bearingarms--2020-02-11--Gun Rights Supporter Claims Gun Control Addresses Problem That Isn't There

Gun control advocates claim that violence is a significant problem and so we need gun control to address those problems .
Gun rights advocates argue that no , violent crime is actually low , particular when compared to the heyday of the assault weapon ban during the 1990s .
Recently , a Utah gun rights advocate laid it all out during a television interview , one that I suspect is bound to rustle the proverbial jimmies of a whole lot of gun grabbers out there .
Opponents to a series of proposed gun control laws in Utah say lawmakers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exist .
“ In Utah , we have one of the highest rates of firearm ownership , very , very little restrictions on firearms , we ’ re a very permissive state , ” Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Clark Aposhian told “ Fox & Friends First ” Monday .
“ Yet we have one of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates , even with a firearm , in the country , so what we ’ re asking for is to fix a problem that isn ’ t there.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically about Utah and he ’ s right , the state does have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation .
In fact , it has the ninth-lowest violent crime rate in the nation .
And it ’ s especially interesting when one opts to look at just how anti-gun voices in Utah want to address the issue .
The proposed legislation includes House Bill 109 , which calls for universal background checks for firearm purchases ; H.B .
115 , where custodians can be found liable for damage caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H.B .
136 , which would make it a criminal offense if a firearm is stored in a place that the gun owner knows that a minor or person legally restricted from possessing a gun has access to it and a person is injured by the minor or restricted person who used it ; and H.B .
229 , also known as a red flag law , which allows a family member or law enforcement to ask a court to restrain a person who may present a danger to others or themselves from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specified length of time .
When Childers asked Aposhian what he thinks about convicted felons potentially using weapons , he answered , “ Convicted felons can ’ t use weapons , we ’ ve already got existing laws.
” He added , “ Felons can ’ t have firearms , people that make threats with firearms can ’ t own firearms and you can have them arrested [ in Utah ] , so they ’ re talking about people that haven ’ t committed a crime and , you know , haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re so apparently dangerous that they have to remove their rights to own a firearm without ever seeing a judge.
” Now , I ’ m not a fan of pretending that problems don ’ t exist simply because it ’ s lower there than other places .
However , Aposhian is right on the whole .
Violence is much less of an issue in Utah than in most other places and it ’ s that way with the current gun laws on the books .
As we ’ ve seen , red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decrease in things like suicides , something supporters claim it ’ s meant to stop .
In other words , while the problems are minimal in Utah , it ’ s easy to argue that more can be done yet just passing laws for the sake of “ doing something ” doesn ’ t mean that something will work .
Aposhian is right and wrong .
There is a problem , it ’ s just much less of a problem in Utah than some would like to pretend .
However , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these bills aren ’ t remotely needed ; not in Utah and not anywhere else in the country .

Gun control advocates claim that violence is a significant problem and so we need gun control to address those problems. Gun rights advocates argue that no, violent crime is actually low, particular when compared to the heyday of the assault weapon ban during the 1990s.
Recently, a Utah gun rights advocate laid it all out during a television interview, one that I suspect is bound to rustle the proverbial jimmies of a whole lot of gun grabbers out there.
Opponents to a series of proposed gun control laws in Utah say lawmakers are proposing a solution to problems that don’t exist. “In Utah, we have one of the highest rates of firearm ownership, very, very little restrictions on firearms, we’re a very permissive state,” Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Clark Aposhian told “Fox & Friends First” Monday. “Yet we have one of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates, even with a firearm, in the country, so what we’re asking for is to fix a problem that isn’t there.”
To be clear, Aposhian is talking specifically about Utah and he’s right, the state does have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. In fact, it has the ninth-lowest violent crime rate in the nation.
And it’s especially interesting when one opts to look at just how anti-gun voices in Utah want to address the issue.
The proposed legislation includes House Bill 109, which calls for universal background checks for firearm purchases; H.B. 115, where custodians can be found liable for damage caused by someone else using their firearm; H.B. 136, which would make it a criminal offense if a firearm is stored in a place that the gun owner knows that a minor or person legally restricted from possessing a gun has access to it and a person is injured by the minor or restricted person who used it; and H.B. 229, also known as a red flag law, which allows a family member or law enforcement to ask a court to restrain a person who may present a danger to others or themselves from possessing any firearms or ammunition for a specified length of time. When Childers asked Aposhian what he thinks about convicted felons potentially using weapons, he answered, “Convicted felons can’t use weapons, we’ve already got existing laws.” He added, “Felons can’t have firearms, people that make threats with firearms can’t own firearms and you can have them arrested [in Utah], so they’re talking about people that haven’t committed a crime and, you know, haven’t threatened anyone … yet they’re so apparently dangerous that they have to remove their rights to own a firearm without ever seeing a judge.”
Now, I’m not a fan of pretending that problems don’t exist simply because it’s lower there than other places. However, Aposhian is right on the whole. Violence is much less of an issue in Utah than in most other places and it’s that way with the current gun laws on the books. As we’ve seen, red flag laws don’t lead to a decrease in things like suicides, something supporters claim it’s meant to stop.
In other words, while the problems are minimal in Utah, it’s easy to argue that more can be done yet just passing laws for the sake of “doing something” doesn’t mean that something will work.
Aposhian is right and wrong. There is a problem, it’s just much less of a problem in Utah than some would like to pretend. However, he and I are in complete agreement that these bills aren’t remotely needed; not in Utah and not anywhere else in the country.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Pro-Gun Indiana Lawmaker Has Some Hard Truths For Students

Indiana State Rep. Jim Lucas is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and a champion of laws protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the state legislature , but he ’ s being criticized for the response he gave to a student who quizzed him about a bill that would allow teachers to receive firearms training , as well as allow for retired law enforcement officers to lawfully carry on school property in the state .
Lucas responded to the question with support for the legislation , and noted that the Supreme Court has stated that law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even “ children who are being slaughtered.
” The Republic newspaper in Indiana says Lucas created a “ stir ” when the student asked a followup question .
After Lucas answered Brewer ’ s question , the student had a follow-up question : “ Do you believe the more guns that are being carried , including in this room , would make my classmates and I safer ?
” Lucas immediately said “ absolutely ” and then told the crowd “ I ’ m carrying right now .
Does that scare anybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly a third of those in the room , raised their hands to signal that it scared them .
Several other people said “ yes ” without raising their hands .
There also were a few people who said “ no.
” After the event , Lucas said he was carrying a .50-caliber 1911 handgun at the Third House session , adding that he carries a firearm everywhere he goes — including in the Indiana House of Representatives chamber and in the Statehouse .
Donner Center , where Third House was held , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lucas is right about the Supreme Court ruling that police have no obligation to protect you as an individual .
Just read the decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez , which was decided in 2005 .
Jerry Maulin , a team leader who teaches second through sixth grades at ABC Stewart and took the students to Third House , said he was “ somewhat disappointed ” that the other lawmakers didn ’ t comment on the student ’ s question about gun legislation .
The purpose of attending the event , Maulin said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are multiple sides to issues , but they ended up only hearing one side of the gun debate .
“ I ’ m not surprised by ( Lucas ’ ) comments , ” Maulin said .
“ I understand that it is probably his main issue .
…I was somewhat disappointed that the other members ( of the General Assembly ) didn ’ t have any comment on it .
They kind of let him dominate ( the conversation ) .
” Brewer , through Maulin , said he felt Lucas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thought Rep. Lucas answered his question .
He felt like Rep. Lucas really likes guns .
He also said he felt many in the room were startled when Rep. Lucas revealed he was carrying a gun right there in our meeting , ” Maulin said .
“ It was kind of startling when Rep. Lucas shared that he was carrying a weapon , ” Maulin said .
“ ‘ Children being slaughtered , ’ to say that to school kids , I don ’ t know , ” Maulin said .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is the truth , and Lucas was correct in pointing out that fact , no matter how uncomfortable Maulin may have been with language Lucas used .
Unfortunately , many Americans would simply prefer to pretend that if we ban guns , there ’ d be no reason to carry a firearm for self-defense because bad guys would be disarmed right alongside America ’ s 100-million gun owners .
I ’ m sure it ’ s a comforting thought for those folks , but it ’ s simply untrue .
All you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime rates in the two American cities that did have a handgun ban on the books to see that criminals will find a way to illegally obtain and possess firearms , while good people are denied their rights .
Washington , DC had a handgun ban in place from 1977 through 2008 , when it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision .
During that time period , the city ’ s homicide rate grew from 28 homicides per 100,000 people in 1977 to a high of 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declining to 31.5 in 2008 , when the ban was struck down .
After the ban on handgun ownership was lifted , the city ’ s homicide rate continued to drop , reaching a low of 14 homicides per 100k in 2012 before starting to rebound .
The city ’ s homicide rate post-handgun ban has never gotten higher than 24 per 100k , which means it ’ s never been as high as it was when the city ’ s ban on handguns was in place .
Chicago , Illinois crime rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates spiking in the early 1990 ’ s , while the city ’ s ban on handguns was firmly in place .
Chicago ’ s ban began in 1982 , and was lifted in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the McDonald case that the city ’ s ban was unconstitutional .
Since then , while homicide rates have risen and fallen , they ’ ve never reached the highs seen while the handgun ban was in effect .
They don ’ t teach these statistics in school , but hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about when it comes to their safety and security at school and at home .

Indiana State Rep. Jim Lucas is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and a champion of laws protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the state legislature, but he’s being criticized for the response he gave to a student who quizzed him about a bill that would allow teachers to receive firearms training, as well as allow for retired law enforcement officers to lawfully carry on school property in the state.
Lucas responded to the question with support for the legislation, and noted that the Supreme Court has stated that law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals, even “children who are being slaughtered.” The Republic newspaper in Indiana says Lucas created a “stir” when the student asked a followup question.
After Lucas answered Brewer’s question, the student had a follow-up question: “Do you believe the more guns that are being carried, including in this room, would make my classmates and I safer?” Lucas immediately said “absolutely” and then told the crowd “I’m carrying right now. Does that scare anybody?” Around 20 people, or roughly a third of those in the room, raised their hands to signal that it scared them. Several other people said “yes” without raising their hands. There also were a few people who said “no.” After the event, Lucas said he was carrying a .50-caliber 1911 handgun at the Third House session, adding that he carries a firearm everywhere he goes — including in the Indiana House of Representatives chamber and in the Statehouse. Donner Center, where Third House was held, is a Columbus city parks facility.
Lucas is right about the Supreme Court ruling that police have no obligation to protect you as an individual. Just read the decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, which was decided in 2005.
Jerry Maulin, a team leader who teaches second through sixth grades at ABC Stewart and took the students to Third House, said he was “somewhat disappointed” that the other lawmakers didn’t comment on the student’s question about gun legislation. The purpose of attending the event, Maulin said, was for the students to learn that there are multiple sides to issues, but they ended up only hearing one side of the gun debate. “I’m not surprised by (Lucas’) comments,” Maulin said. “I understand that it is probably his main issue. …I was somewhat disappointed that the other members (of the General Assembly) didn’t have any comment on it. They kind of let him dominate (the conversation).” Brewer, through Maulin, said he felt Lucas answered his question. “He said he thought Rep. Lucas answered his question. He felt like Rep. Lucas really likes guns. He also said he felt many in the room were startled when Rep. Lucas revealed he was carrying a gun right there in our meeting,” Maulin said. “It was kind of startling when Rep. Lucas shared that he was carrying a weapon,” Maulin said. “‘Children being slaughtered,’ to say that to school kids, I don’t know,” Maulin said.
It’s a hard truth, but it is the truth, and Lucas was correct in pointing out that fact, no matter how uncomfortable Maulin may have been with language Lucas used.
Unfortunately, many Americans would simply prefer to pretend that if we ban guns, there’d be no reason to carry a firearm for self-defense because bad guys would be disarmed right alongside America’s 100-million gun owners. I’m sure it’s a comforting thought for those folks, but it’s simply untrue. All you have to do is look at the crime rates in the two American cities that did have a handgun ban on the books to see that criminals will find a way to illegally obtain and possess firearms, while good people are denied their rights.
Washington, DC had a handgun ban in place from 1977 through 2008, when it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision. During that time period, the city’s homicide rate grew from 28 homicides per 100,000 people in 1977 to a high of 80 per 100k in 1991, before gradually declining to 31.5 in 2008, when the ban was struck down. After the ban on handgun ownership was lifted, the city’s homicide rate continued to drop, reaching a low of 14 homicides per 100k in 2012 before starting to rebound. The city’s homicide rate post-handgun ban has never gotten higher than 24 per 100k, which means it’s never been as high as it was when the city’s ban on handguns was in place.
Chicago, Illinois crime rates tell a similar story, with homicide rates spiking in the early 1990’s, while the city’s ban on handguns was firmly in place. Chicago’s ban began in 1982, and was lifted in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the McDonald case that the city’s ban was unconstitutional. Since then, while homicide rates have risen and fallen, they’ve never reached the highs seen while the handgun ban was in effect.
They don’t teach these statistics in school, but hopefully Rep. Lucas gave students and teachers something to think about when it comes to their safety and security at school and at home.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Twitter Discovers The Bloomberg Speech He Doesn't Want You To Hear

Michael Bloomberg has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in his bid to become president , swamping television sets and smartphone screens with carefully compiled ads that present the anti-gun billionaire as a pragmatic technocrat who can solve problems without needless partisanship .
That narrative was challenged Monday evening as Twitter users shared audio from a 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute where Bloomberg talked about fighting crime by disarming young black men .
Audio and transcripts of the speech have been floating around since shortly after Bloomberg ’ s remarks were prevented from being officially released by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the pro-Second Amendment community for years .
I actually wrote about this speech by Bloomberg back in December , noting that the speech was going to be problematic for the candidate .
The 2015 Mike Bloomberg sounds a lot different than the 2020 Bloomberg running for president .
That was 2015 Mike Bloomberg .
2020 ’ s Mike Bloomberg is an opponent of “ stop and frisk ” who bizarrely claims that no one ever asked him about the policy and whether or not he supported it until he ran for president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busting young black and brown guys for a little bit of weed if you couldn ’ t find a gun on them , but 2020 ’ s Mike Bloomberg is all about criminal justice reform and making sure young minority men don ’ t go to prison for minor drug offenses .
While gun owners and Second Amendment supporters may have been aware of Bloomberg ’ s comments in Aspen , many reporters and other Democratic candidates are discovering his remarks for the first time , including Bernie Sanders ’ national press secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments by the non-2A press comes as a new national poll shows Bloomberg vaulting into third place behind Bernie Sanders and just a couple of points behind Joe Biden .
The Quinnipiac poll has Bloomberg at 15 % , with Sanders polling at 25 % and Biden dropping from 26 % to 17 % in the groups polling .
Much of Bloomberg ’ s surge in the Q poll comes from growing support among black Americans , with Bloomberg garnering 22 % of the support of black respondents to the poll .
Odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t ever heard Bloomberg discuss reducing crime by locking up young black guys for non-violent offenses like pot possession , but I ’ m guessing they ’ ll be hearing the audio soon enough .
It ’ s important to note , however , that while Bloomberg ’ s comments are bad , his actual policies are even worse .
One of the biggest changes that Bloomberg made to New York City gun laws as mayor was to treat unlicensed possession of a handgun as a felony offense .
That change was ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act package of gun control laws approved by New York lawmakers in 2013 , and since then , the vast majority of SAFE Act charges have come from just two boroughs of New York City ; The Bronx and Brooklyn .
As Slate ‘ s Emily Bazelon reported last year , the vast majority of those cases are possessory charges being brought against young black men with no serious criminal history .
over many months of my reporting , I found hundreds of teenagers and young people , almost all of them black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing a gun , or even pointing one , but for having one .
Many of them had minimal criminal records .
To be precise , when I went through 200 case files , I found that 70 percent of the defendants in gun court had no previous felony convictions .
Here ’ s what predicted who ended up on the benches in gun court : race and age .
Black people are less likely to own guns than white people , but the defendants in gun court were almost all black teenagers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounded like a targeted attack on America ’ s gun problem looked up close more like stop-and-frisk or the war on drugs—one more way to round up young black men .
Reviewing my book in the New Yorker , Adam Gopnik suggested that a kid locked up for a drug offense would have made a more representative subject .
But drug charges are the old way of shunting people to prison .
Gun possession , and similar offenses that states treat as violent , is the new way .
And the 20-year-old whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong kid ” from the point of view of the system or the politicians that built it .
His case was typical in gun court , because he was exactly the kind of person the mayor ’ s plan was designed to ensnare .
Bill de Blasio may have established the Brooklyn gun court , but the court is enforcing Bloomberg ’ s law , and it ’ s primarily young black men who are paying the price ; sent off to prison for years for simply possessing a firearm without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crime in many states across the country , but in Bloomberg ’ s world it ’ s enough to lock you up for more than three years .
I ’ m glad that folks are now starting to pay more attention to what Bloomberg has said and done over the years , and not just mindlessly nod in agreement when they ’ re subjected to one of his ubiquitous campaign ads .
What Bloomberg doesn ’ t want you to know says far more about him than the narrative he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote .

Michael Bloomberg has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in his bid to become president, swamping television sets and smartphone screens with carefully compiled ads that present the anti-gun billionaire as a pragmatic technocrat who can solve problems without needless partisanship. That narrative was challenged Monday evening as Twitter users shared audio from a 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute where Bloomberg talked about fighting crime by disarming young black men.
Audio of @MikeBloomberg’s 2015 @AspenInstitute speech where he explains that “you can just Xerox (copy)” the description of male, minorities 16-25 and hand to cops. Bloomberg had video of speech blocked. Perhaps because of the problematic explanation he gives for #StopAndFrisk pic.twitter.com/Fm0YCi4ZRy — Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) February 10, 2020
Audio and transcripts of the speech have been floating around since shortly after Bloomberg’s remarks were prevented from being officially released by the Aspen Institute, and have been covered in the pro-Second Amendment community for years. I actually wrote about this speech by Bloomberg back in December, noting that the speech was going to be problematic for the candidate. The 2015 Mike Bloomberg sounds a lot different than the 2020 Bloomberg running for president.
That was 2015 Mike Bloomberg. 2020’s Mike Bloomberg is an opponent of “stop and frisk” who bizarrely claims that no one ever asked him about the policy and whether or not he supported it until he ran for president. 2015 Mike Bloomberg was all about busting young black and brown guys for a little bit of weed if you couldn’t find a gun on them, but 2020’s Mike Bloomberg is all about criminal justice reform and making sure young minority men don’t go to prison for minor drug offenses.
While gun owners and Second Amendment supporters may have been aware of Bloomberg’s comments in Aspen, many reporters and other Democratic candidates are discovering his remarks for the first time, including Bernie Sanders’ national press secretary.
This should be playing on mainstream news channels as frequently as the ads with which billionaire Bloomberg has saturated the market. #integritybeatstrump https://t.co/45fkMMfM84 — Briahna Solidarity Gray (@briebriejoy) February 10, 2020
The discovery of Bloomberg’s comments by the non-2A press comes as a new national poll shows Bloomberg vaulting into third place behind Bernie Sanders and just a couple of points behind Joe Biden. The Quinnipiac poll has Bloomberg at 15%, with Sanders polling at 25% and Biden dropping from 26% to 17% in the groups polling. Much of Bloomberg’s surge in the Q poll comes from growing support among black Americans, with Bloomberg garnering 22% of the support of black respondents to the poll.
Odds are good that most voters haven’t ever heard Bloomberg discuss reducing crime by locking up young black guys for non-violent offenses like pot possession, but I’m guessing they’ll be hearing the audio soon enough. It’s important to note, however, that while Bloomberg’s comments are bad, his actual policies are even worse.
One of the biggest changes that Bloomberg made to New York City gun laws as mayor was to treat unlicensed possession of a handgun as a felony offense. That change was ultimately applied statewide as part of the SAFE Act package of gun control laws approved by New York lawmakers in 2013, and since then, the vast majority of SAFE Act charges have come from just two boroughs of New York City; The Bronx and Brooklyn. As Slate‘s Emily Bazelon reported last year, the vast majority of those cases are possessory charges being brought against young black men with no serious criminal history.
over many months of my reporting, I found hundreds of teenagers and young people, almost all of them black, being marched to prison not for firing a gun, or even pointing one, but for having one. Many of them had minimal criminal records. To be precise, when I went through 200 case files, I found that 70 percent of the defendants in gun court had no previous felony convictions. Here’s what predicted who ended up on the benches in gun court: race and age. Black people are less likely to own guns than white people, but the defendants in gun court were almost all black teenagers and young men. An initiative that sounded like a targeted attack on America’s gun problem looked up close more like stop-and-frisk or the war on drugs—one more way to round up young black men. Reviewing my book in the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik suggested that a kid locked up for a drug offense would have made a more representative subject. But drug charges are the old way of shunting people to prison. Gun possession, and similar offenses that states treat as violent, is the new way. And the 20-year-old whose case I followed wasn’t “the wrong kid” from the point of view of the system or the politicians that built it. His case was typical in gun court, because he was exactly the kind of person the mayor’s plan was designed to ensnare.
Bill de Blasio may have established the Brooklyn gun court, but the court is enforcing Bloomberg’s law, and it’s primarily young black men who are paying the price; sent off to prison for years for simply possessing a firearm without a license. That isn’t even a crime in many states across the country, but in Bloomberg’s world it’s enough to lock you up for more than three years.
I’m glad that folks are now starting to pay more attention to what Bloomberg has said and done over the years, and not just mindlessly nod in agreement when they’re subjected to one of his ubiquitous campaign ads. What Bloomberg doesn’t want you to know says far more about him than the narrative he’s spending hundreds of millions of dollars to promote.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--AOC Blames Gun Rights For NYPD "Assassination Attempt"

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex says a lot of things that make no sense to anyone with half a brain .
One of her most recent was when she argued that it was physically impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstrap because , apparently , the concept of a metaphor completely escapes her .
However , she apparently wasn ’ t content to stop at that particular flavor of stupid .
Oh no .
She had to double down .
How so ?
By blaming the attempted assassination of two NYPD police officers in the most gun controlled city in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two New York Police Department officers were shot over the weekend in what New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio characterized as “ an attempt to assassinate police officers.
” In response , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) lashed out at Republicans and the National Rifle Association .
When asked to respond to the incident , Ocasio-Cortez did not condemn the shooter — but instead recited Democratic talking points .
“ This is not my district , but our thoughts are with all officers & people impacted by this shooting & the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ Perhaps you would get less mixed up if [ Mitch ] McConnell stood up to the NRA & passed common-sense gun safety measures to reduce shootings.
” Now , again , New York City is probably the most gun controlled city in the nation .
It ’ s difficult to even buy a gun legally in the Big Apple , much less carry one .
The person who carried out this attack broke numerous gun laws in order to do so .
And yet , the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The shooter in this particular case used a semi-automatic handgun , not some vicious AR-15 .
There are no bills being discussed that would have prevented those from being sold .
While we don ’ t know how precisely the shooter got his firearm , we do know that he wasn ’ t legally allowed to have that gun on the streets of New York .
So really , what the hell are McConnell and the NRA–a proxy term used by the left for all gun rights activists–blocking that would have prevented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wanted to kill police officers .
This is the inevitable result of the vile anti-police rhetoric coming from people like Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Democratic Party , as well as their allies in the media .
They ’ ve been beating the anti-cop drum since Ferguson and this is what happens when you continually demonize a group .
Eventually , people get the idea that they ’ re not really people anymore .
So while Ocasio-Cortez lashes out and tries to blame gun control for what happened , she should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party and her buddies at CNN and the New York Times .
After all , they played a much larger factor in what transpired early this week than McConnell , the NRA , gun rights activists in general , and the Easter Bunny combined had to do with it .
Then again , it ’ s also possible this is her feeble attempt at making a metaphor herself , though that ’ s not likely .

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex says a lot of things that make no sense to anyone with half a brain. One of her most recent was when she argued that it was physically impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstrap because, apparently, the concept of a metaphor completely escapes her.
However, she apparently wasn’t content to stop at that particular flavor of stupid.
Oh no. She had to double down. How so? By blaming the attempted assassination of two NYPD police officers in the most gun controlled city in the country on the GOP and NRA.
Two New York Police Department officers were shot over the weekend in what New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio characterized as “an attempt to assassinate police officers.” In response, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) lashed out at Republicans and the National Rifle Association. … When asked to respond to the incident, Ocasio-Cortez did not condemn the shooter — but instead recited Democratic talking points. “This is not my district, but our thoughts are with all officers & people impacted by this shooting & the epidemic of gun violence in this country,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Perhaps you would get less mixed up if [Mitch] McConnell stood up to the NRA & passed common-sense gun safety measures to reduce shootings.” https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1226573306289106944
Wow. Just…wow.
Now, again, New York City is probably the most gun controlled city in the nation. It’s difficult to even buy a gun legally in the Big Apple, much less carry one. The person who carried out this attack broke numerous gun laws in order to do so.
And yet, the NRA and Sen. Mitch McConnell are responsible because…why?
The shooter in this particular case used a semi-automatic handgun, not some vicious AR-15. There are no bills being discussed that would have prevented those from being sold. While we don’t know how precisely the shooter got his firearm, we do know that he wasn’t legally allowed to have that gun on the streets of New York.
So really, what the hell are McConnell and the NRA–a proxy term used by the left for all gun rights activists–blocking that would have prevented this attack?
Nothing.
This was an individual who wanted to kill police officers. This is the inevitable result of the vile anti-police rhetoric coming from people like Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Democratic Party, as well as their allies in the media. They’ve been beating the anti-cop drum since Ferguson and this is what happens when you continually demonize a group. Eventually, people get the idea that they’re not really people anymore.
So while Ocasio-Cortez lashes out and tries to blame gun control for what happened, she should really be looking within at her own party and her buddies at CNN and the New York Times.
After all, they played a much larger factor in what transpired early this week than McConnell, the NRA, gun rights activists in general, and the Easter Bunny combined had to do with it.
Then again, it’s also possible this is her feeble attempt at making a metaphor herself, though that’s not likely.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Why Oklahoma Passing Permitless Carry Won't Mean the End of Licenses

An article I came across earlier today had what may be the most “ duh ” headline I ’ ve ever seen , and in this line of work , I ’ ve seen a lot .
The article was about how since permitless carry passed in Oklahoma , fewer people are actually seeking to get permits .
Titled , “ Permitless carry has led to fewer issued licenses , fewer people taking classes , ” the headline is only shocking in that someone thought it was news .
After all , fewer people are going to go through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that requires training if they ’ re not required to do so in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms .
However , there was an interesting tidbit that only got touched on a couple of times in the article that I thought was quite interesting .
You see , while many of us ( and I ’ m looking at me on this one ) like to think of gun owners as a monolithic group , the truth is that there are a lot of people with varying degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the classes were filled with plenty of people who were just going through the motions .
They sat through the class because they were required to .
They didn ’ t actually care and didn ’ t do more than they needed to–a fact that illustrates why mandatory training is so stupid .
Now , though , those who are taking the training aren ’ t that group that just goes through the motions .
These are the folks who want to learn more , to know more .
They want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use their firearm in accordance with state law .
They ’ re asking better questions simply because the voluntary nature of the classes now make it so only the more motivated will bother to attend .
It ’ s part of why so many private citizens can outshoot the average police officer .
The officer does what they have to while the citizen does it because they want to .
In fact , this is a good lesson for states .
There ’ s nothing wrong with encouraging training , but unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through the motions to get the piece of paper .
After all , this dude was a certified instructor at one time .

An article I came across earlier today had what may be the most “duh” headline I’ve ever seen, and in this line of work, I’ve seen a lot. The article was about how since permitless carry passed in Oklahoma, fewer people are actually seeking to get permits.
Duh, right?
Titled, “Permitless carry has led to fewer issued licenses, fewer people taking classes,” the headline is only shocking in that someone thought it was news. After all, fewer people are going to go through the hassle of getting a permit in a state that requires training if they’re not required to do so in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.
However, there was an interesting tidbit that only got touched on a couple of times in the article that I thought was quite interesting.
This really isn’t surprising.
You see, while many of us (and I’m looking at me on this one) like to think of gun owners as a monolithic group, the truth is that there are a lot of people with varying degrees of interest. Prior to permitless carry, the classes were filled with plenty of people who were just going through the motions. They sat through the class because they were required to. They didn’t actually care and didn’t do more than they needed to–a fact that illustrates why mandatory training is so stupid.
Now, though, those who are taking the training aren’t that group that just goes through the motions. These are the folks who want to learn more, to know more. They want to take those extra steps to understand how to use their firearm in accordance with state law. They’re asking better questions simply because the voluntary nature of the classes now make it so only the more motivated will bother to attend.
It’s part of why so many private citizens can outshoot the average police officer. The officer does what they have to while the citizen does it because they want to.
In fact, this is a good lesson for states. There’s nothing wrong with encouraging training, but unless it’s voluntary, some will go through the motions to get the piece of paper.
After all, this dude was a certified instructor at one time.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--13-Year-Old Found With Guns, Knives Despite Laws

Most people agree that we ’ d rather kids not wander around with firearms unsupervised .
While some of us know our children and know they could handle the responsibility just fine , we all know kids that we don ’ t feel comfortable doing any such thing .
Most of us know some adults we feel that way about , too .
To that end , we have a lot of laws about how kids can ’ t buy guns .
It didn ’ t stop one Florida kid from getting his hands on them , though .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns and four knives were found Tuesday morning in his possession at Palatka ’ s Jenkins Middle School , according to Putnam County school and Sheriff ’ s Office officials .
This is the second time this year that a Putnam County middle school student has been found with a weapon on campus after a Jan. 14 incident at C.H .
Price Middle School in Interlachen , Sheriff Gator DeLoach said .
“ That to me is alarming and we have to be proactive about protecting our students and school administrators and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our students , ” the sheriff said .
” … Clearly to me if someone brings a firearm on a school campus , their intent is very clear to harm other students.
” Eh , not really .
Sometimes it ’ s just to show off .
They can flash a gun and scare off a bully .
They can show their friends they have a gun and try to be cool .
There is a number of possibilities that don ’ t include harming someone .
Yes , all of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re talking about here .
Honestly , how smart were you when you were 13 ?
Maybe not dumb enough for this kind of stuff , but I bet you knew someone stupid enough to have done something like this .
I sure as hell did .
Anyway , back to the story : Deputies were called in about noon to Jenkins Middle on North 19th Street after the resource deputy and administrators got an anonymous tip , DeLoach said .
The deputy and an administrator found the student in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his backpack .
“ There were actually several knives , some of which were on his body and concealed in his pockets , and some in his backpack , ” DeLoach said .
He said the student faces multiple felony charges of possession of a weapon on school grounds .
He said he did not know yet why the teen brought the weapons to school .
He was also unaware of any other issues with the student but said he and others he hangs around with have become “ neighborhood nuisances.
” Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answers on where the guns came from originally , but DeLoach has reason to suspect they were taken from the parent .
Funny , though , because there are laws against that too .
Laws only go so far in preventing anything .
What they do well is punish behavior after the fact .
One hopes that the punishment is enough to deter some people from committing crimes , but for those who are going to commit them anyway , they do nothing .
That includes penalties for having and using a firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands on a couple of guns , what law is going to stop a criminal from doing the same ?

Most people agree that we’d rather kids not wander around with firearms unsupervised. While some of us know our children and know they could handle the responsibility just fine, we all know kids that we don’t feel comfortable doing any such thing. Most of us know some adults we feel that way about, too.
To that end, we have a lot of laws about how kids can’t buy guns.
It didn’t stop one Florida kid from getting his hands on them, though.
A 13-year-old boy is under arrest after two guns and four knives were found Tuesday morning in his possession at Palatka’s Jenkins Middle School, according to Putnam County school and Sheriff’s Office officials. This is the second time this year that a Putnam County middle school student has been found with a weapon on campus after a Jan. 14 incident at C.H. Price Middle School in Interlachen, Sheriff Gator DeLoach said. “That to me is alarming and we have to be proactive about protecting our students and school administrators and those who do their best to take care of our students,” the sheriff said. ”… Clearly to me if someone brings a firearm on a school campus, their intent is very clear to harm other students.”
Eh, not really. Sometimes it’s just to show off. They can flash a gun and scare off a bully. They can show their friends they have a gun and try to be cool. There is a number of possibilities that don’t include harming someone.
Yes, all of them are stupid, but these are 13-year-olds we’re talking about here. Honestly, how smart were you when you were 13? Maybe not dumb enough for this kind of stuff, but I bet you knew someone stupid enough to have done something like this. I sure as hell did.
Anyway, back to the story:
Deputies were called in about noon to Jenkins Middle on North 19th Street after the resource deputy and administrators got an anonymous tip, DeLoach said. The deputy and an administrator found the student in a few minutes with the guns hidden in his backpack. “There were actually several knives, some of which were on his body and concealed in his pockets, and some in his backpack,” DeLoach said. He said the student faces multiple felony charges of possession of a weapon on school grounds. He said he did not know yet why the teen brought the weapons to school. He was also unaware of any other issues with the student but said he and others he hangs around with have become “neighborhood nuisances.”
Regardless, there are no hard and fast answers on where the guns came from originally, but DeLoach has reason to suspect they were taken from the parent.
That’s theft.
Funny, though, because there are laws against that too.
Laws only go so far in preventing anything. What they do well is punish behavior after the fact. One hopes that the punishment is enough to deter some people from committing crimes, but for those who are going to commit them anyway, they do nothing. That includes penalties for having and using a firearm.
If a 13-year-old can get their hands on a couple of guns, what law is going to stop a criminal from doing the same?


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Bloomberg's Double Standard On A Woman's Right To Choose

Wednesday afternoon , Michael Bloomberg , still dealing with the fallout over his 2015 speech in which he talked about disarming young black men , “ throwing them up against the wall ” and frisking them for weapons as a way to cut down on violent crime , decided he ’ d try to earn the good graces of female Democrats by ingratiatingly tweeting about a woman ’ s right to choose .
Sadly , Bloomberg doesn ’ t think that a woman ’ s right to choose to own and carry a gun for her personal health and safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the government shouldn ’ t get in the way of a woman and her decisions about her health , he has no problems with policies that put insurmountable barriers between many women ( particularly those with lower incomes ) and their decision to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
Bloomberg says reproductive rights are basic human rights , but apparently the human right of self-defense doesn ’ t exist in Bloomberg ’ s world , despite his personal phalanx of armed guards .
Self defense is a privilege , not a right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a billionaire avail themselves of the privilege of personal protection while the plebes go around disarmed for their protection .
If Bloomberg really believed in empowering women , why hasn ’ t he spent a dime of his fortune on actual gun safety programs for women ; things like firearms training and instruction instead of coming up with new ways to dissuade women from owning guns in the first place .
That ’ s the Bloombergian definition of gun safety , after all : don ’ t own a gun .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed policies that have long prevented the average New Yorker from being able to carry a gun , and many New Yorkers from even keeping a gun for protection in their home .
Bloomberg reduced the number of concealed carry licenses issued by the city even as police officers in the city ’ s licensing bureau were on the take and accepting bribes in exchange for allowing permits to go through .
In a city of over 7-million people , how many women who wanted to own or carry a gun for personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay the hundreds of dollars in non-refundable application fees , while others were paying thousands of dollars under the table in order to ensure they could get their permit ?
Bloomberg ’ s policies aren ’ t just bad in the abstract .
They actively hurt people .
They deprive them of their right to keep and bear arms .
They take away their choice on how they choose to protect themselves and their loved ones .
My wife was once a single mom in the murder capitol of the United States ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under many of the same restrictions in place in Bloomberg ’ s New York , and while the gang members and drug dealers in her neighborhood had no problem illicitly obtaining a firearm , there was no way that my wife could have taken the time off of work to navigate public transportation back and forth to the police department to fill out her paperwork and obtain the permission slip necessary to purchase a firearm .
That doesn ’ t bother Bloomberg one bit .
In fact , in audio released on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that stop-and-frisk worked through fear .
That ’ s some creepy stuff , and I ’ m sure Bloomberg will be upping his online spending to try to down out any criticism he ’ ll rightfully receive over the comments .
I hope they force other Democrats to do some soul searching , however .
The truth is , a lot of these Democrats support new gun laws , but they don ’ t support the enforcement of them .
Frankly , I think they often simply don ’ t recognize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be an a-ha moment .
“ Of course we need new gun laws !
Of course stop-and-frisk is bad !
What do the two have to do with each oth- oh wait a second.. ” Bloomberg has been rising in polling over the past couple of weeks , and this is the first real stumbling block his campaign has hit .
We ’ re still several weeks away from Super Tuesday , when Bloomberg is hoping to make a splash in contests across the country , but the impact may be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With Biden ’ s campaign in freefall , you can ’ t help but wonder if any Bloomberg supporters shift to backing Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who seems to be the Democrat Establishment darling of the moment .
This is also an issue that Donald Trump could exploit in the general election if Bloomberg were to make it that far .
Trump has backed several criminal justice reform measures , and that would be a marked contrast to Bloomberg , who set a mandatory 3 1/2 year prison sentence for carrying a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats may not be bothered at the moment by Bloomberg ’ s gun control policies , but they definitely don ’ t like how they were and continue to be enforced .
That provides an opening , not just for the Trump campaign , but for gun owners to make our case to voters , including the women Bloomberg was targeting with his tweet above .

Wednesday afternoon, Michael Bloomberg, still dealing with the fallout over his 2015 speech in which he talked about disarming young black men, “throwing them up against the wall” and frisking them for weapons as a way to cut down on violent crime, decided he’d try to earn the good graces of female Democrats by ingratiatingly tweeting about a woman’s right to choose.
A woman’s right to choose is a fundamental right. The government should not get between a woman and her decisions about her health. This is not an issue of politics, but one of basic human rights.https://t.co/IqnXyycVUt — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 12, 2020
Sadly, Bloomberg doesn’t think that a woman’s right to choose to own and carry a gun for her personal health and safety is a fundamental right. While Bloomberg says the government shouldn’t get in the way of a woman and her decisions about her health, he has no problems with policies that put insurmountable barriers between many women (particularly those with lower incomes) and their decision to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Bloomberg says reproductive rights are basic human rights, but apparently the human right of self-defense doesn’t exist in Bloomberg’s world, despite his personal phalanx of armed guards. Self defense is a privilege, not a right to Bloomberg, so why shouldn’t a billionaire avail themselves of the privilege of personal protection while the plebes go around disarmed for their protection.
If Bloomberg really believed in empowering women, why hasn’t he spent a dime of his fortune on actual gun safety programs for women; things like firearms training and instruction instead of coming up with new ways to dissuade women from owning guns in the first place. That’s the Bloombergian definition of gun safety, after all: don’t own a gun.
When Bloomberg ran New York City, he backed policies that have long prevented the average New Yorker from being able to carry a gun, and many New Yorkers from even keeping a gun for protection in their home. Bloomberg reduced the number of concealed carry licenses issued by the city even as police officers in the city’s licensing bureau were on the take and accepting bribes in exchange for allowing permits to go through. In a city of over 7-million people, how many women who wanted to own or carry a gun for personal protection couldn’t even afford to pay the hundreds of dollars in non-refundable application fees, while others were paying thousands of dollars under the table in order to ensure they could get their permit?
Bloomberg’s policies aren’t just bad in the abstract. They actively hurt people. They deprive them of their right to keep and bear arms. They take away their choice on how they choose to protect themselves and their loved ones.
My wife was once a single mom in the murder capitol of the United States; Camden, New Jersey. She lived under many of the same restrictions in place in Bloomberg’s New York, and while the gang members and drug dealers in her neighborhood had no problem illicitly obtaining a firearm, there was no way that my wife could have taken the time off of work to navigate public transportation back and forth to the police department to fill out her paperwork and obtain the permission slip necessary to purchase a firearm. That doesn’t bother Bloomberg one bit.
In fact, in audio released on Tuesday, Bloomberg seemed awfully excited about the idea that stop-and-frisk worked through fear.
Bloomberg explaining the theory of his Stop & Frisk policy: if you make young Black or Latino men fear they could be stopped by the police **whenever they walk outside** you may deter the few who are carrying:
pic.twitter.com/xTbMnlFbJu — George Joseph (@georgejoseph94) February 11, 2020
That’s some creepy stuff, and I’m sure Bloomberg will be upping his online spending to try to down out any criticism he’ll rightfully receive over the comments.
I hope they force other Democrats to do some soul searching, however. The truth is, a lot of these Democrats support new gun laws, but they don’t support the enforcement of them. Frankly, I think they often simply don’t recognize the link between the two. Perhaps this can be an a-ha moment. “Of course we need new gun laws! Of course stop-and-frisk is bad! What do the two have to do with each oth- oh wait a second..”
Bloomberg has been rising in polling over the past couple of weeks, and this is the first real stumbling block his campaign has hit. We’re still several weeks away from Super Tuesday, when Bloomberg is hoping to make a splash in contests across the country, but the impact may be seen in national polls in coming days. With Biden’s campaign in freefall, you can’t help but wonder if any Bloomberg supporters shift to backing Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who seems to be the Democrat Establishment darling of the moment.
This is also an issue that Donald Trump could exploit in the general election if Bloomberg were to make it that far. Trump has backed several criminal justice reform measures, and that would be a marked contrast to Bloomberg, who set a mandatory 3 1/2 year prison sentence for carrying a gun without a license in New York City. Democrats may not be bothered at the moment by Bloomberg’s gun control policies, but they definitely don’t like how they were and continue to be enforced. That provides an opening, not just for the Trump campaign, but for gun owners to make our case to voters, including the women Bloomberg was targeting with his tweet above.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Yes, 3D Printed Guns Render Gun Control Moot. That's The Point

I ’ ve talked a lot over the last couple of years about how fascinated I am with 3D printing as a technology .
The idea that you can create an item pretty much out of nothing but plastic string amazes me to no end .
It wasn ’ t the least bit surprising when someone quickly started to use this technology to make guns .
Gun folks are like that .
If we can use it to make a gun , we will , and 3D printing was never likely to be an exception .
However , some are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 3D printing completely renders gun control efforts null and void , as if that ’ s an argument for , well…anything .
3D-printed guns are dangerous because they circumvent existing policies .
They are considered “ ghost guns , ” a term used to describe firearms that do not have an identifying serial number that can be used to match gun purchases to their owner .
By law , legal firearms sold in a gun store or by a manufacturer must have a serial number .
Printed guns and their parts do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metal in the weapon to be able to set off a metal detector .
With a 3D-printed firearm , the person printing the weapon must add that metal themselves and there is no way to ensure they have done so .
In a licensed gun store , background checks are required to see if the user should be allowed to own a rifle .
But with 3D-printed guns , no background checks are done and anyone can buy the blueprints and use a 3D printer to create the weapon .
Yes , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why Cody Wilson worked so hard to develop a viable 3D printed firearm .
The very point was to make gun control less than useless .
After all , gun control has only ever applied to the law-abiding citizen anyway .
To argue that 3D-printed guns are dangerous is stupid , but only because all firearms are dangerous .
That ’ s their point , after all .
Now , though , private citizens can build guns until the cows come home simply because they can .
They don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a government to do so .
The moment those files hit the internet , the potential effectiveness of gun control dropped to zero .
It was never particularly high , but now it made it less than useless .
For years , it was possible to build a submachine gun in your backyard .
The problem was that particular design required metalworking skills not everyone had .
Now , 3D printing has put firearm manufacturing within the skillset of almost everyone .
It ’ s inexpensive and relatively easy to fabricate and assemble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you think you can push that would stop it ?
Right now , all the focus is on Defense Distributed ’ s ability to post the files , but those files are already out there on the internet in various places .
People have them and can share them freely .
I ’ ve got them on my hard drive right now , though I don ’ t really care about building any of these weapons .
Look , gun control is over .
It ’ s dead .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life annoying for the law-abiding citizen .
The criminals were never disarmed and , honestly , never would have been even without this technological breakthrough .
Now , private citizens have the ability to make sure they can be armed no matter what the government plans to do .
It ’ s time the governments of this great land recognize that and start trying to find some other way to address violent crime since their typical whipping boy isn ’ t there for them anymore .

I’ve talked a lot over the last couple of years about how fascinated I am with 3D printing as a technology. The idea that you can create an item pretty much out of nothing but plastic string amazes me to no end.
It wasn’t the least bit surprising when someone quickly started to use this technology to make guns. Gun folks are like that. If we can use it to make a gun, we will, and 3D printing was never likely to be an exception.
However, some are upset by this revelation. They argue that 3D printing completely renders gun control efforts null and void, as if that’s an argument for, well…anything.
3D-printed guns are dangerous because they circumvent existing policies. They are considered “ghost guns,” a term used to describe firearms that do not have an identifying serial number that can be used to match gun purchases to their owner. By law, legal firearms sold in a gun store or by a manufacturer must have a serial number. Printed guns and their parts do not. All firearms must contain enough metal in the weapon to be able to set off a metal detector. With a 3D-printed firearm, the person printing the weapon must add that metal themselves and there is no way to ensure they have done so. In a licensed gun store, background checks are required to see if the user should be allowed to own a rifle. But with 3D-printed guns, no background checks are done and anyone can buy the blueprints and use a 3D printer to create the weapon.
Yes, that’s kind of been my point. That’s why Cody Wilson worked so hard to develop a viable 3D printed firearm. The very point was to make gun control less than useless. After all, gun control has only ever applied to the law-abiding citizen anyway.
To argue that 3D-printed guns are dangerous is stupid, but only because all firearms are dangerous. That’s their point, after all.
Now, though, private citizens can build guns until the cows come home simply because they can. They don’t have to ask permission of a government to do so.
The moment those files hit the internet, the potential effectiveness of gun control dropped to zero. It was never particularly high, but now it made it less than useless.
For years, it was possible to build a submachine gun in your backyard. The problem was that particular design required metalworking skills not everyone had. Now, 3D printing has put firearm manufacturing within the skillset of almost everyone. It’s inexpensive and relatively easy to fabricate and assemble a firearm.
And just what laws do you think you can push that would stop it? Right now, all the focus is on Defense Distributed’s ability to post the files, but those files are already out there on the internet in various places. People have them and can share them freely. I’ve got them on my hard drive right now, though I don’t really care about building any of these weapons.
Look, gun control is over. It’s dead. It’s nothing more than a scheme to make life annoying for the law-abiding citizen. The criminals were never disarmed and, honestly, never would have been even without this technological breakthrough. Now, private citizens have the ability to make sure they can be armed no matter what the government plans to do.
It’s time the governments of this great land recognize that and start trying to find some other way to address violent crime since their typical whipping boy isn’t there for them anymore.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--What's Next For Ralph Northam's Gun Ban?

I ’ ve been a guest on quite a few programs over the past couple of days talking about HB961 and what its prospects look like in the Virginia State Senate that I decided to be my own guest on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. today to discuss the current changes of passage in the Senate , but also how we got here and how the governor ’ s gun ban bill has changed since it was introduced in November of 2019 .
The language of Northam ’ s gun ban has changed quite a bit since then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would have made it a felony to continue to possess so-called assault weapons , magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds , any suppressor , and any “ trigger activator.
” That ’ s the legislation that really launched the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , and after Democrats like Rep. Donald McEachin called for Gov .
Ralph Northam to call out the National Guard to enforce his gun control laws , Northam was suddenly on the defensive .
He announced that he would no longer support SB16 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit existing gun owners to keep their banned firearms , as long as they registered their guns and themselves with the Virginia State Police .
HB961 was unveiled just before the start of the legislative session , and it sat gathering cobwebs until the deadline for bills to pass out of their house of origin approached .
The bill suddenly was put on the House Public Safety Committee calendar , and a substitute version emerged on the day of the hearing .
Now existing “ assault weapons ” were simply grandfathered in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now applied to those capable of accepting more than 12 rounds of ammunition .
It was enough to get the bill through committee and on to the House floor , where it was further amended to reduce the penalty for possessing banned magazines to a misdemeanor , though transportation of banned magazines would still be a felony .
After the House passage of HB961 , its sponsor , Del .
Mark Levine , did something very curious on Twitter .
Even though Levine had repeatedly referred to the legislation as a gun ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell everyone that the bill was NOT a gun ban after all .
Why would he do that when gun control groups were gleefully celebrating the passage of a “ gun ban ?
” That ’ s the president of the gun control group Brady calling the bill a gun ban , and no , Levine didn ’ t correct her .
The fact is that there are several Democrat state Senators who ’ ve flat out said they won ’ t vote for a bill that takes people ’ s guns or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam ’ s lost-or-stolen firearms bill went down to defeat in the state Senate when two Democrats crossed party lines and voted against the measure .
If Sen. Chap Petersen and Sen. Lynwood Lewis do the same with HB961 , it too will die in the Senate .
Ralph Northam desperately wants to avoid that , and I ’ m guessing he ’ s willing to grandfather in existing magazines if it will mean Lewis and Petersen get behind the bill .
The pair , along with Sen. Creigh Deeds and Sen. John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard by both sides in the days to come , and Virginia gun owners , particularly those represented by these four state Senators , need to be writing and emailing their senators urging them to oppose HB961 in any form it might take .
Even if every existing gun , magazine , and suppressor are deemed permissible for people to continue to possess , the bill still turns ownership of some of the most common arms and accessories into something beyond the scope of the Second Amendment , which in turn infringes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have not yet exercised their right to keep and bear these arms , but may choose to do so in the future .
Also on today ’ s program we have an apparent case of self-defense in Indiana , a young murder suspect in Tulsa on probation for a shooting in 2017 , and a Utah police officer in the right place and at the right time to help deliver a baby on the side of the road .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

I’ve been a guest on quite a few programs over the past couple of days talking about HB961 and what its prospects look like in the Virginia State Senate that I decided to be my own guest on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. today to discuss the current changes of passage in the Senate, but also how we got here and how the governor’s gun ban bill has changed since it was introduced in November of 2019.
The language of Northam’s gun ban has changed quite a bit since then. Originally, the governor was backing SB16, which would have made it a felony to continue to possess so-called assault weapons, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, any suppressor, and any “trigger activator.” That’s the legislation that really launched the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, and after Democrats like Rep. Donald McEachin called for Gov. Ralph Northam to call out the National Guard to enforce his gun control laws, Northam was suddenly on the defensive. He announced that he would no longer support SB16, and instead would back a bill that would permit existing gun owners to keep their banned firearms, as long as they registered their guns and themselves with the Virginia State Police.
HB961 was unveiled just before the start of the legislative session, and it sat gathering cobwebs until the deadline for bills to pass out of their house of origin approached. The bill suddenly was put on the House Public Safety Committee calendar, and a substitute version emerged on the day of the hearing. Now existing “assault weapons” were simply grandfathered in, as were suppressors. The magazine ban now applied to those capable of accepting more than 12 rounds of ammunition. It was enough to get the bill through committee and on to the House floor, where it was further amended to reduce the penalty for possessing banned magazines to a misdemeanor, though transportation of banned magazines would still be a felony.
After the House passage of HB961, its sponsor, Del. Mark Levine, did something very curious on Twitter. Even though Levine had repeatedly referred to the legislation as a gun ban, on Tuesday he was trying to tell everyone that the bill was NOT a gun ban after all.
CORRECTION: The bill does not ban assault weapons in Virginia, but it does regulate them. Possession is allowed. Purchases, sales, and transfers are restricted. This bill will save lives. https://t.co/VuiyZ9qW7x — Mark Levine (@DelegateMark) February 11, 2020
Why would he do that when gun control groups were gleefully celebrating the passage of a “gun ban?”
Today, @VAHouseDems made history when they voted to advance a bill to ban assault weapons. Make no mistake, this is democracy in action. I was proud to be among the many Virginians who in November elected a gun safety majority. This is true progress! #VAleg #EndGunViolence pic.twitter.com/wXMQbQP6zw — Kris Brown | President, bradyunited.org (@KrisB_Brown) February 11, 2020
That’s the president of the gun control group Brady calling the bill a gun ban, and no, Levine didn’t correct her.
The fact is that there are several Democrat state Senators who’ve flat out said they won’t vote for a bill that takes people’s guns or magazines, and on Tuesday, Ralph Northam’s lost-or-stolen firearms bill went down to defeat in the state Senate when two Democrats crossed party lines and voted against the measure. If Sen. Chap Petersen and Sen. Lynwood Lewis do the same with HB961, it too will die in the Senate.
Ralph Northam desperately wants to avoid that, and I’m guessing he’s willing to grandfather in existing magazines if it will mean Lewis and Petersen get behind the bill. The pair, along with Sen. Creigh Deeds and Sen. John Edwards, are going to be lobbied hard by both sides in the days to come, and Virginia gun owners, particularly those represented by these four state Senators, need to be writing and emailing their senators urging them to oppose HB961 in any form it might take. Even if every existing gun, magazine, and suppressor are deemed permissible for people to continue to possess, the bill still turns ownership of some of the most common arms and accessories into something beyond the scope of the Second Amendment, which in turn infringes on the rights of Virginians, including those who have not yet exercised their right to keep and bear these arms, but may choose to do so in the future.
Also on today’s program we have an apparent case of self-defense in Indiana, a young murder suspect in Tulsa on probation for a shooting in 2017, and a Utah police officer in the right place and at the right time to help deliver a baby on the side of the road.
Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Michigan Lawmaker Proposes Second Amendment Sanctuary State Resolution

The sanctuary county movement has swept numerous states .
Pro-gun counties have made their voices very clear to anti-gun legislators typically centered around large cities .
There ’ s even one state that ’ s basically a sanctuary all by itself ( Kansas ) .
In fact , the idea of sanctuary states is an interesting proposition .
In theory , states should be able to decide if they ’ re going to deal with unconstitutional regulations from the federal government or not .
States are supposed to maintain some degree of sovereignty .
State Rep. Gary Eisen ( R-St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolutions to protect Second Amendment rights , both at the state and local level .
They include House Resolution 219 which would declare Michigan a sanctuary state and “ fully affirm its support of the rights ensured and protected by the constitutions of the United States and Michigan , including the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
” The sanctuary state resolution was introduced Jan. 21 and wasn ’ t on the Tuesday House Judiciary Committee agenda , but Eisen referred to it anyway .
The measure was instead referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The resolution expresses concern about legislation in the Michigan Legislature and Congress that supporters say would infringe on gun rights .
It urges federal and state agencies to preserve the right to bear arms .
Copies of the resolution would be sent to the president of the U.S. Senate , Vice President Mike Pence , U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and all Michigan U.S. Senate and House members .
I don ’ t think it has a hope in hell of passing , though I ’ d love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I like it .
Lawmakers need to be reminded that while they may represent a specific set of people , the legislation they push has ramifications well outside their electoral bubble .
Pelosi doesn ’ t care about the needs of farmers in Oklahoma because she ’ s elected by people in San Francisco , but measures like this can remind them that those farmers in Oklahoma matter too .
But that only matters if measures like these pass .
Even if they don ’ t have any real force of law in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying they don ’ t or won ’ t .
That ’ s a matter best left up to attorneys–they make a point that needs to be made again and again to the urban elites .
They need to be reminded that people live in flyover country , and our needs have to be taken seriously , as well .
So yeah , I do want Eisen ’ s measure to pass .
I don ’ t think it will , mostly because while Republicans have a somewhat slim majority in the legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t back a measure like this for whatever reasons .
Some of those reasons are truly legitimate , like believing sanctuaries have no place anywhere .
Others don ’ t have the cajones to make a stand .
Either way , I don ’ t see this one passing , which is a shame .
Once again , though , I hope I ’ m wrong .

The sanctuary county movement has swept numerous states. Pro-gun counties have made their voices very clear to anti-gun legislators typically centered around large cities. There’s even one state that’s basically a sanctuary all by itself (Kansas).
In fact, the idea of sanctuary states is an interesting proposition. In theory, states should be able to decide if they’re going to deal with unconstitutional regulations from the federal government or not. States are supposed to maintain some degree of sovereignty.
Apparently, a lawmaker in Michigan thinks it’s a pretty good idea too.
State Rep. Gary Eisen (R-St. Clair Twp.) has introduced several resolutions to protect Second Amendment rights, both at the state and local level. They include House Resolution 219 which would declare Michigan a sanctuary state and “fully affirm its support of the rights ensured and protected by the constitutions of the United States and Michigan, including the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.” The sanctuary state resolution was introduced Jan. 21 and wasn’t on the Tuesday House Judiciary Committee agenda, but Eisen referred to it anyway. The measure was instead referred to the House Committee on Government Operations. The resolution expresses concern about legislation in the Michigan Legislature and Congress that supporters say would infringe on gun rights. It urges federal and state agencies to preserve the right to bear arms. Copies of the resolution would be sent to the president of the U.S. Senate, Vice President Mike Pence, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and all Michigan U.S. Senate and House members.
I like it.
I don’t think it has a hope in hell of passing, though I’d love to be wrong on that. Still, I like it.
Lawmakers need to be reminded that while they may represent a specific set of people, the legislation they push has ramifications well outside their electoral bubble. Pelosi doesn’t care about the needs of farmers in Oklahoma because she’s elected by people in San Francisco, but measures like this can remind them that those farmers in Oklahoma matter too.
But that only matters if measures like these pass. Even if they don’t have any real force of law in the long run–and I’m not saying they don’t or won’t. That’s a matter best left up to attorneys–they make a point that needs to be made again and again to the urban elites. They need to be reminded that people live in flyover country, and our needs have to be taken seriously, as well.
So yeah, I do want Eisen’s measure to pass. I don’t think it will, mostly because while Republicans have a somewhat slim majority in the legislature, too many of them won’t back a measure like this for whatever reasons. Some of those reasons are truly legitimate, like believing sanctuaries have no place anywhere. Others don’t have the cajones to make a stand.
Either way, I don’t see this one passing, which is a shame.
Once again, though, I hope I’m wrong.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Gun Control Groups Object To New Zealand's Latest Gun Bill

Now that New Zealand ’ s ban on semi-automatic long guns has taken effect , Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is pushing another round of gun control legislation , but the country ’ s gun control advocates are complaining that the new restrictions have been watered down and don ’ t go far enough to crack down on the country ’ s legal gun owners and sellers .
The bill was reported back from the finance and expenditure committee on Monday with a raft of recommended changes .
The original bill would have introduced a number of changes , including a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on firearms advertising , tougher tests to be granted a firearms licence , and having those licences expire after five years instead of the current 10 years .
The committee has made a number of recommended changes to the bill , including : • Firearms that are temporarily transferred for less than 30 days , such as for hunting trips , would not need to be added to the national gun register • Following advice from the Privacy Commissioner , Government departments would have restricted access to the register , which was previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Firearms advertising would need to carry safety information and legal requirements ; it was previously up to the police , which raised concerns that it could lead to a total advertising ban • A successful applicant ’ s first firearms licence would expire after five years , but subsequent successful applications would expire after 10 years So , the legislation still establishes a national gun registration system , as well as cracking down on advertising for firearms , but the anti-gun group Gun Control NZ isn ’ t happy .
Gun Control NZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s loosening of advertising requirements was a cop-out .
“ Gun advertising should be regulated like alcohol .
You can ’ t advertise alcohol in a way that promotes irresponsible behaviour .
“ We need to similarly prevent the glamourisation of firearms .
The select committee has copped out here.
” The committee has largely kept the controversial part of the bill allowing health practitioners to notify police if they think a person ’ s health might make them unfit to use or possess a firearm .
Police would also be obliged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been granted a firearms licence .
Keep in mind , there is no right to keep and bear arms in New Zealand , so gun owners can ’ t point to the Second Amendment and argue that their rights are being infringed by any of these proposals .
The best they can do is argue that the proposals are aimed in the wrong direction .
The good news , if there is any for gun owners in New Zealand , is that this round of gun control is drawing more opposition from two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
The National Party issued a minority report saying it did not support the bill as it did not target criminal activity .
National MPs on the committee were particularly concerned about police advising health practitioners about patients who hold a firearms licence .
“ [ This ] will result in the private information of around 250,000 New Zealanders being disclosed , ” National ’ s report said .
Act also issued a minority report asking why the bill had been sent to the finance and expenditure committee .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has cynically sent the bill to a committee that usually deals with financial matters simply because it has a majority on this committee ( but not the more logical Justice Committee ) , ” Act ’ s report said .
“ It is difficult to avoid thinking the Government has prioritised political theatrics over public safety.
” Even the objections by the minority parties may not be enough to scuttle the bill , but it ’ s clear that Ardern ’ s gun ban and compensated confiscation plan didn ’ t cause more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control bandwagon .
Instead , it likely hardened up the opposition to any more laws targeting the country ’ s legal gun owners at the expense of violent criminals .

Now that New Zealand’s ban on semi-automatic long guns has taken effect, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is pushing another round of gun control legislation, but the country’s gun control advocates are complaining that the new restrictions have been watered down and don’t go far enough to crack down on the country’s legal gun owners and sellers.
The bill was reported back from the finance and expenditure committee on Monday with a raft of recommended changes. The original bill would have introduced a number of changes, including a national gun register, a potential ban on firearms advertising, tougher tests to be granted a firearms licence, and having those licences expire after five years instead of the current 10 years. The committee has made a number of recommended changes to the bill, including: • Firearms that are temporarily transferred for less than 30 days, such as for hunting trips, would not need to be added to the national gun register • Following advice from the Privacy Commissioner, Government departments would have restricted access to the register, which was previously too broad and open to abuse • Firearms advertising would need to carry safety information and legal requirements; it was previously up to the police, which raised concerns that it could lead to a total advertising ban • A successful applicant’s first firearms licence would expire after five years, but subsequent successful applications would expire after 10 years
So, the legislation still establishes a national gun registration system, as well as cracking down on advertising for firearms, but the anti-gun group Gun Control NZ isn’t happy.
Gun Control NZ co-founder Nik Green said that the committee’s loosening of advertising requirements was a cop-out. “Gun advertising should be regulated like alcohol. You can’t advertise alcohol in a way that promotes irresponsible behaviour. “We need to similarly prevent the glamourisation of firearms. The select committee has copped out here.” The committee has largely kept the controversial part of the bill allowing health practitioners to notify police if they think a person’s health might make them unfit to use or possess a firearm. Police would also be obliged to tell doctors about patients who have been granted a firearms licence.
Keep in mind, there is no right to keep and bear arms in New Zealand, so gun owners can’t point to the Second Amendment and argue that their rights are being infringed by any of these proposals. The best they can do is argue that the proposals are aimed in the wrong direction. The good news, if there is any for gun owners in New Zealand, is that this round of gun control is drawing more opposition from two of the major political parties in the country.
The National Party issued a minority report saying it did not support the bill as it did not target criminal activity. National MPs on the committee were particularly concerned about police advising health practitioners about patients who hold a firearms licence. “[This] will result in the private information of around 250,000 New Zealanders being disclosed,” National’s report said. Act also issued a minority report asking why the bill had been sent to the finance and expenditure committee. “It is difficult to avoid thinking that the Government has cynically sent the bill to a committee that usually deals with financial matters simply because it has a majority on this committee (but not the more logical Justice Committee),” Act’s report said. “It is difficult to avoid thinking the Government has prioritised political theatrics over public safety.”
Even the objections by the minority parties may not be enough to scuttle the bill, but it’s clear that Ardern’s gun ban and compensated confiscation plan didn’t cause more New Zealanders to jump on the gun control bandwagon. Instead, it likely hardened up the opposition to any more laws targeting the country’s legal gun owners at the expense of violent criminals.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Schumer Wants To Regulate Gun Parts As Whole Guns

A while back , I picked up an AR-15 at a pawnshop .
I didn ’ t get a chance to shoot it for a while , and when I did , it wouldn ’ t chamber a round .
Apparently , the previous owner had used a couple of incompatible parts in the upper receiver .
As it had been a while , I didn ’ t take it back to the pawnshop .
Instead , I decided to buy a new upper .
That way , the AR-15 was ready to roll , and I could swap out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper on another rifle .
However , it seems Sen. Chuck Schumer has a problem with that approach .
Now , Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the federal government to step in and prevent ghost guns from getting into the hands of criminals .
Because each piece doesn ’ t have a serial number , the guns aren ’ t traceable , and it gives felons access to weapons they can get legally .
Schumer wants the Justice Department to change the 1968 definition of a firearm to include the individual pieces , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , this is prefaced with how this is a “ growing problem ” for police without the first statistic or point of comparison to let us determine for ourselves whether it ’ s really a problem or not .
Regardless , Schumer ’ s call is nothing more than a political power grab .
The truth is , law-abiding citizens can ’ t just build firearms but also swap out parts for various firearms without going to a gunsmith to do the work .
They can modify their firearms as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government permission to complete the transaction .
Schumer and people like him can ’ t tolerate that .
As a result , they argue that it ’ s a “ growing problem ” and desperately needs to be addressed , but they have yet to provide any real evidence that it ’ s a problem at all , much less a growing problem .
Are criminals getting guns made this way ?
Yes , from time to time , they are .
Are criminals going to be suddenly disarmed if they can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the law-abiding gun owner looking to swap out an upper receiver on his AR-15 would be the one feeling this .
Maybe they want a 224 Valkyrie upper to go along with their AR-15 lower , something that requires nothing more than a quick swap .
They ’ ll be left having to treat this like a whole new gun purchase .
For non-gun people , this doesn ’ t look like much , but let me compare it to another popular hobby : Brewing .
Brewing beer at home is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell it , much like building a firearm at home .
Now , what Schumer is saying is that since some people are selling their homebrew , even though it ’ s not particularly common , he wants to make everyone buy materials from a licensed liquor store rather the parts shipped to their home .
That ’ s what Schumer is talking about , only with guns .
The dumbest part of this ?
It would only be a matter of time before people started manufacturing those parts for themselves like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life more difficult for people and wouldn ’ t stop a damn thing .

A while back, I picked up an AR-15 at a pawnshop. I didn’t get a chance to shoot it for a while, and when I did, it wouldn’t chamber a round. Apparently, the previous owner had used a couple of incompatible parts in the upper receiver. As it had been a while, I didn’t take it back to the pawnshop. Instead, I decided to buy a new upper. That way, the AR-15 was ready to roll, and I could swap out the incompatible part later and use that upper on another rifle.
However, it seems Sen. Chuck Schumer has a problem with that approach.
Now, Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the federal government to step in and prevent ghost guns from getting into the hands of criminals. … Because each piece doesn’t have a serial number, the guns aren’t traceable, and it gives felons access to weapons they can get legally. Schumer wants the Justice Department to change the 1968 definition of a firearm to include the individual pieces, which would make them harder to sell.
Of course, this is prefaced with how this is a “growing problem” for police without the first statistic or point of comparison to let us determine for ourselves whether it’s really a problem or not.
Regardless, Schumer’s call is nothing more than a political power grab.
The truth is, law-abiding citizens can’t just build firearms but also swap out parts for various firearms without going to a gunsmith to do the work. They can modify their firearms as they see fit and without having to get government permission to complete the transaction.
Schumer and people like him can’t tolerate that.
As a result, they argue that it’s a “growing problem” and desperately needs to be addressed, but they have yet to provide any real evidence that it’s a problem at all, much less a growing problem. Are criminals getting guns made this way? Yes, from time to time, they are. Are criminals going to be suddenly disarmed if they can’t get guns this way? Hardly.
But the law-abiding gun owner looking to swap out an upper receiver on his AR-15 would be the one feeling this. Maybe they want a 224 Valkyrie upper to go along with their AR-15 lower, something that requires nothing more than a quick swap. They’ll be left having to treat this like a whole new gun purchase.
For non-gun people, this doesn’t look like much, but let me compare it to another popular hobby: Brewing.
Brewing beer at home is legal, but you can’t sell it, much like building a firearm at home.
Now, what Schumer is saying is that since some people are selling their homebrew, even though it’s not particularly common, he wants to make everyone buy materials from a licensed liquor store rather the parts shipped to their home.
That’s what Schumer is talking about, only with guns.
The dumbest part of this? It would only be a matter of time before people started manufacturing those parts for themselves like they do lower receivers. This would make life more difficult for people and wouldn’t stop a damn thing.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Colorado Woman Busted For Red Flag Perjury Says She's A Political Prisoner

Backers of Colorado ’ s new red flag law aren ’ t saying much about the first high profile abuse of the Extreme Risk Protection Order process and for good reason .
The case of Susan Holmes has revealed that not only will some individuals try to abuse the system , but the state ’ s mental health system is likely in need of an overhaul as well .
Holmes is the mother of Jeremy Holmes , who was shot and killed by police in 2017 after he charged officers while brandishing a knife ( officers had told him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before shots were fired ) .
In January of this year , Susan Holmes attempted to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order against one of the officers involved in the shooting and lied on the ERPO application by falsely claiming that the officer was Holmes ’ father .
The Latimer County Sheriff arrested Susan Holmes on February 4 on a felony perjury charge , and now Holmes is claiming that she was tortured by deputies and that she ’ s a political prisoner of Latimer County Sheriff Justin Smith .
Holmes describes her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was face down on the cold cement floor in agony from the injuries I sustained from the FC police and the two sheriff deputies , who threw me down because I couldn ’ t kneel all the way down so they could take off the cuffs… .
I couldn ’ t move from the floor because of the pain… .
I couldn ’ t lift myself up .
I was in that condition from the time they threw me on the floor until they finally came to release me the next day.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly requested medical treatment for my injuries .
I asked that they call an ambulance , take me to the hospital so that I could have X-rays and have my pain and injuries treated by a doctor .
Along with that request , I stated repeatedly : ‘ This is Susan Holmes from Fort Collins , I am not a criminal… .
I am a political prisoner .
I am an American citizen…this is not China .
This is the United States of America and I have a right to proper medical treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clearly still grieving the loss of her son , which is understandable .
At what point , however , does the normal grieving process turn in to a mental crisis of its own ?
Here ’ s Holmes describing what she believes the Latimer County Sheriff ’ s Office is up to .
They lie , they cover up their criminal behavior , and if you fall into their hands…you will be killed or tortured by them .
I was tortured in the sheriff ’ s department for twenty-something hours by [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the injuries sustained from the brutal treatment by FC police and the sheriff ’ s department .
The sheriff ’ s department is probably altering and editing all of the tapes as I write this.
” While I agree that Holmes should be facing a perjury charge for lying on her ERPO application , I can ’ t help but wonder if police shouldn ’ t avail themselves of the state ’ s civil commitment laws and refer Holmes to medical officials for a mental health evaluation as well .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flippant .
I ’ m genuinely concerned about her mental and emotional state .
Unfortunately , Democrats in control of Colorado ’ s government have been far more interested in pursuing legislation targeting the state ’ s gun owners than they ’ ve been in fixing the state ’ s broken mental health system , which has left hundreds of thousands of Coloradans to cope with their mental illness by themselves .
In fact , one of the benefits of a red flag law , at least for politicians , is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something , ” while allowing them to continue to largely ignore the real mental health crisis and lack of care for those who desperately need it .
I ’ m not sure how Susan Holmes ’ case will be resolved , but I truly hope that one day she is able to find some peace .
In the meantime , Holmes should be a reminder for lawmakers that a red flag law is likely to be abused , and is no substitute for real mental health services desperately needed by so many Coloradans @

Backers of Colorado’s new red flag law aren’t saying much about the first high profile abuse of the Extreme Risk Protection Order process and for good reason. The case of Susan Holmes has revealed that not only will some individuals try to abuse the system, but the state’s mental health system is likely in need of an overhaul as well.
Holmes is the mother of Jeremy Holmes, who was shot and killed by police in 2017 after he charged officers while brandishing a knife (officers had told him to drop the knife more than 40 times before shots were fired). In January of this year, Susan Holmes attempted to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order against one of the officers involved in the shooting and lied on the ERPO application by falsely claiming that the officer was Holmes’ father.
The Latimer County Sheriff arrested Susan Holmes on February 4 on a felony perjury charge, and now Holmes is claiming that she was tortured by deputies and that she’s a political prisoner of Latimer County Sheriff Justin Smith.
Holmes describes her trip to jail like so: “I was face down on the cold cement floor in agony from the injuries I sustained from the FC police and the two sheriff deputies, who threw me down because I couldn’t kneel all the way down so they could take off the cuffs…. I couldn’t move from the floor because of the pain…. I couldn’t lift myself up. I was in that condition from the time they threw me on the floor until they finally came to release me the next day.” According to her, “I repeatedly requested medical treatment for my injuries. I asked that they call an ambulance, take me to the hospital so that I could have X-rays and have my pain and injuries treated by a doctor. Along with that request, I stated repeatedly: ‘This is Susan Holmes from Fort Collins, I am not a criminal…. I am a political prisoner. I am an American citizen…this is not China. This is the United States of America and I have a right to proper medical treatment for my injuries.’”
Susan Holmes is clearly still grieving the loss of her son, which is understandable. At what point, however, does the normal grieving process turn in to a mental crisis of its own? Here’s Holmes describing what she believes the Latimer County Sheriff’s Office is up to.
They lie, they cover up their criminal behavior, and if you fall into their hands…you will be killed or tortured by them. I was tortured in the sheriff’s department for twenty-something hours by [them] withholding proper medical treatment for the injuries sustained from the brutal treatment by FC police and the sheriff’s department. The sheriff’s department is probably altering and editing all of the tapes as I write this.”
While I agree that Holmes should be facing a perjury charge for lying on her ERPO application, I can’t help but wonder if police shouldn’t avail themselves of the state’s civil commitment laws and refer Holmes to medical officials for a mental health evaluation as well. I don’t say that to be cruel or flippant. I’m genuinely concerned about her mental and emotional state.
Unfortunately, Democrats in control of Colorado’s government have been far more interested in pursuing legislation targeting the state’s gun owners than they’ve been in fixing the state’s broken mental health system, which has left hundreds of thousands of Coloradans to cope with their mental illness by themselves. In fact, one of the benefits of a red flag law, at least for politicians, is that it allows them to claim they “did something,” while allowing them to continue to largely ignore the real mental health crisis and lack of care for those who desperately need it.
I’m not sure how Susan Holmes’ case will be resolved, but I truly hope that one day she is able to find some peace. In the meantime, Holmes should be a reminder for lawmakers that a red flag law is likely to be abused, and is no substitute for real mental health services desperately needed by so many Coloradans.