bearingarms--2020-04-29--FL Man Blames Guns In His Trunk On John Wick

One of the most awesome action movies of recent years has to be John Wick .
The plot sounds like a country song , a man loses his wife and his dog and all that , but that ’ s just how it gets starting .
What follows is just one ridiculously awesome shoot-em-up sequence after another .
It ’ s not realistic , it ’ s just ridiculously fun .
However , a Florida man apparently didn ’ t seem to grasp that little fact .
Now , I could see someone answering that because they ’ re smarting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my smart mouth , after all , so I can see how someone might go that route .
It ’ s not a wise route to go , but I can see it happening .
But there ’ s no evidence that Gelin was just popping off to the officers .
It seems he was dead serious .
He actually seems to have believed he could convince police that his cousin , John Wick , was the actual owner of the vehicle .
Needless to say , the police didn ’ t buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further and Gelin admitted he lied about the name , but refused to give his cousin ’ s name .
Look , it ’ s not illegal in most places to have a trunk full of guns .
The Second Amendment covers that kind of thing and , well , a trunk full of guns might be scary to some people , but usually , those who are terrified of trunk guns are terrified of any guns .
All that goes out the window if you ( allegedly ) use a gun to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point , you ’ ve already committed a crime and all those guns in the trunk become far more ominous .
Port St. Lucie , where this took place , didn ’ t have a lot of options but to consider it something of a concern .
Still , he apparently hasn ’ t been charged with anything other than the domestic violence , which is fine .
After all , there doesn ’ t appear to have been anything in the trunk to charge him with , though I suspect police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now to make sure none are stolen .
After all , one would expect John Wick to potentially have a few black market guns here or there .
Honestly , telling the cops his cousin ’ s name was John Wick was perhaps the dumbest thing he could have done .
I suspect some of the officers will at least give him points for creativity .
It ’ s certainly not an excuse they hear very often , so Gelin had that going for him .

One of the most awesome action movies of recent years has to be John Wick. The plot sounds like a country song, a man loses his wife and his dog and all that, but that’s just how it gets starting. What follows is just one ridiculously awesome shoot-em-up sequence after another. It’s not realistic, it’s just ridiculously fun.
It’s also completely and totally fiction.
However, a Florida man apparently didn’t seem to grasp that little fact.
Getro Gelin, 27, was being investigated for domestic violence Sunday after a woman told police that Gelin had threatened her with a gun, The Smoking Gun reported. Police later searched Gelin’s Porsche and found a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle and a bulletproof vest, the police report said. Such an arsenal would have fit right into one of the films starring Keanu Reeves. Officers asked Gelin why the guns were in his car, but Gelin was light years ahead of them with his excuse: He told the cops that he’d recently sold the car to his cousin John Wick.
Wow. Just…wow.
Now, I could see someone answering that because they’re smarting off. I’m notorious for my smart mouth, after all, so I can see how someone might go that route. It’s not a wise route to go, but I can see it happening.
But there’s no evidence that Gelin was just popping off to the officers. It seems he was dead serious. He actually seems to have believed he could convince police that his cousin, John Wick, was the actual owner of the vehicle.
Needless to say, the police didn’t buy the explanation. They pushed a little further and Gelin admitted he lied about the name, but refused to give his cousin’s name.
Well…
Look, it’s not illegal in most places to have a trunk full of guns. The Second Amendment covers that kind of thing and, well, a trunk full of guns might be scary to some people, but usually, those who are terrified of trunk guns are terrified of any guns.
All that goes out the window if you (allegedly) use a gun to threaten someone’s life. At that point, you’ve already committed a crime and all those guns in the trunk become far more ominous. Port St. Lucie, where this took place, didn’t have a lot of options but to consider it something of a concern.
Still, he apparently hasn’t been charged with anything other than the domestic violence, which is fine. After all, there doesn’t appear to have been anything in the trunk to charge him with, though I suspect police are running serial numbers of those guns now to make sure none are stolen. After all, one would expect John Wick to potentially have a few black market guns here or there.
Honestly, telling the cops his cousin’s name was John Wick was perhaps the dumbest thing he could have done. I suspect some of the officers will at least give him points for creativity. It’s certainly not an excuse they hear very often, so Gelin had that going for him.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--St. Louis Armed Citizen Shoots Two Would-Be Robbers

A pair of armed robbers in St. Louis , Missouri picked the wrong target on Wednesday night , attempting to rob a man at gunpoint who had a gun of his own .
Police were called out to the Carondelet neighborhood on the city ’ s south side just before 11:00 p.m. on reports of a shooting .
When they arrived on scene , they found one man who had been fatally shot in the head , and a short time later took another individual into custody about two miles away with a gunshot wound to the leg .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tried to rob a 31-year old man at gunpoint , when the intended victim drew his own firearm and shot in self-defense .
The investigation into the attempted robbery is still ongoing , and not many details have been released yet .
What we do know is that violent crime in St. Louis has been trending in the wrong direction , with 46 homicides reported in the city as of April 24th , compared to 38 homicides during the same time period in 2019 .
Mayor Lyda Krewson has pressured Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes to Missouri state law that she and other local officials believe will reduce the ability of prohibited persons to acquire firearms .
Back in November , she and other Missouri mayors met with the governor , who agreed to push for new legislation .
One measure is to ensure minors do not have access to handguns .
Currently , it is a federal felony for anyone under 18 to possess a handgun , but Missouri has no such law .
This makes it difficult for prosecutors when charging young offenders .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to refer juveniles to the federal system , and I don ’ t think any of us want kids to be in that federal judiciary system , ” said Columbia Mayor Brian Treece after the meeting at the state Capitol .
“ So having a state companion law that closes that loophole between the nonexistent law in state government and the federal felony law , I think , could give law enforcement the tools they need.
” Another goal is keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders and domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said these are not radical changes and can make a real difference .
“ We think that these steps are reasonable ones , ” he said .
“ We ’ ll be pushing to make sure they ’ ll be in effect both in our localities , but also statewide.
” Treece noted many of the offenders who were arrested surrounding the recent spike in violence across the state had previous felony charges that were reduced to misdemeanors .
This allowed them to continue carrying handguns .
With a stricter state law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as leverage in a misdemeanor plea bargain .
Parson said he is prepared to ask the Republican-dominated state Legislature to get on board with the stiffer regulations .
While he said the long-term goal is still about education and workforce development , these are solutions that can help right now .
“ We don ’ t need to keep talking about it .
What is it we can really put into effect ?
” Parson said .
“ We can name 10 different things , but the reality of it is , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what are we doing wasting our time talking about it ?
” While lawmakers talk about what laws they ’ d like to make , criminals are still doing their thing on the streets of St. Louis .
It ’ s also important to note that some Democrat lawmakers who represent St. Louis are opposed to simple things like removing residency requirements for police officers , which has received bi-partisan support in a bid to help fill the roughly 140 vacant positions in the city ’ s police department .
St. Louis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s gun laws are pretty good , ensuring that even if violent crime continues to plague the city , residents can at least defend themselves on the street and in their homes .

A pair of armed robbers in St. Louis, Missouri picked the wrong target on Wednesday night, attempting to rob a man at gunpoint who had a gun of his own.
Police were called out to the Carondelet neighborhood on the city’s south side just before 11:00 p.m. on reports of a shooting. When they arrived on scene, they found one man who had been fatally shot in the head, and a short time later took another individual into custody about two miles away with a gunshot wound to the leg. After investigating, authorities determined that the pair had tried to rob a 31-year old man at gunpoint, when the intended victim drew his own firearm and shot in self-defense.
The investigation into the attempted robbery is still ongoing, and not many details have been released yet. What we do know is that violent crime in St. Louis has been trending in the wrong direction, with 46 homicides reported in the city as of April 24th, compared to 38 homicides during the same time period in 2019.
Mayor Lyda Krewson has pressured Gov. Brad Parsons to get behind several proposed changes to Missouri state law that she and other local officials believe will reduce the ability of prohibited persons to acquire firearms. Back in November, she and other Missouri mayors met with the governor, who agreed to push for new legislation.
One measure is to ensure minors do not have access to handguns. Currently, it is a federal felony for anyone under 18 to possess a handgun, but Missouri has no such law. This makes it difficult for prosecutors when charging young offenders. “For obvious reasons, prosecutors don’t want to refer juveniles to the federal system, and I don’t think any of us want kids to be in that federal judiciary system,” said Columbia Mayor Brian Treece after the meeting at the state Capitol. “So having a state companion law that closes that loophole between the nonexistent law in state government and the federal felony law, I think, could give law enforcement the tools they need.” Another goal is keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders and domestic abusers. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said these are not radical changes and can make a real difference. “We think that these steps are reasonable ones,” he said. “We’ll be pushing to make sure they’ll be in effect both in our localities, but also statewide.” Treece noted many of the offenders who were arrested surrounding the recent spike in violence across the state had previous felony charges that were reduced to misdemeanors. This allowed them to continue carrying handguns. With a stricter state law, prosecutors can use the right to carry as leverage in a misdemeanor plea bargain. Parson said he is prepared to ask the Republican-dominated state Legislature to get on board with the stiffer regulations. While he said the long-term goal is still about education and workforce development, these are solutions that can help right now. “We don’t need to keep talking about it. What is it we can really put into effect?” Parson said. “We can name 10 different things, but the reality of it is, if you can do seven of the 10, what are we doing wasting our time talking about it?”
While lawmakers talk about what laws they’d like to make, criminals are still doing their thing on the streets of St. Louis. It’s also important to note that some Democrat lawmakers who represent St. Louis are opposed to simple things like removing residency requirements for police officers, which has received bi-partisan support in a bid to help fill the roughly 140 vacant positions in the city’s police department.
“There is no stat that says more police equals less crime,” said Rep. Wiley Price, D-St. Louis. “I don’t think that changing residency is going to change the problems,” added Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City.
St. Louis politics are pretty dysfunctional, but thankfully the state’s gun laws are pretty good, ensuring that even if violent crime continues to plague the city, residents can at least defend themselves on the street and in their homes.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Woman Accused Of Pulling Gun On NY State Troopers

There are a number of things in the world that should almost universally be classified as “ bad ideas.
” They include , among other things , talking smack to a professional MMA fighter when you haven ’ t been in a fight since fourth grade , dating Amy Schumer , and letting your underage female relatives within reach of Joe Biden .
We ’ re not talking about stuff that ’ s easy to miss here .
Yet somewhere on that list is pointing guns and gun-looking objects at law enforcement .
It seems one woman in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two investigators and two troopers went to 77-year-old Gloria Laureanti ’ s home at 1:25 p.m. looking to arrest the woman ’ s grandson , who is a suspect in a rape investigation .
When authorities got to the house , they say they found the front door closed and partially blocked by a refrigerator before being confronted by a belligerent Laurenanti .
Officials say within minutes of encountering the woman , she pulled two revolvers from behind her back , pointing them at troopers .
She dropped the guns , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when officers drew their weapons .
So , not only did she pull a couple of guns , but they weren ’ t even real guns .
Frankly , Laurenanti is lucky to be alive .
Her age wouldn ’ t have helped her in the least .
Had she not dropped her fake guns when officers drew their weapons , I ’ d likely be writing a slightly different story .
Of course , then those officers would be dealing with the ramifications of killing an elderly woman .
“ Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can ’ t police tell the difference ?
” No , they can ’ t .
No one can .
Not in the split second you have to make a decision as to whether or not you should act .
You don ’ t have time to futz around with it and figure out if there ’ s a place for caps to go in or anything like that .
You see a gun , you react .
It ’ s what anyone would do in that situation .
Laurenanti did one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop the toys when the real guns came out .
Yet that was the smart thing in a series of stupid moves .
For one , trying to keep the police from arresting her grandson .
For another , pulling gun-shaped objects in hopes of intimidating people who have actual guns , body armor , and radios to call people with similar equipment .
Yeah , not a lot of smart there .
At least , for her sake , it showed up just in the nick of time .
Otherwise , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77-year-old grandmother who got shot in a case of “ play stupid games , win stupid prizes.
” I don ’ t think I ’ d have mourned all that much and like would have still mocked her .
Stupid shouldn ’ t be celebrated , after all .
Luckily , it didn ’ t quite get to that point , which is why Laurenanti is fortunate .
Now , though , she ’ s been arrested and will likely be charged with four felony counts of menacing a police officer and misdemeanor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison might be cheaper than a retirement community .

There are a number of things in the world that should almost universally be classified as “bad ideas.” They include, among other things, talking smack to a professional MMA fighter when you haven’t been in a fight since fourth grade, dating Amy Schumer, and letting your underage female relatives within reach of Joe Biden.
We’re not talking about stuff that’s easy to miss here.
Yet somewhere on that list is pointing guns and gun-looking objects at law enforcement. It seems one woman in New York didn’t get that particular memo.
Two investigators and two troopers went to 77-year-old Gloria Laureanti’s home at 1:25 p.m. looking to arrest the woman’s grandson, who is a suspect in a rape investigation. When authorities got to the house, they say they found the front door closed and partially blocked by a refrigerator before being confronted by a belligerent Laurenanti. Officials say within minutes of encountering the woman, she pulled two revolvers from behind her back, pointing them at troopers. She dropped the guns, which turned out to be cap pistols, when officers drew their weapons.
So, not only did she pull a couple of guns, but they weren’t even real guns.
Frankly, Laurenanti is lucky to be alive. Her age wouldn’t have helped her in the least. Had she not dropped her fake guns when officers drew their weapons, I’d likely be writing a slightly different story. Of course, then those officers would be dealing with the ramifications of killing an elderly woman.
“Oh, but those weren’t real guns. Can’t police tell the difference?”
No, they can’t. No one can. Not in the split second you have to make a decision as to whether or not you should act. You don’t have time to futz around with it and figure out if there’s a place for caps to go in or anything like that. You see a gun, you react.
It’s what anyone would do in that situation.
Laurenanti did one intelligent thing, and that was to drop the toys when the real guns came out.
Yet that was the smart thing in a series of stupid moves. For one, trying to keep the police from arresting her grandson. For another, pulling gun-shaped objects in hopes of intimidating people who have actual guns, body armor, and radios to call people with similar equipment.
Yeah, not a lot of smart there. At least, for her sake, it showed up just in the nick of time. Otherwise, I’m writing a story about a 77-year-old grandmother who got shot in a case of “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” I don’t think I’d have mourned all that much and like would have still mocked her. Stupid shouldn’t be celebrated, after all.
Luckily, it didn’t quite get to that point, which is why Laurenanti is fortunate. Now, though, she’s been arrested and will likely be charged with four felony counts of menacing a police officer and misdemeanor resisting arrest.
On the upside, prison might be cheaper than a retirement community.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Are Chicago's Gang Members Also Causing More Coronavirus Deaths?

Chicago , Illinois has had nearly 1,000 coronavirus-related deaths , and at last count had more than 20,000 confirmed cases of the COVID-19 virus .
The city is also dealing with an increase in violent crime since Gov .
J.B. Pritzker ’ s stay-at-home order was put into effect back in March .
Two professors in Illinois say in a new op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times that the coronavirus deaths and the gang violence may be linked .
Roberto R. Aspholm from Southern Illinois University and John M. Hagedorn of the University of Illinois at Chicago argue that the young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against robbery , carjacking , and homicide may not be paying much attention to the stay-at-home orders either .
The virus and violence have race and poverty in common .
African Americans comprise roughly 30 % of Chicago ’ s population but make up nearly half of its poor residents and 80 % of its homicide victims .
Similarly , blacks represent at least 40 % of Chicago ’ s coronavirus cases and 55 % of its pandemic-related deaths .
Part of this overrepresentation can be explained by black Chicagoans ’ disproportionate rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ essential ” economic sectors , reliance on public transportation and uninsurance , all of which increase one ’ s chances of infection and severe symptomatology .
But another key link between violence and the virus are large numbers of alienated young people on Chicago ’ s South and West Sides .
Like in many other places , young people are ignoring the stay-at-home and social-distancing orders coming from elected officials , heightening the risk of viral infection and transmission .
In Chicago , these young people are often the same ones involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence that has persisted throughout the pandemic .
So what do you do with these young offenders ?
The answer , according to Aspholm and Hagedorn , isn ’ t new gun control laws or locking up people in the Cook County jail for violating social distancing norms .
Instead , they say that ’ s what ’ s really needed are jobs .
A broad-based public employment initiative is perhaps the most desperately needed intervention in communities where Depression-era levels of unemployment existed even before the pandemic — and are doubtlessly much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s gangs and their often-marginal involvement in the illicit drug economy greatly enhances the potential success of such an initiative .
Importantly , however , such a program wouldn ’ t be limited to these communities and would likely enjoy widespread support given the broader economic devastation wreaked by the coronavirus pandemic .
While the City of Chicago and State of Illinois should marshal whatever resources possible toward this end , they should also demand of their counterparts in Washington — both current and hopeful — that a robust federal response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion stimulus proves that funding is no valid obstacle — that where there is a will , there is a way .
Despite what the professors say , funding is an obstacle , though if unemployment rates of 20-percent or more persist for the next several months , a public employment initiative may become more more attractive to politicians .
President Trump has already spoken of his desire for Congress to pass a $ 2-trillion infrastructure bill “ focused solely on jobs and rebuilding the once great infrastructure of our country , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balked at the price tag .
During the Great Depression , the Roosevelt administration engaged in jobs programs like the Federal Writers Project , the Civilian Conservation Corps , and the Historic Records Survey , many of them under the auspices of the Works Project Administration .
Even at its peak , however , the WPA provided government funded jobs for some 3-million Americans .
At the moment , there are 38-million Americans who ’ ve applied for unemployment since President Trump declared a national emergency in March .
Any jobs program unveiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressed to provide relief or employment for even half of currently unemployed Americans , and I suspect that unemployed Americans who aren ’ t gang members might have a small problem with convicted criminals getting a government paycheck while they scramble to find work to pay their bills .
The professors are right that employment opportunities can truly help gang members escape the cycle of violence and help them become productive members of society , but a targeted approach that offers help on one hand and promises prosecution without plea bargains to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life around would be a better solution , in my opinion .
Programs like Project Ceasefire have a proven track record of reducing shootings and homicides by focusing efforts on the most violent offenders , who are also the most likely to be shot or killed in gang violence .
Instead of waiting or hoping for a massive jobs program to turn the tide of gang violence in Chicago , local officials should start with something that ’ s doable , affordable , and effective .

Chicago, Illinois has had nearly 1,000 coronavirus-related deaths, and at last count had more than 20,000 confirmed cases of the COVID-19 virus. The city is also dealing with an increase in violent crime since Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home order was put into effect back in March. Two professors in Illinois say in a new op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times that the coronavirus deaths and the gang violence may be linked.
Roberto R. Aspholm from Southern Illinois University and John M. Hagedorn of the University of Illinois at Chicago argue that the young criminals who have no regard for laws against robbery, carjacking, and homicide may not be paying much attention to the stay-at-home orders either.
The virus and violence have race and poverty in common. African Americans comprise roughly 30% of Chicago’s population but make up nearly half of its poor residents and 80% of its homicide victims. Similarly, blacks represent at least 40% of Chicago’s coronavirus cases and 55% of its pandemic-related deaths. Part of this overrepresentation can be explained by black Chicagoans’ disproportionate rates of chronic health conditions, employment in “essential” economic sectors, reliance on public transportation and uninsurance, all of which increase one’s chances of infection and severe symptomatology. But another key link between violence and the virus are large numbers of alienated young people on Chicago’s South and West Sides. Like in many other places, young people are ignoring the stay-at-home and social-distancing orders coming from elected officials, heightening the risk of viral infection and transmission. In Chicago, these young people are often the same ones involved in the city’s rampant gun violence that has persisted throughout the pandemic.
So what do you do with these young offenders? The answer, according to Aspholm and Hagedorn, isn’t new gun control laws or locking up people in the Cook County jail for violating social distancing norms. Instead, they say that’s what’s really needed are jobs.
A broad-based public employment initiative is perhaps the most desperately needed intervention in communities where Depression-era levels of unemployment existed even before the pandemic — and are doubtlessly much worse now. The relative disorganization of today’s gangs and their often-marginal involvement in the illicit drug economy greatly enhances the potential success of such an initiative. Importantly, however, such a program wouldn’t be limited to these communities and would likely enjoy widespread support given the broader economic devastation wreaked by the coronavirus pandemic. While the City of Chicago and State of Illinois should marshal whatever resources possible toward this end, they should also demand of their counterparts in Washington — both current and hopeful — that a robust federal response is needed. The recent $3 trillion stimulus proves that funding is no valid obstacle — that where there is a will, there is a way.
Despite what the professors say, funding is an obstacle, though if unemployment rates of 20-percent or more persist for the next several months, a public employment initiative may become more more attractive to politicians. President Trump has already spoken of his desire for Congress to pass a $2-trillion infrastructure bill “focused solely on jobs and rebuilding the once great infrastructure of our country,” but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has balked at the price tag.
During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration engaged in jobs programs like the Federal Writers Project, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Historic Records Survey, many of them under the auspices of the Works Project Administration. Even at its peak, however, the WPA provided government funded jobs for some 3-million Americans. At the moment, there are 38-million Americans who’ve applied for unemployment since President Trump declared a national emergency in March.
Any jobs program unveiled by the current administration would be hard pressed to provide relief or employment for even half of currently unemployed Americans, and I suspect that unemployed Americans who aren’t gang members might have a small problem with convicted criminals getting a government paycheck while they scramble to find work to pay their bills.
The professors are right that employment opportunities can truly help gang members escape the cycle of violence and help them become productive members of society, but a targeted approach that offers help on one hand and promises prosecution without plea bargains to those who refuse the chance to turn their life around would be a better solution, in my opinion. Programs like Project Ceasefire have a proven track record of reducing shootings and homicides by focusing efforts on the most violent offenders, who are also the most likely to be shot or killed in gang violence. Instead of waiting or hoping for a massive jobs program to turn the tide of gang violence in Chicago, local officials should start with something that’s doable, affordable, and effective.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Court Overturns Attempted Manslaughter Charge For Marine

The world of military law is quite different than civilian law .
There are things that are considered offenses under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice that would never fly in civilian court , and for good reason .
The military can ’ t tolerate certain things because the undermine the readiness of the armed forces .
Yet in many cases , the two are quite similar .
After all , if two people try to hurt one another , there ’ s not a lot of difference .
Which is why I personally found a Marine ’ s attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Marine sentenced to 18 months ’ confinement and a bad-conduct discharge after a barracks confrontation turned bloody may now end up free , after a military appeals court determined that the presiding judge wrongly instructed jury members in the case .
Pfc .
Mickey W. Johnson , an aircraft maintainer stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii , was convicted on charges including attempted manslaughter in April 2018 .
After just three weeks living with his roommate , identified in court documents as Lance Cpl .
V , the tension between the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But even though a showdown one evening devolved into a knife fight that sent Lance Cpl .
V to the hospital , the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Appeals determined earlier this month that it could have begun as justifiable self-defense — a point that may not have been made effectively ahead of deliberations on the case .
The full-court published decision , released April 15 and delivered by Senior Judge Navy Capt .
Arthur Gaston , found that the judge should have told members that Johnson was within his rights to display @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The judges pointed out the size difference between the two Marines : Johnson was 5 feet 9 inches and weighed 140 pounds , while Lance Cpl .
V was 6 feet 5 inches and 200 pounds .
Because of the size mismatch , Johnson said he needed ample opportunity to head off potential fights .
“ [ Johnson ’ s defense ] argues these requested instructions were necessary because Appellant was a ‘ little man ’ who had a legal right to take reasonable measures to protect himself , ‘ rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being knocked down and stamped into a jelly , ’ ” the court wrote in its discussion of the case , citing previous decisions .
According to the court ’ s account of the encounter , the showdown between the two Marines happened after weeks of trading insults .
Johnson at one point wondered aloud if he ’ d “ rather see LCpl V “ with his throat slit or set on fire , ” the court stated .
It ’ s an interesting point , one that applies to civilian contexts as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trust me , I ’ m 5 ’ 8″ and enlisted in the Navy at 135 lbs .
I know pretty much what Johnson looked like .
Squaring off against someone who is 6 ’ 5″ and 200 lbs is something else entirely .
They have every physical advantage and may well be able to hurt or even kill you , regardless of whether they ’ re armed or not .
The jury should have been instructed to consider that and they weren ’ t .
That means Johnson gets a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean Johnson will walk .
The court-martial may still result in him being punished , but at least now they ’ ll have to consider the size disparity as a potential mitigating factor .

The world of military law is quite different than civilian law. There are things that are considered offenses under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice that would never fly in civilian court, and for good reason. The military can’t tolerate certain things because the undermine the readiness of the armed forces.
Yet in many cases, the two are quite similar. After all, if two people try to hurt one another, there’s not a lot of difference.
Which is why I personally found a Marine’s attempted manslaughter charges being overturned quite interesting.
A Marine sentenced to 18 months’ confinement and a bad-conduct discharge after a barracks confrontation turned bloody may now end up free, after a military appeals court determined that the presiding judge wrongly instructed jury members in the case. Pfc. Mickey W. Johnson, an aircraft maintainer stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, was convicted on charges including attempted manslaughter in April 2018. After just three weeks living with his roommate, identified in court documents as Lance Cpl. V, the tension between the two was toxic and threats were common. But even though a showdown one evening devolved into a knife fight that sent Lance Cpl. V to the hospital, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Appeals determined earlier this month that it could have begun as justifiable self-defense — a point that may not have been made effectively ahead of deliberations on the case. The full-court published decision, released April 15 and delivered by Senior Judge Navy Capt. Arthur Gaston, found that the judge should have told members that Johnson was within his rights to display knives in an attempt to deter aggression. The judges pointed out the size difference between the two Marines: Johnson was 5 feet 9 inches and weighed 140 pounds, while Lance Cpl. V was 6 feet 5 inches and 200 pounds. Because of the size mismatch, Johnson said he needed ample opportunity to head off potential fights. “[Johnson’s defense] argues these requested instructions were necessary because Appellant was a ‘little man’ who had a legal right to take reasonable measures to protect himself, ‘rather than take [the] chance … of being knocked down and stamped into a jelly,’” the court wrote in its discussion of the case, citing previous decisions. According to the court’s account of the encounter, the showdown between the two Marines happened after weeks of trading insults. Johnson at one point wondered aloud if he’d “rather see LCpl V “with his throat slit or set on fire,” the court stated.
It’s an interesting point, one that applies to civilian contexts as well. Johnson was a small guy. Trust me, I’m 5’8″ and enlisted in the Navy at 135 lbs. I know pretty much what Johnson looked like.
Squaring off against someone who is 6’5″ and 200 lbs is something else entirely. They have every physical advantage and may well be able to hurt or even kill you, regardless of whether they’re armed or not.
The jury should have been instructed to consider that and they weren’t. That means Johnson gets a new trial.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Johnson will walk. The court-martial may still result in him being punished, but at least now they’ll have to consider the size disparity as a potential mitigating factor.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Will This Be The Next 2A Case Heard By SCOTUS?

On Friday , the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in conference to go through several dozen cases that are currently being considered for review by the Court .
Among them are ten cases having to do with the right to keep and bear arms , and given the fact that justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Clarence Thomas , and Brett Kavanaugh all indicated this week that they want the Court to hear a Second Amendment challenge sooner rather than later , expectations are high that the justices could announce that they ’ ll hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early as next Monday .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I ’ m joined by Scott Bach , the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs to talk about one case that may be the most likely candidate to be chosen by justices .
It ’ s called Rogers v. Grewal , and the case involves a challenge to New Jersey ’ s incredibly restrictive concealed carry laws , which are denying the average resident their right to bear arms .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , attorneys for Thomas Rogers and other plaintiffs lay out their reasoning for why the court needs to hear the case , noting that there is currently a split among the various courts of appeals regarding the right to bear arms outside of the home .
In District of Columbia v. Heller , this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “ the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation ” for “ the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
” But the lower courts have split over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical , law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense .
The D.C .
Circuit has seen these laws for what they are— “ necessarily a total ban on most [ citizens ’ ] right to carry a gun ” —and it has struck down the District of Columbia ’ s requirement that citizens show a “ good reason , ” other than self-defense , before carrying a handgun outside the home as categorically unconstitutional .
But the court below upheld New Jersey ’ s substantively indistinguishable “ justifiable need ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasoning in an earlier case that such a law “ does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment ’ s guarantee ” and , even if it did , it would pass constitutional muster under a toothless version of “ intermediate scrutiny ” that consists of little more than blind deference to the State ’ s unbridled “ sound judgment and discretion ” in passing the law .
This direct conflict between the lower courts goes to the core of the Second Amendment .
The question presented in this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second Amendment protect , as it says , the right to keep and bear Arms for all Americans ?
Or can some circuits effectively erase two of those words from the Constitution ?
This Court should intervene to ensure a uniform understanding of the Second Amendment and prevent the lower courts from nullifying rights guaranteed by the text of the Constitution .
Thomas Rogers tried to obtain a New Jersey Handgun Carry Permit in 2017 , but was denied after the local police chief declared that Rogers had failed to demonstrate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the victim of a violent crime , and regularly works in high crime areas in his job running an ATM business , but those weren ’ t seen as valid reasons to receive a license .
“ It ’ s my right ” is also not a valid reason to receive a carry permit in the state , and in fact there are only a few hundred permits that have been issued in New Jersey , most to retired law enforcement , judges , and a few well-connected politicians .
The Third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stating that the court had already ruled in an earlier case called Drake v. Filko that New Jersey ’ s carry laws didn ’ t violate the Second Amendment rights of residents , in part because “ the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense .
.
.
is not part of the core of the [ Second ] Amendment.
” The Supreme Court declined to hear the Drake case , but in the years since , other lower courts , including the Seventh Circuit and the D.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasoning of the Third Circuit judges in Drake .
Attorneys for Rogers argue in their brief to the Supreme Court that the circuit court split is one big reason why the Court should hear the current challenge to New Jersey ’ s carry laws .
Rogers has been held by the Court for well over a year now , which is another indication that at least four justices on the Court have an interest in hearing the case .
We could soon learn what the Supreme Court plans to do with Rogers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the court will grant cert in the coming days .
It ’ s also possible , though perhaps not likely , that the Court will agree to hear more than one Second Amendment-related case in the coming weeks .
Coming up tomorrow at Bearing Arms , we ’ ll be taking a closer look at each of the cases that will be considered in conference and attempt to handicap the chances that each case could get a SCOTUS review .
Also on today ’ s show , we have a self-defense shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal given to a Wisconsin man who pled guilty to shooting at occupants of a car , and a good deed performed by a police officer in Stafford Township , New Jersey .
Don ’ t forget , you can subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or the Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. podcast to stay up to date on all of our shows .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

On Friday, the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in conference to go through several dozen cases that are currently being considered for review by the Court. Among them are ten cases having to do with the right to keep and bear arms, and given the fact that justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh all indicated this week that they want the Court to hear a Second Amendment challenge sooner rather than later, expectations are high that the justices could announce that they’ll hear at least one of these cases as early as next Monday.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I’m joined by Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs to talk about one case that may be the most likely candidate to be chosen by justices. It’s called Rogers v. Grewal, and the case involves a challenge to New Jersey’s incredibly restrictive concealed carry laws, which are denying the average resident their right to bear arms.
In the writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, attorneys for Thomas Rogers and other plaintiffs lay out their reasoning for why the court needs to hear the case, noting that there is currently a split among the various courts of appeals regarding the right to bear arms outside of the home.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” But the lower courts have split over the constitutionality of laws that categorically bar typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. The D.C. Circuit has seen these laws for what they are— “necessarily a total ban on most [citizens’] right to carry a gun”—and it has struck down the District of Columbia’s requirement that citizens show a “good reason,” other than self-defense, before carrying a handgun outside the home as categorically unconstitutional. But the court below upheld New Jersey’s substantively indistinguishable “justifiable need” requirement, App.1a, based on its reasoning in an earlier case that such a law “does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee” and, even if it did, it would pass constitutional muster under a toothless version of “intermediate scrutiny” that consists of little more than blind deference to the State’s unbridled “sound judgment and discretion” in passing the law. This direct conflict between the lower courts goes to the core of the Second Amendment. The question presented in this case is nothing less than this: Does the Second Amendment protect, as it says, the right to keep and bear Arms for all Americans? Or can some circuits effectively erase two of those words from the Constitution? This Court should intervene to ensure a uniform understanding of the Second Amendment and prevent the lower courts from nullifying rights guaranteed by the text of the Constitution.
Thomas Rogers tried to obtain a New Jersey Handgun Carry Permit in 2017, but was denied after the local police chief declared that Rogers had failed to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry. Rogers has been the victim of a violent crime, and regularly works in high crime areas in his job running an ATM business, but those weren’t seen as valid reasons to receive a license. “It’s my right” is also not a valid reason to receive a carry permit in the state, and in fact there are only a few hundred permits that have been issued in New Jersey, most to retired law enforcement, judges, and a few well-connected politicians.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, stating that the court had already ruled in an earlier case called Drake v. Filko that New Jersey’s carry laws didn’t violate the Second Amendment rights of residents, in part because “the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense . . . is not part of the core of the [Second] Amendment.”
The Supreme Court declined to hear the Drake case, but in the years since, other lower courts, including the Seventh Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have issued opinions that conflict with the reasoning of the Third Circuit judges in Drake. Attorneys for Rogers argue in their brief to the Supreme Court that the circuit court split is one big reason why the Court should hear the current challenge to New Jersey’s carry laws.
This Court’s review is necessary in this case for three independent reasons: to resolve the direct conflict in the circuits over the constitutionality of laws like New Jersey’s, to correct the decision of the court below essentially ignoring the clear holdings of Heller and McDonald, and to end the lower courts’ open and massive resistance to those decisions.
Rogers has been held by the Court for well over a year now, which is another indication that at least four justices on the Court have an interest in hearing the case. We could soon learn what the Supreme Court plans to do with Rogers, and I’m cautiously optimistic that the court will grant cert in the coming days.
It’s also possible, though perhaps not likely, that the Court will agree to hear more than one Second Amendment-related case in the coming weeks. Coming up tomorrow at Bearing Arms, we’ll be taking a closer look at each of the cases that will be considered in conference and attempt to handicap the chances that each case could get a SCOTUS review.
Also on today’s show, we have a self-defense shooting at a Georgia motel, a sweetheart deal given to a Wisconsin man who pled guilty to shooting at occupants of a car, and a good deed performed by a police officer in Stafford Township, New Jersey. Don’t forget, you can subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or the Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. podcast to stay up to date on all of our shows. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-04-30--PA Supreme Court To Rule On Standing In Preemption Case

One of the legal principles that can be most annoying is the issue of standing .
In other words , someone has to show they were impacted by a law in order to challenge a law , even if it ’ s a ridiculously stupid law .
In many cases , that means you have to be charged with breaking that law .
However , that ’ s a problem , particularly on things like gun rights cases .
Once you break the law , you run into issues with your gun rights .
Even if you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up losing expensive property that ’ s renamed “ exhibit A ” .
Plus , it ’ s a pain in the butt anyway .
In Pennsylvania , the issue of standing is at the heart of a preemption case involving the city of Harrisburg .
Now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be left to decide if people who haven ’ t been charged with a crime have standing to sue .
Harrisburg ’ s measure is 11 years old , but the court fight arose after Mayor Eric Papenfuse recently ordered city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about gun violence .
The Commonwealth Court ruling allowed the FOAC suit to continue against ordinance regulations that : • Bar anyone under 18 from carrying a gun in public unless they are accompanied by an adult .
• Prohibit the shooting of any guns by the public within the city for anything other than self-defense .
• Require gun owners to report to police any loss or theft of a gun within 48 hours of discovery .
The Commonwealth Court decision overturned a ruling by Dauphin County Judge Andrew H. Dowling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a city resident and a commuter , lacked legal standing to bring the suit .
FOAC and other gun rights advocates have been challenging municipal firearms ordinances statewide on grounds that only the Legislature has the authority to set such limits .
Here ’ s the thing , though .
Standing , as I understand it , basically means you ’ re impacted by the law and thus have grounds to sue .
It doesn ’ t necessarily require that you be charged with a crime .
Telling someone they can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks has an impact on every member of the public who carries guns and may wish to go to a city park .
Now , I ’ m not an attorney , but it seems to me that this gives Firearm Owners Against Crime members from Harrisburg ample standing , for example .
People who are governed by laws and who have to change their behavior because of those laws are definitely impacted .
Of course , I ’ m not an attorney and I never played one on TV , so maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , it ’ s up to the state supreme court to make that determination , and it ’ s an important one .
However , it ’ s not the most vital question .
That question is whether Harrisburg actually has the authority to pass such laws , which they most certainly don ’ t .
Once the issue of standing is decided , then we can deal with that question .
Assuming , of course , the court agrees with my assessment ( or something similar ) .
If so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the outcome .

One of the legal principles that can be most annoying is the issue of standing. In other words, someone has to show they were impacted by a law in order to challenge a law, even if it’s a ridiculously stupid law. In many cases, that means you have to be charged with breaking that law. However, that’s a problem, particularly on things like gun rights cases. Once you break the law, you run into issues with your gun rights. Even if you don’t commit a felony, you could end up losing expensive property that’s renamed “exhibit A”.
Plus, it’s a pain in the butt anyway.
In Pennsylvania, the issue of standing is at the heart of a preemption case involving the city of Harrisburg. Now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be left to decide if people who haven’t been charged with a crime have standing to sue.
Harrisburg’s measure is 11 years old, but the court fight arose after Mayor Eric Papenfuse recently ordered city police to enforce it to address resident concerns about gun violence. The Commonwealth Court ruling allowed the FOAC suit to continue against ordinance regulations that: • Bar anyone under 18 from carrying a gun in public unless they are accompanied by an adult. • Prohibit the shooting of any guns by the public within the city for anything other than self-defense. • Require gun owners to report to police any loss or theft of a gun within 48 hours of discovery. • Ban guns from city parks. The Commonwealth Court decision overturned a ruling by Dauphin County Judge Andrew H. Dowling, who found FOAC and its co-plaintiffs, a city resident and a commuter, lacked legal standing to bring the suit. FOAC and other gun rights advocates have been challenging municipal firearms ordinances statewide on grounds that only the Legislature has the authority to set such limits.
Here’s the thing, though. Standing, as I understand it, basically means you’re impacted by the law and thus have grounds to sue. It doesn’t necessarily require that you be charged with a crime.
Telling someone they can’t legally carry a gun in city parks has an impact on every member of the public who carries guns and may wish to go to a city park. Now, I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me that this gives Firearm Owners Against Crime members from Harrisburg ample standing, for example.
People who are governed by laws and who have to change their behavior because of those laws are definitely impacted.
Of course, I’m not an attorney and I never played one on TV, so maybe I’m wrong here. Either way, it’s up to the state supreme court to make that determination, and it’s an important one. However, it’s not the most vital question. That question is whether Harrisburg actually has the authority to pass such laws, which they most certainly don’t.
Once the issue of standing is decided, then we can deal with that question. Assuming, of course, the court agrees with my assessment (or something similar). If so, I don’t think Harrisburg will like the outcome.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Washington State Almost Released A Serial Killer Due To COVID-19

Many of our jails and prisons are overcrowded .
That ’ s just a simple fact .
Ordinarily , it ’ s an annoyance and little more unless you ’ re actually in prison .
At that point , well , you don ’ t get a lot of sympathy .
Yet when COVID-19 reached our shores , a lot of officials knew they had to do something .
So , there were efforts all over the nation to try and alleviate the pressure and minimize the risk to prisoners .
Unfortunately , those efforts haven ’ t had some…stumbles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , you can at least see where someone was trying to minimize the risk to the public to some degree .
Washington state , however , almost went in the opposite direction .
In fact , they almost released a notorious serial killer .
But nothing is more , what ’ s the word for it ?
Ah , yes – INSANE – than what Washington State prison reformers nearly succeeded in doing last week .
The man we now know as the Green River Killer , Gary Ridgeway , was sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was convicted of 49 murders of prostitutes , girls on the streets and vulnerable runaways , but he was suspected of committing 71 murders in the 1970s , ’ 80s and ’ 90s .
A legal activist group , Columbia Legal Services , began agitating for inmates over 50 years old to be set free to save them from the virus .
Ridgeway is 71 years old .
The problem with pushing for everyone over a certain age to be released is that there are plenty of people who are vicious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ridgeway , for example .
But hey , it ’ s not like he was really close to getting out of prison , was it ?
One vote .
Just one vote kept Ridgeway and other psychopaths off the streets .
I ’ m sorry , but can ’ t we all agree in keeping the convicted serial killer serving a life sentence behind bars along with all the other violent people ?
Isn ’ t this something we should all agree on ?
Especially when you consider that this is Washington state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years doing everything they can to curtail people ’ s God-given right to keep and bear arms .
You know , the kind of thing that would help protect them from notorious serial killers being released from prison because of a virus ?
You also need to remember that serial killers don ’ t just reform .
They feel a need , a burning desire , to murder people and that need doesn ’ t really go away .
Efforts like this make it impossible to look at some on the left in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re so in love with the idea of protecting criminals .
Not only do they want to let notorious murderers out of prison , but they want to inhibit people ’ s ability to defend themselves from those murderers .
It ’ s outright insanity .
And no , it ’ s not necessarily limited to Washington state by any stretch .
It ’ s just most other states have had the good sense to not release notorious serial killers .

Many of our jails and prisons are overcrowded. That’s just a simple fact. Ordinarily, it’s an annoyance and little more unless you’re actually in prison. At that point, well, you don’t get a lot of sympathy.
Yet when COVID-19 reached our shores, a lot of officials knew they had to do something. So, there were efforts all over the nation to try and alleviate the pressure and minimize the risk to prisoners.
Unfortunately, those efforts haven’t had some…stumbles.
However, in many of those cases, you can at least see where someone was trying to minimize the risk to the public to some degree.
Washington state, however, almost went in the opposite direction. In fact, they almost released a notorious serial killer.
But nothing is more, what’s the word for it? Ah, yes – INSANE – than what Washington State prison reformers nearly succeeded in doing last week. The man we now know as the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgeway, was sent to prison for more than 500 years. He was convicted of 49 murders of prostitutes, girls on the streets and vulnerable runaways, but he was suspected of committing 71 murders in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. … A legal activist group, Columbia Legal Services, began agitating for inmates over 50 years old to be set free to save them from the virus. Ridgeway is 71 years old.
The problem with pushing for everyone over a certain age to be released is that there are plenty of people who are vicious killers who fall above that age. Ridgeway, for example.
But hey, it’s not like he was really close to getting out of prison, was it?
Well…
On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that those “really bad people,” including The Green River Killer, would face the coronavirus locked up like everyone else in the country. The vote was 5-4. That means four of the Washington State Supreme Court were ready to empty the state prisons of 2/3 of the prisoners, including Gary Ridgeway.
One vote. Just one vote kept Ridgeway and other psychopaths off the streets.
I’m sorry, but can’t we all agree in keeping the convicted serial killer serving a life sentence behind bars along with all the other violent people? Isn’t this something we should all agree on?
Apparently not, and that’s a big problem.
Especially when you consider that this is Washington state, a state that has spent recent years doing everything they can to curtail people’s God-given right to keep and bear arms. You know, the kind of thing that would help protect them from notorious serial killers being released from prison because of a virus?
You also need to remember that serial killers don’t just reform. They feel a need, a burning desire, to murder people and that need doesn’t really go away.
Efforts like this make it impossible to look at some on the left in Washington and wonder just why they’re so in love with the idea of protecting criminals. Not only do they want to let notorious murderers out of prison, but they want to inhibit people’s ability to defend themselves from those murderers. It’s outright insanity.
And no, it’s not necessarily limited to Washington state by any stretch. It’s just most other states have had the good sense to not release notorious serial killers.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--US Attorney Blasts MS Mayor's Open Carry Ban

Jackson , Mississippi Mayor Chokwe Lumumba is quickly finding himself without many allies over his edict banning the open carrying of firearms in the city during its declared state of emergency .
On Tuesday , the city council unanimously approved a resolution opposing the mayor ’ s actions , and on Wednesday the council took the step of hiring an attorney to represent them in a federal lawsuit filed over the ban .
Now the U.S. Attorney for southern Mississippi , Mike Hurst , has taken to the pages of the Clarion-Ledger newspaper to absolutely obliterate Lumumba ’ s argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary and unconstitutional action .
It is false for the mayor to say that many of the killings in Jackson could have been avoided if people would not have had a right to openly carry firearms in Mississippi .
Our office works closely with the Jackson Police Department , and I have not seen a single case where a killing in Jackson could have been prevented if open carry rights had been revoked .
The mayor ’ s illegal order will only disarm law-abiding citizens and result in more victims .
Despite his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also knows full well , as a former criminal defense attorney , that the right to openly carry firearms is not interfering with law enforcement taking criminals off the street .
For over 50 years , the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized law enforcement to stop a person and investigate whether a crime has been committed based on a reasonable suspicion , a much lower standard than the probable cause standard mentioned by the mayor .
Nothing prevents a police officer from asking questions of anyone , even with no basis for suspecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lumumba has claimed that the recent murders of a 5-year old and an 11-year old could have been prevented if the state didn ’ t allow for the open carry of firearms , but Hurt says that argument doesn ’ t hold up either .
It is also untrue for the mayor to say the right to openly carry a firearm provides protection to criminals .
Criminals are trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves and being arrested .
In all of our work with JPD , I can not recall a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm and somehow that firearm magically protected him from arrest .
The recent murders of innocent children in Jackson is horrific , and the criminals who committed these vile acts should swiftly be brought to justice .
However , despite what the mayor would have you believe , there is absolutely no connection between the right to openly carry a firearm and these tragic murders .
None .
The mayor is using an unrelated tragedy to further his political aims , and that is despicable .
Hurst says if Lumumba really wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could start by addressing some of the issues in the Jackson Police Department instead of infringing on the rights of legal gun owners .
Our Jackson police officers are paid below the state average , our Jackson Police Department is operating at less than 50 % capacity , and our mayor seeks to “ name and shame ” officers during administrative investigations .
We can effectively fight violent crime by first taking care of our law enforcement heroes who take care of us .
History provides no support for the restrictions the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor ’ s justifications are not connected or substantiated in any way to support his illegal actions .
Despite what the mayor says , the open carry rights of Mississippians have not led to an increase in gun violence in Jackson .
If we are to preserve the character of our nation and “ secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity , ” we must remain vigilant and collectively act to protect and preserve the constitutional liberties and civil rights of every American , especially in times of crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expire today , but the mayor indicated earlier in the week that he planned on extending it .
Without backing from the city council , and with opposition coming from the state ’ s Attorney General , the local U.S. Attorney , and the Mississippi Justice Institute , which filed the federal lawsuit taking on the mayor ’ s order , Lumumba could decide that he ’ s received enough free press from his stunt and allow the order to expire .
Ultimately , I suspsect the mayor ’ s decision won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best protect the safety of the public , but the best way to fight a public relations battle .

Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Chokwe Lumumba is quickly finding himself without many allies over his edict banning the open carrying of firearms in the city during its declared state of emergency. On Tuesday, the city council unanimously approved a resolution opposing the mayor’s actions, and on Wednesday the council took the step of hiring an attorney to represent them in a federal lawsuit filed over the ban.
Now the U.S. Attorney for southern Mississippi, Mike Hurst, has taken to the pages of the Clarion-Ledger newspaper to absolutely obliterate Lumumba’s argument about the supposed need to for his extraordinary and unconstitutional action.
It is false for the mayor to say that many of the killings in Jackson could have been avoided if people would not have had a right to openly carry firearms in Mississippi. Our office works closely with the Jackson Police Department, and I have not seen a single case where a killing in Jackson could have been prevented if open carry rights had been revoked. The mayor’s illegal order will only disarm law-abiding citizens and result in more victims. Despite his statement to the contrary, the mayor also knows full well, as a former criminal defense attorney, that the right to openly carry firearms is not interfering with law enforcement taking criminals off the street. For over 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized law enforcement to stop a person and investigate whether a crime has been committed based on a reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard than the probable cause standard mentioned by the mayor. Nothing prevents a police officer from asking questions of anyone, even with no basis for suspecting a crime has been committed.
Mayor Lumumba has claimed that the recent murders of a 5-year old and an 11-year old could have been prevented if the state didn’t allow for the open carry of firearms, but Hurt says that argument doesn’t hold up either.
It is also untrue for the mayor to say the right to openly carry a firearm provides protection to criminals. Criminals are trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves and being arrested. In all of our work with JPD, I cannot recall a single instance where a criminal was openly carrying a firearm and somehow that firearm magically protected him from arrest. The recent murders of innocent children in Jackson is horrific, and the criminals who committed these vile acts should swiftly be brought to justice. However, despite what the mayor would have you believe, there is absolutely no connection between the right to openly carry a firearm and these tragic murders. None. The mayor is using an unrelated tragedy to further his political aims, and that is despicable.
Hurst says if Lumumba really wants to address violent crime in Jackson, he could start by addressing some of the issues in the Jackson Police Department instead of infringing on the rights of legal gun owners.
Our Jackson police officers are paid below the state average, our Jackson Police Department is operating at less than 50% capacity, and our mayor seeks to “name and shame” officers during administrative investigations. We can effectively fight violent crime by first taking care of our law enforcement heroes who take care of us. History provides no support for the restrictions the mayor attempts to impose here, and the mayor’s justifications are not connected or substantiated in any way to support his illegal actions. Despite what the mayor says, the open carry rights of Mississippians have not led to an increase in gun violence in Jackson. If we are to preserve the character of our nation and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” we must remain vigilant and collectively act to protect and preserve the constitutional liberties and civil rights of every American, especially in times of crisis.
Lumumba’s order is set to expire today, but the mayor indicated earlier in the week that he planned on extending it. Without backing from the city council, and with opposition coming from the state’s Attorney General, the local U.S. Attorney, and the Mississippi Justice Institute, which filed the federal lawsuit taking on the mayor’s order, Lumumba could decide that he’s received enough free press from his stunt and allow the order to expire. Ultimately, I suspsect the mayor’s decision won’t come down to how to best protect the safety of the public, but the best way to fight a public relations battle.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Government Officials Say Canadian Gun Ban Is Imminent

Justin Trudeau ’ s government will move forward with a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms , and the announcement could come by the end of the week according to unnamed government officials who spoke to Canada ’ s Globe & Mail newspaper .
The anonymous officials told reporters that most of the details have already been approved by Trudeau ’ s cabinet , and while additional gun control legislation is planned , the gun ban itself will be imposed without a vote in Parliament .
In last year ’ s election campaign , the Liberals promised to ban military-style assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their territory and bring in a series of new laws to restrict access to illegal weapons , among other elements .
In addition , the Liberals said they would create a buyback program to require the owners of newly banned firearms to sell them back to the government .
The Liberals placed an estimated price tag of $ 250-million on the program in the election campaign , but critics said the final tab will likely be much higher to reflect the market value of the weapons .
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program could come later than the ban .
The banning of firearms can be done by a decision of cabinet called an order-in-council and does not require the adoption of new legislation .
There is no exact definition of a military-style firearm , which means the government ’ s decision is based on science as well as political choices .
Despite the claim by the Globe & Mail , there ’ s nothing “ scientific ” about the ban that ’ s coming from the Trudeau government .
This is entirely a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly two dozen people in Nova Scotia has given Trudeau the political cover he needs to announce the ban , even though the facts of the case in Nova Scotia don ’ t add any weight to the idea that banning law-abiding Canadians from owning some of the most common rifles sold today will prevent future tragedies .
The RCMP has already said that the killer in Nova Scotia didn ’ t legally own the guns used in his attacks , and the fact that he also had access to an RCMP uniform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just like an RCMP vehicle allowed him to carry out his crime spree over more than twelve hours .
There ’ s also been a lot of criticism directed at the RCMP for not issuing an emergency alert while the attack was ongoing , instead relying on social media platforms like Twitter to try to keep the public updated .
Trudeau ’ s expected announcement about a gun ban will turn the media and public ’ s attention away from any failures of the RCMP to protect the people of Nova Scotia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will now revolve around gun control and the action by Trudeau to avoid a parliamentary vote on the ban .
That may suit the Liberals just fine , but it won ’ t do anything at all to make Canadians any safer .

Justin Trudeau’s government will move forward with a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms, and the announcement could come by the end of the week according to unnamed government officials who spoke to Canada’s Globe & Mail newspaper. The anonymous officials told reporters that most of the details have already been approved by Trudeau’s cabinet, and while additional gun control legislation is planned, the gun ban itself will be imposed without a vote in Parliament.
In last year’s election campaign, the Liberals promised to ban military-style assault weapons, allow municipalities to ban handguns on their territory and bring in a series of new laws to restrict access to illegal weapons, among other elements. In addition, the Liberals said they would create a buyback program to require the owners of newly banned firearms to sell them back to the government. The Liberals placed an estimated price tag of $250-million on the program in the election campaign, but critics said the final tab will likely be much higher to reflect the market value of the weapons. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said earlier this year that the buyback program could come later than the ban. The banning of firearms can be done by a decision of cabinet called an order-in-council and does not require the adoption of new legislation. There is no exact definition of a military-style firearm, which means the government’s decision is based on science as well as political choices.
Despite the claim by the Globe & Mail, there’s nothing “scientific” about the ban that’s coming from the Trudeau government. This is entirely a political decision, and the recent murders of nearly two dozen people in Nova Scotia has given Trudeau the political cover he needs to announce the ban, even though the facts of the case in Nova Scotia don’t add any weight to the idea that banning law-abiding Canadians from owning some of the most common rifles sold today will prevent future tragedies.
The RCMP has already said that the killer in Nova Scotia didn’t legally own the guns used in his attacks, and the fact that he also had access to an RCMP uniform and a car tricked out to look just like an RCMP vehicle allowed him to carry out his crime spree over more than twelve hours. There’s also been a lot of criticism directed at the RCMP for not issuing an emergency alert while the attack was ongoing, instead relying on social media platforms like Twitter to try to keep the public updated.
Trudeau’s expected announcement about a gun ban will turn the media and public’s attention away from any failures of the RCMP to protect the people of Nova Scotia. Instead, virtually all of the conversation will now revolve around gun control and the action by Trudeau to avoid a parliamentary vote on the ban. That may suit the Liberals just fine, but it won’t do anything at all to make Canadians any safer.


bearingarms--2020-04-30--Lawsuit Alleges New Jersey Governor Retaliated Against Gun Rights Groups

Politics can be an interesting thing to watch , especially if you really understand how things are done .
There ’ s an old saying that the two things you don ’ t want people to see you make are laws and sausages , and it ’ s an accurate statement .
But it certainly gets interesting .
Like most people , politicians can be downright petty at times .
Most are slick enough to hide their pettiness , but sometimes they don ’ t even bother .
That is what ’ s alleged to have happened in a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gov .
Phil Murphy improperly booted a gun rights activist from New Jersey ’ s daily coronavirus press briefings , the New Jersey Second Amendment Society alleges in a new federal lawsuit .
Alexander Roubian , the group ’ s president , attended the briefings in March to ask Murphy about the governor ’ s closure of gun stores and ranges as part of his shutdown of businesses the state believes are not essential .
The same day Murphy announced a limited re-opening of gun stores , the Murphy administration started barring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s exclusion amounts to retaliation for him “ taking on ” Murphy over the gun store closures , the lawsuit says .
“ The governor ’ s actions in barring NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian from a public forum such as a press conference is not only inappropriate , it clearly violates their First Amendment rights and the oath of office the governor took to uphold the constitution , ” Roubian ’ s attorney , Albert Rescinio , said in a statement .
“ Our First Amendment rights must be protected and the lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paramount not just to them but to the public at large.
” Roubian wants the judge to force the state to allow him to attend the briefings as a reporter .
While some might scoff at that , the truth is that there isn ’ t really a credentialing process for who is a reporter and who isn ’ t .
Anyone can wear that moniker these days and Freedom of the Press requires that to be respected , at least by the government .
Murphy doesn ’ t have any reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , I ’ m inclined to agree that retaliation is likely at least partially responsible for Muphy ’ s actions , but I ’ m also somewhat inclined to believe that he ’ d have done it before Roubian asked his question if he ’ d have thought about it .
In other words , it may not be retaliatory , merely personal .
Murphy despises the Second Amendment with every fiber of his being .
I don ’ t care what he might say , his actions speak loudly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s safe to say he doesn ’ t care for Second Amendment advocates very much either .
Regardless of his motivation , Murphy has no justification for barring people from the briefings that are open to the media .
Especially since there ’ s nothing stopping him from making other pronouncements relevant to the Second Amendment , thus falling within the scope of a Second Amendment group .
It ’ s my most sincere hope that the judge agrees and Murphy gets the proverbial slap down on this one .
Another ould-be tin-pot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country right now .
After all , we clearly have a variety to choose from , so Murphy ’ s contribution is unnecessary .

Politics can be an interesting thing to watch, especially if you really understand how things are done. There’s an old saying that the two things you don’t want people to see you make are laws and sausages, and it’s an accurate statement. But it certainly gets interesting.
Like most people, politicians can be downright petty at times. Most are slick enough to hide their pettiness, but sometimes they don’t even bother.
That is what’s alleged to have happened in a new lawsuit against New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy.
Gov. Phil Murphy improperly booted a gun rights activist from New Jersey’s daily coronavirus press briefings, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society alleges in a new federal lawsuit. Alexander Roubian, the group’s president, attended the briefings in March to ask Murphy about the governor’s closure of gun stores and ranges as part of his shutdown of businesses the state believes are not essential. The same day Murphy announced a limited re-opening of gun stores, the Murphy administration started barring Roubian from the briefings. Roubian’s exclusion amounts to retaliation for him “taking on” Murphy over the gun store closures, the lawsuit says. “The governor’s actions in barring NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian from a public forum such as a press conference is not only inappropriate, it clearly violates their First Amendment rights and the oath of office the governor took to uphold the constitution,” Roubian’s attorney, Albert Rescinio, said in a statement. “Our First Amendment rights must be protected and the lawsuit filed by NJ2AS and Mr. Roubian are paramount not just to them but to the public at large.”
Roubian wants the judge to force the state to allow him to attend the briefings as a reporter.
While some might scoff at that, the truth is that there isn’t really a credentialing process for who is a reporter and who isn’t. Anyone can wear that moniker these days and Freedom of the Press requires that to be respected, at least by the government. Murphy doesn’t have any reason to bar Roubian or anyone else from NJ2AS.
In fact, I’m inclined to agree that retaliation is likely at least partially responsible for Muphy’s actions, but I’m also somewhat inclined to believe that he’d have done it before Roubian asked his question if he’d have thought about it. In other words, it may not be retaliatory, merely personal. Murphy despises the Second Amendment with every fiber of his being. I don’t care what he might say, his actions speak loudly enough. As such, it’s safe to say he doesn’t care for Second Amendment advocates very much either.
Regardless of his motivation, Murphy has no justification for barring people from the briefings that are open to the media. Especially since there’s nothing stopping him from making other pronouncements relevant to the Second Amendment, thus falling within the scope of a Second Amendment group.
It’s my most sincere hope that the judge agrees and Murphy gets the proverbial slap down on this one. Another ould-be tin-pot dictator isn’t really needed in this country right now. After all, we clearly have a variety to choose from, so Murphy’s contribution is unnecessary.


bearingarms--2020-05-01--Man Released From Jail Due To COVID-19 Rearrested

I ’ ve said before that I understand the thinking that went into lawmakers releasing hordes of inmates from county jails and state prisons .
I still do .
They were in a tough spot and were going to catch hell for every death in a correctional facility if they didn ’ t at least try to do something .
The problem with such a plan , however , is that these people were locked up for a reason .
They ’ re being punished and , some hope , reformed .
Letting them out early because of a virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exactly whip them into pillars of society .
For example , one of the latest examples .
A former Washington state inmate who was released early because of the COVID-19 pandemic was re-arrested last weekend after a short high-speed chase and brief foot pursuit in Pierce County that followed alleged meth use by the man and a passenger in his vehicle , according to a police report and interviews with investigators .
Flaviano D. Basaliza , 43 , of Bremerton , was taken into custody shortly before midnight Sunday morning by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a felony count of eluding and misdemeanor charges of obstructing an officer and third-degree driving with a suspended license , according to the police report .
Because he was a non-violent offender during the weekend incident , however , he was allowed to bond out , police said .
The suspect and his friend who was with him at the time of the incident told investigators that Basaliza had just been released from prison because of the state ’ s effort to implement social distancing in order to deter the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving time after being convicted of possession of stolen vehicle .
Last week .
Gov .
Jay Inslee officially signed an order that allowed nearly 1,000 non-violent inmates to be released from prison early as part of that effort .
The move sparked criticisms from some quarters over whether it was the right approach .
Inslee , in a statement to the station that reported this , defended his decision .
Now , this guy isn ’ t exactly the Green River Killer or anything , but he was locked up for something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately poses a hazard to any number of innocent people .
No , he ’ s not accused of a violent crime , but let ’ s also be real here .
More people are killed in auto accidents than by homicide every single year .
That means Basaliza was putting people ’ s lives at risk .
It ’ s not that he didn ’ t hurt anyone , it ’ s that it took a minor miracle not to hurt anyone .
He could have killed people quite easily .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from prison , even non-violent offenders .
While it sounds good in principle , there are ramifications for such an act and those really needed to be considered in the first place .
Are these individuals going to cause more problems than releasing them will solve ?
Honestly , at this point , we don ’ t really know .
What we do know is that Basaliza risked an untold number of lives and is already back on the streets again .
Call it a hunch , but I doubt he learned his @ @

I’ve said before that I understand the thinking that went into lawmakers releasing hordes of inmates from county jails and state prisons. I still do. They were in a tough spot and were going to catch hell for every death in a correctional facility if they didn’t at least try to do something.
The problem with such a plan, however, is that these people were locked up for a reason. They’re being punished and, some hope, reformed. Letting them out early because of a virus with a pretty low mortality rate doesn’t exactly whip them into pillars of society.
For example, one of the latest examples.
A former Washington state inmate who was released early because of the COVID-19 pandemic was re-arrested last weekend after a short high-speed chase and brief foot pursuit in Pierce County that followed alleged meth use by the man and a passenger in his vehicle, according to a police report and interviews with investigators. Flaviano D. Basaliza, 43, of Bremerton, was taken into custody shortly before midnight Sunday morning by Gig Harbor police. He was charged with a felony count of eluding and misdemeanor charges of obstructing an officer and third-degree driving with a suspended license, according to the police report. Because he was a non-violent offender during the weekend incident, however, he was allowed to bond out, police said. The suspect and his friend who was with him at the time of the incident told investigators that Basaliza had just been because of the state’s effort to implement social distancing in order to deter the spread of coronavirus behind bars. Basaliza had been serving time after being convicted of possession of stolen vehicle. Last week. Gov. Jay Inslee officially signed an order that allowed nearly to be released from prison early as part of that effort. The move sparked criticisms from some quarters over whether it was the right approach.
Inslee, in a statement to the station that reported this, defended his decision.
Which you’d expect.
Now, this guy isn’t exactly the Green River Killer or anything, but he was locked up for something. Then, he gets out and immediately poses a hazard to any number of innocent people.
No, he’s not accused of a violent crime, but let’s also be real here. More people are killed in auto accidents than by homicide every single year. That means Basaliza was putting people’s lives at risk. It’s not that he didn’t hurt anyone, it’s that it took a minor miracle not to hurt anyone. He could have killed people quite easily.
And this is the problem with releasing people from prison, even non-violent offenders. While it sounds good in principle, there are ramifications for such an act and those really needed to be considered in the first place. Are these individuals going to cause more problems than releasing them will solve?
Honestly, at this point, we don’t really know. What we do know is that Basaliza risked an untold number of lives and is already back on the streets again. Call it a hunch, but I doubt he learned his lesson.


bearingarms--2020-05-01--Some Second Amendment Groups Seeing Surge in Support

Ordinarily on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co I try to stick to a one-guest , one-topic format , but we ’ re daring to be different with today ’ s show .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation ’ s Larry Keane and U.S .
Concealed Carry Association ’ s Tim Schmidt both sit down with me for extended interviews touching on the Supreme Court , the various restrictions on gun stores and ranges around the country during the coronavirus state of emergencies that have been declared , and the growing number of gun owners that we ’ re seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things off by speaking with Larry Keane about a new letter sent by 19 U.S. senators to members of the Trump administration , including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , urging them to ensure that financial institutions aren ’ t jerking around businesses in the firearms industry when it comes to the disbursement of PPP funds .
The senators point out that some of our biggest banks have been growing more hostile to the firearms industry in recent years , and they want to make sure that anti-gun politics don ’ t play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll protection funds .
The NSSF ’ s Keane says the examples of discrimination in recent years gives senators good reason to be concerned about how the PPP applications are being approved , and notes that the anti-gun moves by financial institutions aren ’ t limited to our biggest banks .
Even some smaller community banks have been demonstrating outright hostility to businesses in the firearms industry .
Keane is hopeful that legislation authored by Sen. Kevin Cramer ( R-ND ) called the Freedom Financing Act will soon get a vote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation were to become law , it would go a long way towards ensuring that lending institutions treat businesses fairly , including those in the firearms industry .
Keane also spoke to me about several of the ten cases being considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court today .
The NSSF has filed amicus briefs in two of the cases that justices are taking a look at .
Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the federal interstate handgun transfer ban on Second Amendment grounds .
A Washington , D.C. couple sued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms from a Texas federal firearms licensee without going through D.C. ’ s only licensed firearm retailer .
The NSSF filed a brief arguing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms , including handguns , does not stop at the border of a state .
The NSSF also filed a brief in a case called Worman v. Healey , which is a Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts ’ ban on so-called assault weapons .
In their brief , the NSSF ’ s amicus brief argues that lower courts have split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used when examining whether laws have violated the Second Amendment , and says the “ intermediate scrutiny ” standard has no grounding in the Second Amendment .
Instead , the NSSF claims the standard gives judges unlimited discretion to approve and disapprove firearms regulations .
Keane and I also discussed the Pena v. Horan case , which takes on California ’ s microstamping law .
Since the law has gone into effect , no new models of handguns have been made available for sale in the state , and Keane says more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously been approved for sale have now been taken off of California ’ s roster of handguns that can be sold .
Keane argues that the law , which requires all new models of handguns sold to do the impossible and imprint a unique identifier on two parts of an ammunition cartridge , amounts to a slow-motion handgun ban that should be overturned by the Court .
Tim Schmidt of the USSCA also spoke with me about a couple of Second Amendment cases being considered by the Supreme Court that are challenging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey and Maryland .
As you can imagine , Schmidt would love to see the Court strike down the laws that require applicants to show “ good cause ” or a “ justifiable need ” to carry .
Schmidt says the staggering number of new gun owners across the country is leading to a surge in interest in the group , with March being the best month for new members in about two years .
Schmidt ’ s also been busy online , hosting special events on the USCCA YouTube page with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells me that it ’ s become both easier and more important than ever before for gun owners and Second Amendment organizations to bypass the anti-gun media and take their message straight to the people .
Make sure you check out both interview above , and thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word .

Ordinarily on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co I try to stick to a one-guest, one-topic format, but we’re daring to be different with today’s show. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane and U.S. Concealed Carry Association’s Tim Schmidt both sit down with me for extended interviews touching on the Supreme Court, the various restrictions on gun stores and ranges around the country during the coronavirus state of emergencies that have been declared, and the growing number of gun owners that we’re seeing in states from coast-to-coast.
We kick things off by speaking with Larry Keane about a new letter sent by 19 U.S. senators to members of the Trump administration, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, urging them to ensure that financial institutions aren’t jerking around businesses in the firearms industry when it comes to the disbursement of PPP funds. The senators point out that some of our biggest banks have been growing more hostile to the firearms industry in recent years, and they want to make sure that anti-gun politics don’t play a role in what businesses are receiving the payroll protection funds.
“Several of the nation’s systemically important financial institutions use their market dominance to financially discriminate against legal and compliant businesses for political reasons. This includes the firearms and ammunition industries,” the senators wrote. “A vocal but small minority has weaponized federally-backed banks against politically disfavored businesses that operate in good faith and compliance with the law, by denying them financial services based on political reasons that have nothing to do with creditworthiness.”
The NSSF’s Keane says the examples of discrimination in recent years gives senators good reason to be concerned about how the PPP applications are being approved, and notes that the anti-gun moves by financial institutions aren’t limited to our biggest banks. Even some smaller community banks have been demonstrating outright hostility to businesses in the firearms industry. Keane is hopeful that legislation authored by Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) called the Freedom Financing Act will soon get a vote in the U.S. Senate, and says if the legislation were to become law, it would go a long way towards ensuring that lending institutions treat businesses fairly, including those in the firearms industry.
Keane also spoke to me about several of the ten cases being considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court today. The NSSF has filed amicus briefs in two of the cases that justices are taking a look at.
Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the federal interstate handgun transfer ban on Second Amendment grounds. A Washington, D.C. couple sued after they were prohibited from purchasing two firearms from a Texas federal firearms licensee without going through D.C.’s only licensed firearm retailer. The NSSF filed a brief arguing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, does not stop at the border of a state.
The NSSF also filed a brief in a case called Worman v. Healey, which is a Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on so-called assault weapons. In their brief, the NSSF’s amicus brief argues that lower courts have split on the standard of review that should be used when examining whether laws have violated the Second Amendment, and says the “intermediate scrutiny” standard has no grounding in the Second Amendment. Instead, the NSSF claims the standard gives judges unlimited discretion to approve and disapprove firearms regulations.
Keane and I also discussed the Pena v. Horan case, which takes on California’s microstamping law. Since the law has gone into effect, no new models of handguns have been made available for sale in the state, and Keane says more than 50-percent of the handguns that had previously been approved for sale have now been taken off of California’s roster of handguns that can be sold. Keane argues that the law, which requires all new models of handguns sold to do the impossible and imprint a unique identifier on two parts of an ammunition cartridge, amounts to a slow-motion handgun ban that should be overturned by the Court.
Tim Schmidt of the USSCA also spoke with me about a couple of Second Amendment cases being considered by the Supreme Court that are challenging the concealed carry laws in the states of New Jersey and Maryland. As you can imagine, Schmidt would love to see the Court strike down the laws that require applicants to show “good cause” or a “justifiable need” to carry.
Schmidt says the staggering number of new gun owners across the country is leading to a surge in interest in the group, with March being the best month for new members in about two years. Schmidt’s also been busy online, hosting special events on the USCCA YouTube page with industry leaders and influencers, and he tells me that it’s become both easier and more important than ever before for gun owners and Second Amendment organizations to bypass the anti-gun media and take their message straight to the people.
Make sure you check out both interview above, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word.