firearm-precursor-part vendor effective July 1, 2024. Other states also have moved to restrict the sale of ghost gun parts, but Villanueva says that’s not the solution. “You can just defeat it by going to another state,” Villanueva said.
In other words, Los Angeles is having a problem with this, so the rest of us should be penalized for it.
The problem here is that there’s no part on a firearm that is so difficult to produce that it can’t be made otherwise. Even the lower receiver, the very part the ATF has ruled constitutes a firearm, isn’t an insurmountable challenge. Hell, there have been people who built AK-pattern rifles receivers out of shovels.
What Villaneuva is arguing for is nothing useful, at the very least, but it will make things more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to repair their firearms.
Further, it should be noted that it’s already illegal for criminals to manufacture their own weapons. It’s also illegal for you to build a gun with the intention of selling it unless you have a license to manufacture firearms. In other words, what these criminals Villaneuva is complaining about are doing is already illegal.
What he’s calling for are more preventative laws, regulations that are supposed to stop people from being in a position to do something bad, yet the only people ever stopped by those laws are the very people you don’t need to prevent from having these items in the first place.
If there’s an upside to this, it’s that Villaneuva’s influence stops at the California state line. Because he’s the sheriff of a large count population-wise, he probably has a great deal of pull within the state. Outside of it, though, no one has to pay any damn attention to anything he said about anything. Oh, anti-gunners will use Villanueva’s comments as fodder for their mailings and their assaults on the Second Amendment, but he himself doesn’t have the pull to make this happen.
Thankfully.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--TN Case Illustrates Stupidity Of Uber's Gun Policy

A lot of people love Uber .
I mean , I get it .
With a click of a button on your app , a ride can come to you pretty much anywhere .
You know how long it ’ ll be and what to look for when they get there .
Then you hop in and ride wherever you need to go .
It makes not having a car more tolerable for millions of Americans , but it also is handy for any number of other folks .
It ’ s also good for those looking to score a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your car , become an Uber driver , and you can make money whenever you feel like it .
This gets really handy if you end up out of work and need to earn something as you continue your job search .
I ’ ve known several people who kept from going under after losing a job simply because they drove for Uber of their competitor , Lyft .
The downside of driving for these companies ?
Well , you ’ re letting strangers into your car and the company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you can ’ t see how that might become a problem , think a little harder .
It ’ s a recipe for disaster .
A Tennessee Uber driver just experienced a prime reason why the policy is idiotic .
Driver Carolina Vargas reportledy had driven a man named Chris Miller to a motel in Cleveland , Tennessee .
Miller requested that Vargas pick him back up later in the week and drive him back to where his tractor-trailer was parked .
She did , and that ’ s when things allegedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Cleveland to pick Miller up , who claimed he knew of a faster route .
When Vargas started questioning Miller about his directions , she said he pulled a knife on her then hit her in the rib cage while holding the knife .
At this point , she decided to bail out of the vehicle while traveling 55 MPH on Cleveland Highway .
Police said she sustained multiple life-threatening injuries to her body .
Her injuries included knocking several teeth out , cuts and bruises , as well as facial swelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transported to Hamilton Medical Center in Dalton , Georgia .
Now , I can ’ t say definitively if Vargas would have had a gun on her was it not for Uber ’ s policies .
It ’ s entirely possible she doesn ’ t even own a gun , much less have an interest in carrying one .
That said , though , what we do know definitively is that had she been carrying a gun , she ’ d have had to violate Uber ’ s policies to do so and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ride-share company if someone happened to notice and reported it .
While many gun owners who might be interested in driving for Uber would simply ignore the policy , some aren ’ t interested in risking their relationship with the company .
Meanwhile , that policy puts people in the position of having to jump from a moving car in an effort to get away from a potential kidnapper .
That ’ s something no company should put their employees or contractors in a position to have to do .

A lot of people love Uber. I mean, I get it. With a click of a button on your app, a ride can come to you pretty much anywhere. You know how long it’ll be and what to look for when they get there. Then you hop in and ride wherever you need to go. It makes not having a car more tolerable for millions of Americans, but it also is handy for any number of other folks.
It’s also good for those looking to score a little extra cash. You simply hop in your car, become an Uber driver, and you can make money whenever you feel like it. This gets really handy if you end up out of work and need to earn something as you continue your job search. I’ve known several people who kept from going under after losing a job simply because they drove for Uber of their competitor, Lyft.
The downside of driving for these companies? Well, you’re letting strangers into your car and the company’s policy keeps you from being armed. If you can’t see how that might become a problem, think a little harder. It’s a recipe for disaster.
A Tennessee Uber driver just experienced a prime reason why the policy is idiotic.
A man is wanted after police say he kidnapped an Uber driver at knifepoint who suffered serious injuries when jumping out of a moving car to try and get away from her assailant.
Driver Carolina Vargas reportledy had driven a man named Chris Miller to a motel in Cleveland, Tennessee. Miller requested that Vargas pick him back up later in the week and drive him back to where his tractor-trailer was parked.
She did, and that’s when things allegedly got ugly.
Vargas drove back out to Cleveland to pick Miller up, who claimed he knew of a faster route. When Vargas started questioning Miller about his directions, she said he pulled a knife on her then hit her in the rib cage while holding the knife. At this point, she decided to bail out of the vehicle while traveling 55 MPH on Cleveland Highway. Police said she sustained multiple life-threatening injuries to her body. Her injuries included knocking several teeth out, cuts and bruises, as well as facial swelling. She received medical treatment and was transported to Hamilton Medical Center in Dalton, Georgia.
Now, I can’t say definitively if Vargas would have had a gun on her was it not for Uber’s policies. It’s entirely possible she doesn’t even own a gun, much less have an interest in carrying one.
That said, though, what we do know definitively is that had she been carrying a gun, she’d have had to violate Uber’s policies to do so and could have lost her gig driving for the ride-share company if someone happened to notice and reported it. While many gun owners who might be interested in driving for Uber would simply ignore the policy, some aren’t interested in risking their relationship with the company.
Meanwhile, that policy puts people in the position of having to jump from a moving car in an effort to get away from a potential kidnapper. That’s something no company should put their employees or contractors in a position to have to do.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Mexico's Foreign Minister Calls Out Holder Over Operation Fast And Furious

The existence of Operation Fast and Furious , the Obama-era program that allowed thousands of U.S.-sold firearms to be trafficked to Mexican drug cartels , was first disclosed to the American people in early 2011 , more than a month after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in the line of duty by a smuggler who used one of the trafficked firearms in his attack .
Nearly a decade later , officials with the Mexican government are demanding to if the Obama administration and then-Attorney General Eric Holder ever informed Mexican authorities about the operation before it began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico Foreign Minister Ebrard has now sent a note to the U.S. embassy in Mexico City seeking answers about the scandalous operation .
The move comes days after President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador spoke out publicly about the gunrunning operation , seeking to pin some of the responsibility for the operation on former president Felipe Calderon .
Over the weekend , claimed in a thread on Twitter that to the best of his knowledge , no one in the Mexican government had been informed about the details of the operation .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Obama administration was launching a new project aimed at cutting off gun traffickers helping to arm the drug cartels .
The current Mexican government has zeroed in on the program to highlight possible corruption under previous Mexican administrations amid a debate over how much they knew about the U.S. operation .
Holder , who served as U.S. Attorney General under Barack Obama between 2009 and 2015 , had previously issued a statement via the U.S. embassy in Mexico contending that “ Mexican authorities ” knew about the program , Ebrard said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests that it be provided with all the information available regarding the ‘ Fast and Furious ’ operation , ” Ebrard said in the video posted on Twitter .
Lopez Obrador first brought up the gun-running program last Monday when answering questions about Genaro Garcia Luna , a former Mexican security minister who was arrested in the United States in December on drug trafficking offenses .
Garcia Luna served under former President Felipe Calderon from 2006-12 , spearheading a crackdown on drug cartels .
Lopez Obrador has used his arrest to argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Reuters notes , the re-emergence of the scandal isn ’ t just having an impact on politics in Mexico , but it could spill over into the race for president here in the United States as well .
Biden has claimed that there wasn ’ t a “ hint of scandal ” during the Obama administration , conveniently ignoring Operation Fast and Furious and its aftermath .
To the best of my knowledge , Biden has never publicly discussed the operation and whether or not he approved of the plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hands of drug cartel members .
As for Eric Holder , he ’ s claimed that the Mexican government had been informed of the operation beforehand , but has provided no details , including naming any Mexican officials who supposedly had knowledge of the operation .
I hope the Trump administration offers their full cooperation to the Mexican government in getting to the bottom of the unanswered questions surrounding Operation Fast and Furious .
Yes , it makes sense politically for Trump to remind voters of the scandal , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the operation dripped out over a period of years thanks to investigations by the House and Senate oversight committees .
Trump can and should hammer Biden for the complicity in the Obama adminstration ’ s arming of Mexican drug cartels and the violence it helped to create on both sides of the border , but there ’ s also a moral element to the current administration helping to find answers to the questions that still remain .
Both the Mexican and American public deserve to know if the Obama administration kept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplied drug cartels with firearms , and if we have to depend on Eric Holder to come clean , we ’ re likely to never get the answers we need .

The existence of Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama-era program that allowed thousands of U.S.-sold firearms to be trafficked to Mexican drug cartels, was first disclosed to the American people in early 2011, more than a month after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in the line of duty by a smuggler who used one of the trafficked firearms in his attack. Nearly a decade later, officials with the Mexican government are demanding to if the Obama administration and then-Attorney General Eric Holder ever informed Mexican authorities about the operation before it began or while it was taking place.
Mexico Foreign Minister Ebrard has now sent a note to the U.S. embassy in Mexico City seeking answers about the scandalous operation. The move comes days after President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador spoke out publicly about the gunrunning operation, seeking to pin some of the responsibility for the operation on former president Felipe Calderon. Over the weekend, claimed in a thread on Twitter that to the best of his knowledge, no one in the Mexican government had been informed about the details of the operation. Instead, he says Mexican authorities were simply told that the Obama administration was launching a new project aimed at cutting off gun traffickers helping to arm the drug cartels.
The current Mexican government has zeroed in on the program to highlight possible corruption under previous Mexican administrations amid a debate over how much they knew about the U.S. operation. Holder, who served as U.S. Attorney General under Barack Obama between 2009 and 2015, had previously issued a statement via the U.S. embassy in Mexico contending that “Mexican authorities” knew about the program, Ebrard said. “The (Mexican) government requests that it be provided with all the information available regarding the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation,” Ebrard said in the video posted on Twitter. Lopez Obrador first brought up the gun-running program last Monday when answering questions about Genaro Garcia Luna, a former Mexican security minister who was arrested in the United States in December on drug trafficking offenses. Garcia Luna served under former President Felipe Calderon from 2006-12, spearheading a crackdown on drug cartels. Lopez Obrador has used his arrest to argue that corruption was rampant in past Mexican governments.
As Reuters notes, the re-emergence of the scandal isn’t just having an impact on politics in Mexico, but it could spill over into the race for president here in the United States as well.
Some critics of Lopez Obrador contend that he has done U.S. President Donald Trump a favor by raising questions about Garcia Luna as the U.S president prepares to fight a November election against Joe Biden, who was vice president from 2009 to 2017 under Obama. Lopez Obrador’s supporters say he has focused on the issue to illustrate hypocrisy among his domestic adversaries. Calderon, a longstanding political rival of Lopez Obrador, said last week there was no agreement between Mexico and the United States to permit illicit entry of arms.
Biden has claimed that there wasn’t a “hint of scandal” during the Obama administration, conveniently ignoring Operation Fast and Furious and its aftermath. To the best of my knowledge, Biden has never publicly discussed the operation and whether or not he approved of the plan to allow thousands of guns to end up in the hands of drug cartel members. As for Eric Holder, he’s claimed that the Mexican government had been informed of the operation beforehand, but has provided no details, including naming any Mexican officials who supposedly had knowledge of the operation.
I hope the Trump administration offers their full cooperation to the Mexican government in getting to the bottom of the unanswered questions surrounding Operation Fast and Furious. Yes, it makes sense politically for Trump to remind voters of the scandal, as well as Biden’s silence as details of the operation dripped out over a period of years thanks to investigations by the House and Senate oversight committees. Trump can and should hammer Biden for the complicity in the Obama adminstration’s arming of Mexican drug cartels and the violence it helped to create on both sides of the border, but there’s also a moral element to the current administration helping to find answers to the questions that still remain. Both the Mexican and American public deserve to know if the Obama administration kept the Mexican government in the dark as it supplied drug cartels with firearms, and if we have to depend on Eric Holder to come clean, we’re likely to never get the answers we need.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Florida Dem Running For State Senate Backs Gun Rights

It ’ s very easy for us to look at gun rights and automatically assume all Republicans back gun rights and all Democrats oppose it .
It ’ s easy because , by and large , that ’ s how it shakes out in the real world .
The moment Democrats got control of Virginia , they immediately swooped in to overturn years of work by GOP legislators to restore gun rights , for example .
And that story isn ’ t unique , really .
What did Democrats do the moment they took the House ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
However , it ’ s important to remember that just like we can ’ t trust every Republican with our gun rights , there are some Democrats who believe in the Second Amendment .
One is now running for the state senate in Florida .
Democratic Florida Senate candidate H. Alexander Duncan wants Democrats and particularly black men to demand Second Amendment rights to guns just as loudly as the mostly Republican , mostly white men seen at many protests around the country .
Duncan , running in a crowded Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seminole County and parts of Volusia County , posted several items on Facebook over the weekendespousing his firm commitment to Second Amendment rights , including a photograph of himself holding his AR-15 rifle , superimposed against the U.S. Constitution and a few rifle cartridges .
His posts also make references to and depict the armed black and Hispanic men who helped escort Michigan black lawmakers past a phalanx of mostly white , armed protesters last week , and to the Black Panthers of the late 1960s .
Duncan also posted pictures of African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding up a “ black power ” fist , while he urged African American parents to take their children to the gun store , and to the gun range , and to “ give your children a shooting chance.
” “ The overt nature of what a lot of these mainly Caucasian groups have been doing with the public displays and their antics with the firearms , they ’ ve pushed it to the point where… a lot of African Americans are going to take another look … and see that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters of the Second Amendment , ” Duncan said in an interview Monday .
In his posts , he also makes references to recent acts of violence against black men .
“ Just in case any Republicans felt like they had a monopoly on the Second Amendment , Stand Your Ground or “ the right to Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ” — you ’ re wrong… the dying stops now , ” Duncan wrote in a post with the picture .
While I disagree with Duncan on the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men–after all , the vast majority of black men who are murdered die at the hands of other black men–I ’ m not going to say anything about it actually mattering that I disagree .
Look , if any group feels they may be oppressed by another group , my advice is to get armed .
Like Duncan says , black men and women should be buying guns , especially if they ’ re concerned about racially-motivated violence .
The same is true for Hispanics and Asians as well .
If you fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reason as your skin tone , then you owe it to yourself and your family to buy a gun .
Honestly , the vast majority of gun owners would agree with that sentiment as well , based on my interactions with numerous others .
None of us care about your ethnicity .
If you ’ re not a felon or insane , we fully agree that you should buy a gun .
Hell , most of us will disagree with someone like Duncan on almost every matter of policy , but would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun for them if they needed the help ( Duncan , apparently , doesn ’ t need it ) .
While most gun owners do tend to be white , that ’ s not by design .
I don ’ t know a damn soul how looks around at the gun range and is talks about how great it is that there aren ’ t any minorities around .
I ’ ve literally never heard anything remotely like that on any range .
While I ’ m sure someone has , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yeah , every minority should be armed .
African-Americans ?
Yep , arm them up .
Asian-Americans ?
Absolutely .
Hispanic-Americans ?
Hell yeah .
Women ?
Oh , you better believe it .
The LGBT community ?
Of course .
Look , everyone should be armed if they wish to be .
If you ’ re someone who feels like you might be targeted for a crime , arming yourself isn ’ t paranoia , it ’ s prudence .
Get a gun , learn how to shoot it , learn how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more to it than target practice ) , and keep your skills sharp .
Then , if you need to , defend your life as fiercely as you can .
Self-defense is a human right .
That means it applies to all of us .

It’s very easy for us to look at gun rights and automatically assume all Republicans back gun rights and all Democrats oppose it. It’s easy because, by and large, that’s how it shakes out in the real world. The moment Democrats got control of Virginia, they immediately swooped in to overturn years of work by GOP legislators to restore gun rights, for example.
And that story isn’t unique, really. What did Democrats do the moment they took the House? That’s right, they started pushing for gun control.
However, it’s important to remember that just like we can’t trust every Republican with our gun rights, there are some Democrats who believe in the Second Amendment. One is now running for the state senate in Florida.
Democratic Florida Senate candidate H. Alexander Duncan wants Democrats and particularly black men to demand Second Amendment rights to guns just as loudly as the mostly Republican, mostly white men seen at many protests around the country. Duncan, running in a crowded Democratic primary in Senate District 9 to represent Seminole County and parts of Volusia County, posted several items on Facebook over the weekendespousing his firm commitment to Second Amendment rights, including a photograph of himself holding his AR-15 rifle, superimposed against the U.S. Constitution and a few rifle cartridges. His posts also make references to and depict the armed black and Hispanic men who helped escort Michigan black lawmakers past a phalanx of mostly white, armed protesters last week, and to the Black Panthers of the late 1960s. Duncan also posted pictures of African American children in a gun store and holding up a “black power” fist, while he urged African American parents to take their children to the gun store, and to the gun range, and to “give your children a shooting chance.” “The overt nature of what a lot of these mainly Caucasian groups have been doing with the public displays and their antics with the firearms, they’ve pushed it to the point where… a lot of African Americans are going to take another look … and see that there is historical significance to African Americans being staunch supporters of the Second Amendment,” Duncan said in an interview Monday. In his posts, he also makes references to recent acts of violence against black men. “Just in case any Republicans felt like they had a monopoly on the Second Amendment, Stand Your Ground or “the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — you’re wrong… the dying stops now,” Duncan wrote in a post with the picture.
While I disagree with Duncan on the risk posed by supposedly racially-motivated murders of black men–after all, the vast majority of black men who are murdered die at the hands of other black men–I’m not going to say anything about it actually mattering that I disagree.
Look, if any group feels they may be oppressed by another group, my advice is to get armed. Like Duncan says, black men and women should be buying guns, especially if they’re concerned about racially-motivated violence. The same is true for Hispanics and Asians as well. If you fear being targeted, especially for as superficial a reason as your skin tone, then you owe it to yourself and your family to buy a gun.
Honestly, the vast majority of gun owners would agree with that sentiment as well, based on my interactions with numerous others. None of us care about your ethnicity. If you’re not a felon or insane, we fully agree that you should buy a gun. Hell, most of us will disagree with someone like Duncan on almost every matter of policy, but would still help them figure out the best gun for them if they needed the help (Duncan, apparently, doesn’t need it).
While most gun owners do tend to be white, that’s not by design. I don’t know a damn soul how looks around at the gun range and is talks about how great it is that there aren’t any minorities around. I’ve literally never heard anything remotely like that on any range. While I’m sure someone has, it’s not the prevailing opinion.
So yeah, every minority should be armed. African-Americans? Yep, arm them up. Asian-Americans? Absolutely. Hispanic-Americans? Hell yeah. Women? Oh, you better believe it. The LGBT community? Of course.
Look, everyone should be armed if they wish to be. If you’re someone who feels like you might be targeted for a crime, arming yourself isn’t paranoia, it’s prudence. Get a gun, learn how to shoot it, learn how to fight with it (because there’s more to it than target practice), and keep your skills sharp. Then, if you need to, defend your life as fiercely as you can.
Self-defense is a human right. That means it applies to all of us.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Bloomberg Anti-Gun Group Spending Big In Arizona

Michael Bloomberg may have failed in his quest to become the Democratic presidential candidate , but the gun control sugar daddy isn ’ t done spending on the 2020 election .
In addition to dropping millions of dollars into Texas legislative races in attempt to turn the statehouse blue , Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety is committing to spending at least $ 5-million dollars on races in Arizona ahead of Election Day .
The move is part of a $ 60 million nationwide effort by the political arm of Everytown for Gun Safety , an organization co-founded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and underscores Arizona ’ s more competitive political climate .
Dubbed “ Gun Sense Majority : Arizona , ” Everytown ’ s plan is to create an organization to send mailers , run digital and TV ads , make phone calls and recruit new voters .
Its efforts will encourage support for Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , and Mark Kelly , the state ’ s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate .
But those efforts could grow to include U.S. House races and will also target races in five districts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Arizona ’ s newly evolving political landscape could help settle the race for the White House and control of the U.S. Senate .
“ We see Arizona as one of the most important battlegrounds for gun safety in the country , ” said Charlie Kelly , a senior political adviser for Everytown .
It ’ s easy to think of Arizona as a solid red state , but as the Arizona Republic points out , Republicans only have a two-seat majority in the state House and a 4-seat majority in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark Kelly has been leading Sen. Martha McSally in recent polls , and currently has an 8.5 point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average .
In other words , as conservative as Arizona may have been in the past , it ’ s up for grabs this year .
Arizona Gov .
Doug Ducey isn ’ t up for re-election until 2022 , so if Democrats do take control of the legislature in November , we won ’ t immediately see gun bans or a repeal of permitless carry enacted , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good at playing the long game .
If they have to wait a couple of years to turn Arizona into East California in terms of its gun control laws , they ’ re okay with that .
It ’ s critically important that Arizona gun owners get involved now in supporting pro-2A candidates in this year ’ s election in order to stave off the impending attack on their right to keep and bear arms .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Michael Bloomberg may have failed in his quest to become the Democratic presidential candidate, but the gun control sugar daddy isn’t done spending on the 2020 election. In addition to dropping millions of dollars into Texas legislative races in attempt to turn the statehouse blue, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety is committing to spending at least $5-million dollars on races in Arizona ahead of Election Day.
The move is part of a $60 million nationwide effort by the political arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization co-founded by the former New York City mayor, and underscores Arizona’s more competitive political climate. Dubbed “Gun Sense Majority: Arizona,” Everytown’s plan is to create an organization to send mailers, run digital and TV ads, make phone calls and recruit new voters. Its efforts will encourage support for Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Mark Kelly, the state’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate. But those efforts could grow to include U.S. House races and will also target races in five districts in Arizona’s state House and Senate. Arizona’s newly evolving political landscape could help settle the race for the White House and control of the U.S. Senate. “We see Arizona as one of the most important battlegrounds for gun safety in the country,” said Charlie Kelly, a senior political adviser for Everytown.
It’s easy to think of Arizona as a solid red state, but as the Arizona Republic points out, Republicans only have a two-seat majority in the state House and a 4-seat majority in the state Senate. In the U.S. Senate race, Mark Kelly has been leading Sen. Martha McSally in recent polls, and currently has an 8.5 point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average. In other words, as conservative as Arizona may have been in the past, it’s up for grabs this year.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey isn’t up for re-election until 2022, so if Democrats do take control of the legislature in November, we won’t immediately see gun bans or a repeal of permitless carry enacted, but Bloomberg and his anti-gun allies are pretty good at playing the long game. If they have to wait a couple of years to turn Arizona into East California in terms of its gun control laws, they’re okay with that. It’s critically important that Arizona gun owners get involved now in supporting pro-2A candidates in this year’s election in order to stave off the impending attack on their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Everytown Looks To Enlist Religious Leaders In Anti-Gun Push

In more rural states , faith plays a larger factor in people ’ s lives than it might in larger cities .
That ’ s not to say everyone in the country is a Bible-thumper or that everyone in the city is a godless heathen .
However , generally speaking , you ’ re going to find more faithful in the rural areas .
In fact , rural areas and gun rights support tend to line up pretty well with one another , actually .
And let ’ s be honest , some folks like to think that most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of things beyond scripture .
It seems that Everytown is among those , and they have a plan to take advantage of that .
A leading gun control advocacy group has enlisted more than a dozen religious leaders to boost voter turnout this fall in support of candidates who support measures to prevent gun violence .
Everytown for Gun Safety , which expects to spend $ 60 million on this year ’ s elections , is forging its interfaith effort amid ongoing concerns about shootings at houses of worship .
The group ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish , Muslim , Hindu and Sikh backgrounds , several of them well-known progressive activists .
Among those joining Everytown ’ s initiative , details of which were shared with The Associated Press ahead of its official announcement , are evangelical Shane Claiborne , president of the group Red Letter Christians , and Rev .
Traci Blackmon , a United Church of Christ executive minister and a central member of the Black Lives Matter movement .
Another is Rev .
Rob Schenck , a former evangelical anti-abortion activist who has since shifted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought to redefine a “ pro-life ” agenda as one that supports gun control .
Schenck described gun violence as a “ life or death issue , which makes it a supreme moral consideration.
” “ Churches , especially white evangelical churches , have largely ignored this question — I think , much to their own detriment and to the detriment of the people they ’ re called to serve , ” said Schenck , president of the Washington-based nonprofit Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute .
So , let me break it down for Everytown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and donors are people who generally tell the religious to shut up and keep their faith to themselves .
It ’ s incredibly hypocritical to now try to use faith to alter public opinion on guns .
Second , only an idiot would think that progressive activists who also happen to be members of the clergy are going to accomplish a damn thing .
Those particular pastors are used to preaching to the choir .
They ’ re not going to convince all of us faithful gun owners to turn in our guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have their way on that or any other issue , really .
Gun-owning folks are going to look at these so-called faith leaders and roll their eyes .
The same is true for most of the moderates out there .
They ’ ll look at who is talking and the moment they find out that these aren ’ t unbiased members of the clergy but are , instead , progressive activists who manipulate people using the trappings of Christianity .
Of course , most of these pastors fail to understand this passage @ @ @

In more rural states, faith plays a larger factor in people’s lives than it might in larger cities. That’s not to say everyone in the country is a Bible-thumper or that everyone in the city is a godless heathen. However, generally speaking, you’re going to find more faithful in the rural areas. In fact, rural areas and gun rights support tend to line up pretty well with one another, actually.
And let’s be honest, some folks like to think that most people listen to their pastor about a lot of things beyond scripture. It seems that Everytown is among those, and they have a plan to take advantage of that.
A leading gun control advocacy group has enlisted more than a dozen religious leaders to boost voter turnout this fall in support of candidates who support measures to prevent gun violence. Everytown for Gun Safety, which expects to spend $60 million on this year’s elections, is forging its interfaith effort amid ongoing concerns about shootings at houses of worship. The group’s partners include representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh backgrounds, several of them well-known progressive activists. Among those joining Everytown’s initiative, details of which were shared with The Associated Press ahead of its official announcement, are evangelical Shane Claiborne, president of the group Red Letter Christians, and Rev. Traci Blackmon, a United Church of Christ executive minister and a central member of the Black Lives Matter movement. Another is Rev. Rob Schenck, a former evangelical anti-abortion activist who has since shifted to support the Roe v. Wade decision and sought to redefine a “pro-life” agenda as one that supports gun control. Schenck described gun violence as a “life or death issue, which makes it a supreme moral consideration.” “Churches, especially white evangelical churches, have largely ignored this question — I think, much to their own detriment and to the detriment of the people they’re called to serve,” said Schenck, president of the Washington-based nonprofit Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute.
So, let me break it down for Everytown.
First, most of your members and donors are people who generally tell the religious to shut up and keep their faith to themselves. It’s incredibly hypocritical to now try to use faith to alter public opinion on guns.
Second, only an idiot would think that progressive activists who also happen to be members of the clergy are going to accomplish a damn thing. Those particular pastors are used to preaching to the choir. They’re not going to convince all of us faithful gun owners to turn in our guns and just roll over and allow progressives to have their way on that or any other issue, really.
Gun-owning folks are going to look at these so-called faith leaders and roll their eyes. The same is true for most of the moderates out there. They’ll look at who is talking and the moment they find out that these aren’t unbiased members of the clergy but are, instead, progressive activists who manipulate people using the trappings of Christianity.
Of course, most of these pastors fail to understand this passage particularly well:


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Raleigh Police Investigating Armed Protest Group

Raleigh , North Carolina police chief Cassandra Deck-Brown says her department is investigating a small group of armed protestors who gathered in the city ’ s downtown area over the weekend , and could bring criminal charges against the group for protesting while armed .
State law prohibits possessing a weapon while participating in or watching a protest , but nothing bars people from walking on a city sidewalk displaying firearms , Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown said in a statement released by the Police Department on Monday night .
The Police Department contacted a person who described an encounter with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the police chief .
She did not name the person , who she said did not want to pursue the matter .
But video of his encounter captured by multiple media outlets has been reviewed , she said .
It ’ s unclear what encounter Deck-Brown is referring to , but the dozen or so members of the protest group Blue Igloo livestreamed their walk through downtown , including a visit to a Subway restaurant .
Once inside the Subway , the person filming the walk asks the employees for permission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys cool with us being in here ?
” the man asks .
“ We don ’ t want to make it look like we ’ re threatening or intimidating anyone .
That ’ s why we ask.
” The employee asked them to eat outside the shop .
Several protesters ate their sandwiches inside .
“ I ain ’ t hungry , but I appreciate you guys being open , ” the person holding the camera says before exiting .
Under North Carolina ’ s executive order , restaurants are not allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve food for takeout or curbside to-go orders .
They left and continued walking through downtown around the Capitol , the Legislature and the Executive Mansion .
They came upon a man dressed in a Batman costume holding a sign that said , “ Guns killed my parents.
” The group invited the man to join , and he declined .
The group continued on after that .
As a Second Amendment advocate , I don ’ t think the Blue Igloo march was particularly useful or helpful to the cause ( particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrench for some reason ) , but that doesn ’ t mean that it ’ s illegal either .
You don ’ t have to like what someone says or does in order to support their freedom of assembly , speech , and right to keep and bear arms .
In fact , if you only support free speech and protests that you agree with , you really don ’ t support free speech at all .
Deck-Brown should be cautious about bringing any kind of charges for protesting while armed as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the North Carolina statute would survive a court challenge .
In fact , there ’ s been at least one case in North Carolina where charges against an armed protestor were dismissed by a judge .
It looks like in that case , the state didn ’ t appeal the dismissal , so the state Supreme Court didn ’ t weigh in on the statute .
Any arrests of armed protestors in Raleigh will almost certainly lead to another court challenge , and likely the same outcome as the 2017 case .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deck-Brown and other city leaders should try to engage the protestors in conversation , not confrontation .
That probably won ’ t end the protests , but it will likely defuse some of the tension .

Raleigh, North Carolina police chief Cassandra Deck-Brown says her department is investigating a small group of armed protestors who gathered in the city’s downtown area over the weekend, and could bring criminal charges against the group for protesting while armed.
State law prohibits possessing a weapon while participating in or watching a protest, but nothing bars people from walking on a city sidewalk displaying firearms, Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown said in a statement released by the Police Department on Monday night. The Police Department contacted a person who described an encounter with a demonstrator on social media, according to the police chief. She did not name the person, who she said did not want to pursue the matter. But video of his encounter captured by multiple media outlets has been reviewed, she said.
It’s unclear what encounter Deck-Brown is referring to, but the dozen or so members of the protest group Blue Igloo livestreamed their walk through downtown, including a visit to a Subway restaurant.
Once inside the Subway, the person filming the walk asks the employees for permission to order and eat inside. “You guys cool with us being in here?” the man asks. “We don’t want to make it look like we’re threatening or intimidating anyone. That’s why we ask.” The employee asked them to eat outside the shop. Several protesters ate their sandwiches inside. “I ain’t hungry, but I appreciate you guys being open,” the person holding the camera says before exiting. Under North Carolina’s executive order, restaurants are not allowed to have dine-in seating and can only serve food for takeout or curbside to-go orders. They left and continued walking through downtown around the Capitol, the Legislature and the Executive Mansion. They came upon a man dressed in a Batman costume holding a sign that said, “Guns killed my parents.” The group invited the man to join, and he declined. The group continued on after that.
As a Second Amendment advocate, I don’t think the Blue Igloo march was particularly useful or helpful to the cause (particularly the guy strolling around with a pipe wrench for some reason), but that doesn’t mean that it’s illegal either. You don’t have to like what someone says or does in order to support their freedom of assembly, speech, and right to keep and bear arms. In fact, if you only support free speech and protests that you agree with, you really don’t support free speech at all.
Deck-Brown should be cautious about bringing any kind of charges for protesting while armed as well, because I don’t think the North Carolina statute would survive a court challenge. In fact, there’s been at least one case in North Carolina where charges against an armed protestor were dismissed by a judge.
In 2017, a Durham man was arrested and charged for carrying a semi-automatic rifle to a Ku Klux Klan counterprotest, The Herald-Sun previously reported. A judge eventually dismissed the charge after his attorney argued the law was overly broad and infringed on his First and Second Amendments right to assemble and to bear arms.
It looks like in that case, the state didn’t appeal the dismissal, so the state Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on the statute. Any arrests of armed protestors in Raleigh will almost certainly lead to another court challenge, and likely the same outcome as the 2017 case. Instead of fighting an iffy legal battle, Deck-Brown and other city leaders should try to engage the protestors in conversation, not confrontation. That probably won’t end the protests, but it will likely defuse some of the tension.


bearingarms--2020-05-12--Brooklyn Gun Dismissal Reveals Big Problems In NYC Jails

A Brooklyn man facing federal charges for being a felon in possession had his case dismissed this week after prosecutors agreed to the move , in part because the coronavirus has slowed the criminal justice system to a crawl .
Public defenders for Douglas Ebanks argued that their client had been cooling his heels in the Metropolitan Detention Center for 60 days while federal prosecutors waited on a federal grand jury to be empaneled , and while prosecutors didn ’ t elaborate on their decision to drop the case , Law.com notes that the suspect is also facing similar charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleviated concerns by the DOJ that Ebanks wouldn ’ t face justice once federal charges were dismissed .
Interestingly , it looks like there was some debate between Ebanks ’ attorneys about seeking a dismissal due to the coronavirus cases in the NYC jails .
Ebanks can now pay a $ 100,000 bail or await his state trial on Rikers Island .
[ Public defender Mildred ] Whalen said his public defender in the state case initially asked her not to move to dismiss the federal case because Rikers had “ active outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety of Rikers and the MDC had appeared to shift since , she said .
“ [ At Rikers ] they appear to be openly and honestly addressing the cases that they have , ” in contrast to the MDC , Whalen said .
The MDC has been criticized for its lack of coronavirus testing and , in a report from a doctor who inspected the facility as part of discovery in another case in the Eastern District , for widespread failures in symptom tracking and infection control .
If authorities believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better job of handling the coronavirus than the federally-run Metropolitan Detention Center , that ’ s bad news for inmates and guards in both facilities .
As of last week , almost 10-percent of the population at Rikers Island had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus , and some defense attorneys are still pushing for hundreds of inmates to be released .
“ Regardless of whether someone has been convicted or is awaiting trial or is guilty or innocent , I think it ’ s a human right to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay safe during a deadly pandemic , ” Kalle Condliffe , a defense lawyer with the society , told theGrio .
Legal Aid is part of a coalition of organizations that are pushing for the release of everyone in Rikers during the pandemic .
“ COVID-19 is spreading rapidly at Rikers Island and other local jails , endangering our clients , correction staff and all of New York City , ” Tina Luongo , attorney-in-charge of the Criminal Defense Practice of the Legal Aid Society , said in a statement .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center have filed a class action lawsuit over the handling of the coronavirus at the federal facility , and a court-ordered inspection as part of the litigation has turned up several issues .
The report was written by Dr. Homer Venters , the former medical director for New York City ’ s jails , who oversaw that system ’ s response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009 , as well as outbreaks of other diseases in city jails .
Far from being prepared to contain a coronavirus outbreak , MDC ’ s practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of infection , serious illness and even death , ” Venters wrote .
“ Several current practices in MDC actually promote a more rapid spread of COVID-19 inside the facility.
” Venters found that MDC ’ s screening for the disease is woefully inadequate , consisting entirely of inconsistent temperature checks .
None of the men he spoke to had been screened for other symptoms .
Part of the problem , Venters learned , is that the system by which incarcerated people request medical care is functionally broken .
The incarcerated people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seven days after submitting a request before they were seen by medical staff .
Some people told him that they never received any response at all .
In an April 27 deposition , Stacy Vasquez , the jail ’ s health services administrator , testified that it often takes two weeks for medical requests at the jail to be addressed .
If we ’ re trying to stop the spread of the coronavirus behind bars , timely testing and isolation of positive inmates has to be a priority .
Waiting two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to be effective , and only adds fuel to the argument that inmates would be safer awaiting trial at home .
Of course , the public might not be safer if hundreds of inmates were let loose , but unfortunately there ’ s no guarantee that a judge will see it that way .

A Brooklyn man facing federal charges for being a felon in possession had his case dismissed this week after prosecutors agreed to the move, in part because the coronavirus has slowed the criminal justice system to a crawl. Public defenders for Douglas Ebanks argued that their client had been cooling his heels in the Metropolitan Detention Center for 60 days while federal prosecutors waited on a federal grand jury to be empaneled, and while prosecutors didn’t elaborate on their decision to drop the case, Law.com notes that the suspect is also facing similar charges in state court, which may have alleviated concerns by the DOJ that Ebanks wouldn’t face justice once federal charges were dismissed.
Interestingly, it looks like there was some debate between Ebanks’ attorneys about seeking a dismissal due to the coronavirus cases in the NYC jails.
Ebanks can now pay a $100,000 bail or await his state trial on Rikers Island. [Public defender Mildred] Whalen said his public defender in the state case initially asked her not to move to dismiss the federal case because Rikers had “active outbreaks” of COVID-19, but the relative safety of Rikers and the MDC had appeared to shift since, she said. “[At Rikers] they appear to be openly and honestly addressing the cases that they have,” in contrast to the MDC, Whalen said. The MDC has been criticized for its lack of coronavirus testing and, in a report from a doctor who inspected the facility as part of discovery in another case in the Eastern District, for widespread failures in symptom tracking and infection control.
If authorities believe that the state-run Rikers Island complex is doing a better job of handling the coronavirus than the federally-run Metropolitan Detention Center, that’s bad news for inmates and guards in both facilities. As of last week, almost 10-percent of the population at Rikers Island had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, and some defense attorneys are still pushing for hundreds of inmates to be released.
“Regardless of whether someone has been convicted or is awaiting trial or is guilty or innocent, I think it’s a human right to be able to protect your health and to be able to stay safe during a deadly pandemic,” Kalle Condliffe, a defense lawyer with the society, told theGrio. Legal Aid is part of a coalition of organizations that are pushing for the release of everyone in Rikers during the pandemic. “COVID-19 is spreading rapidly at Rikers Island and other local jails, endangering our clients, correction staff and all of New York City,” Tina Luongo, attorney-in-charge of the Criminal Defense Practice of the Legal Aid Society, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, several inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center have filed a class action lawsuit over the handling of the coronavirus at the federal facility, and a court-ordered inspection as part of the litigation has turned up several issues.
The report was written by Dr. Homer Venters, the former medical director for New York City’s jails, who oversaw that system’s response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, as well as outbreaks of other diseases in city jails. Far from being prepared to contain a coronavirus outbreak, MDC’s practices “put detainees and staff at grave risk of infection, serious illness and even death,” Venters wrote. “Several current practices in MDC actually promote a more rapid spread of COVID-19 inside the facility.” Venters found that MDC’s screening for the disease is woefully inadequate, consisting entirely of inconsistent temperature checks. None of the men he spoke to had been screened for other symptoms. Part of the problem, Venters learned, is that the system by which incarcerated people request medical care is functionally broken. The incarcerated people he interviewed said they generally waited three to seven days after submitting a request before they were seen by medical staff. Some people told him that they never received any response at all. In an April 27 deposition, Stacy Vasquez, the jail’s health services administrator, testified that it often takes two weeks for medical requests at the jail to be addressed.
If we’re trying to stop the spread of the coronavirus behind bars, timely testing and isolation of positive inmates has to be a priority. Waiting two weeks to address a medical request isn’t going to be effective, and only adds fuel to the argument that inmates would be safer awaiting trial at home. Of course, the public might not be safer if hundreds of inmates were let loose, but unfortunately there’s no guarantee that a judge will see it that way.