bearingarms--2020-10-09--Why Has The St. Louis Prosecutor Suppressed The McCloskey Indictments?

Earlier this week a grand jury in St. Louis , Missouri returned indictments against attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey for unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering , but the public hasn ’ t been able to actually read the indictments for themselves because prosecutor Kim Gardner has suppressed the indictments , a move that several Missouri legal experts say is highly unusual .
John Lynch has twenty years of experience as an attorney in Missouri , and he told KSDK-TV in St. Louis that he can ’ t recall a lot of cases where prosecutors have taken similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts who told 5 On Your Side the decision to shield the public from the indictments has left them puzzled .
Typically , judges and prosecutors suppress indictments if there is a flight risk or to give officers an advantage when arresting dangerous suspects , Lynch said .
He added that federal grand jury indictments are almost always suppressed , but it ’ s unusual to see it done at the state court level .
“ If you have an organized crime case or a child murderer , you might want to suppress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but this is far from that , ” Lynch said .
“ It ’ s not a very well-kept secret with McCloskey saga .
“ The suppression effort by the state is to continue manipulating the process out of pure political motivation which puts a dark stain on St. Louis again while the rest of us are trying to work.
” Anders Walker , a professor at St. Louis University who teachers both law and history courses , also says the move to suppress the indictments is extremely odd .
“ I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sealed so that the defendants can be apprehended and arrested and I don ’ t think there ’ s any fear that the McCloskeys , in this case , are going to try to evade arrest , ” Walker said .
“ I think it ’ s probably political .
“ These charges are relatively light charges and they ’ re also flimsy .
Conservatives have focused heavily on this case as a waste of prosecutorial resources so there may be an effort to not draw further attention to the case until perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own attorney Joel Schwartz says that he hasn ’ t seen a copy of the indictments , which is highly unusual .
On Thursday afternoon the judge in the case granted the prosecution ’ s request to keep the indictments sealed , supposedly over concerns about the safety of witnesses in the case .
“ Given the international attention this matter has generated , and the violence and vitriol directed towards the Circuit Attorney ’ s Office for the prosecution of this case , the witnesses were understandably reluctant to cooperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Grand Jury proceedings , and their testimony therein , would remain confidential , ” according to the motion Assistant Circuit Attorney Eusef Robin Huq wrote .
“ Requiring the witness ’ full , unredacted names to be disclosed has a chilling effect on witness ’ and victims ’ participation in the criminal justice system.
” Judge Rex Burlison granted the prosecutors ’ motion late Thursday , so the indictments contain only the initials of the 16 witnesses who testified before the grand jury .
With the witnesses ’ names redacted , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indictments themselves from the public ’ s view .
Instead , some of the court documents are starting to leak out in dribs and drabs .
KSDK , for instance , got ahold of documents regarding the prosecutor ’ s claims in the evidence tampering charge .
Prosecutors allege Mark and Patricia McCloskey “ altered a Bryco Arms semi-automatic pistol with the purpose to impair its verity in the investigation of an unlawful use of a weapon that occurred on June 28 on Portland Place , an official investigation , and thereby impaired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the crime of unlawful use of a weapon , ” according to the indictment .
Patricia McCloskey ’ s pistol has been a source of controversy surrounding the evidence in this case .
Missouri law requires prosecutors to prove the gun was operable and “ readily capable of lethal use , ” when it was used during the commission of an alleged crime .
The McCloskeys — who are attorneys — told police the pistol was inoperable when officers seized it because Patricia McCloskey had used it as a prop at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab workers wrote that the gun was inoperable when it arrived at the lab , and Gardner ’ s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered them to fix the gun so it could fire , according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side in July .
McCloskeys ’ attorney , Joel Schwartz , said : “ The only entity that can be proven to have tampered with the evidence is the state through the Circuit Attorney ’ s Office.
” What evidence did prosecutors provide to the grand jury that indicated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCloskey after she displayed the pistol as hundreds of protesters were marching through their private neighborhood ?
We have no idea , and with even outside legal observers noting that the suppression of the grand jury indictments was likely made for political purposes , I think it ’ s reasonable to be suspicious of the prosecutor ’ s claims .
Of course Kim Gardner could clear up a lot of the confusion if she ’ d simply release the indictments to the public .
The fact that she ’ s refusing to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more doubt and suspicion on the prosecutor ’ s case against the couple .

Earlier this week a grand jury in St. Louis, Missouri returned indictments against attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey for unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering, but the public hasn’t been able to actually read the indictments for themselves because prosecutor Kim Gardner has suppressed the indictments, a move that several Missouri legal experts say is highly unusual.
John Lynch has twenty years of experience as an attorney in Missouri, and he told KSDK-TV in St. Louis that he can’t recall a lot of cases where prosecutors have taken similar steps.
Lynch is one of several experts who told 5 On Your Side the decision to shield the public from the indictments has left them puzzled. Typically, judges and prosecutors suppress indictments if there is a flight risk or to give officers an advantage when arresting dangerous suspects, Lynch said. He added that federal grand jury indictments are almost always suppressed, but it’s unusual to see it done at the state court level. “If you have an organized crime case or a child murderer, you might want to suppress the indictment until arrests are made, but this is far from that,” Lynch said. “It’s not a very well-kept secret with McCloskey saga. “The suppression effort by the state is to continue manipulating the process out of pure political motivation which puts a dark stain on St. Louis again while the rest of us are trying to work.”
Anders Walker, a professor at St. Louis University who teachers both law and history courses, also says the move to suppress the indictments is extremely odd.
“I was a little surprised; often indictments are sealed so that the defendants can be apprehended and arrested and I don’t think there’s any fear that the McCloskeys, in this case, are going to try to evade arrest,” Walker said. “I think it’s probably political. “These charges are relatively light charges and they’re also flimsy. Conservatives have focused heavily on this case as a waste of prosecutorial resources so there may be an effort to not draw further attention to the case until perhaps after the election.”
Even the McCloskey’s own attorney Joel Schwartz says that he hasn’t seen a copy of the indictments, which is highly unusual.
On Thursday afternoon the judge in the case granted the prosecution’s request to keep the indictments sealed, supposedly over concerns about the safety of witnesses in the case.
“Given the international attention this matter has generated, and the violence and vitriol directed towards the Circuit Attorney’s Office for the prosecution of this case, the witnesses were understandably reluctant to cooperate and did so with the understanding that the Grand Jury proceedings, and their testimony therein, would remain confidential,” according to the motion Assistant Circuit Attorney Eusef Robin Huq wrote. “Requiring the witness’ full, unredacted names to be disclosed has a chilling effect on witness’ and victims’ participation in the criminal justice system.” Judge Rex Burlison granted the prosecutors’ motion late Thursday, so the indictments contain only the initials of the 16 witnesses who testified before the grand jury.
With the witnesses’ names redacted, there should be no reason to withhold the indictments themselves from the public’s view. Instead, some of the court documents are starting to leak out in dribs and drabs. KSDK, for instance, got ahold of documents regarding the prosecutor’s claims in the evidence tampering charge.
Prosecutors allege Mark and Patricia McCloskey “altered a Bryco Arms semi-automatic pistol with the purpose to impair its verity in the investigation of an unlawful use of a weapon that occurred on June 28 on Portland Place, an official investigation, and thereby impaired the obstructed the prosecution of Patricia McCloskey for the crime of unlawful use of a weapon,” according to the indictment. Patricia McCloskey’s pistol has been a source of controversy surrounding the evidence in this case. Missouri law requires prosecutors to prove the gun was operable and “readily capable of lethal use,” when it was used during the commission of an alleged crime. The McCloskeys — who are attorneys — told police the pistol was inoperable when officers seized it because Patricia McCloskey had used it as a prop at a trial against a gun manufacturer. Crime lab workers wrote that the gun was inoperable when it arrived at the lab, and Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered them to fix the gun so it could fire, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side in July. McCloskeys’ attorney, Joel Schwartz, said: “The only entity that can be proven to have tampered with the evidence is the state through the Circuit Attorney’s Office.”
What evidence did prosecutors provide to the grand jury that indicated the McCloskeys altered the pistol held by Patricia McCloskey after she displayed the pistol as hundreds of protesters were marching through their private neighborhood? We have no idea, and with even outside legal observers noting that the suppression of the grand jury indictments was likely made for political purposes, I think it’s reasonable to be suspicious of the prosecutor’s claims.
Of course Kim Gardner could clear up a lot of the confusion if she’d simply release the indictments to the public. The fact that she’s refusing to take that step only serves to cast even more doubt and suspicion on the prosecutor’s case against the couple.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--Harvard Report Pushes Gun Control As Rights "Reimagined"

The Ivy League has long been associated with the best and brightest our nation has to offer .
Of course , they also accepted David Hogg to college after he got rejected pretty much everywhere else he applied , so that association is more than a bit misguided , but it persists in many minds .
When people see the name of an Ivy League school on something , they generally figure it was concocted by some pretty smart people .
They ’ re wrong , of course , but it ’ s still true .
Worse than that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ minds ” at places like Harvard have no problem “ reimagining ” your rights because they know better than you do .
A report released today by researchers at Harvard Kennedy School ’ s Carr Center for Human Rights offers 80 recommendations for reimagining Americans ’ rights and responsibilities .
This blueprint for protecting and expanding citizens ’ rights proposes policy changes to strengthen democratic processes ; safeguard equal protection , equal opportunity , and due process of law ; and better protect freedoms of speech , media , religion and privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Responsibilities in the United States , ” was released at a virtual event at the Kennedy School .
The Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities Project is directed by John Shattuck , Carr Center senior fellow and former U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy , human rights and labor .
The report and the project are overseen by a faculty committee chaired by Carr Center Director Mathias Risse , the Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration .
To promote due process and the rule of law : secure due process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce incarceration and juvenile detention ; reform sentencing laws ; and enact laws that balance gun rights with public safety .
Now , on the surface , that might not look too bad…except for the fact that anytime anyone says anything about “ balancing ” gun rights with public safety , what they mean is continue to enact laws that do nothing to inhibit criminals buying guns off the black market but do a wonderful job of making life difficult for law-abiding gun owners .
See , practically no one at Harvard bothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re just too “ above ” that kind of nonsense .
That ’ s what we plebes in flyover country do , after all .
.
As a result , they probably don ’ t even blink at gun control laws .
They also tend to argue that if you can still buy a gun , your gun rights aren ’ t being restricted , which isn ’ t really the case .
Then again , they ’ re in anti-gun Massachusetts , so it may not even be a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as not wanting to deal with the hassle of getting one there .
They might not even realize that there are Americans living in free states who don ’ t have to jump through all of those hoops .
At the end of the day , no one needs our rights reimagined or any such thing , especially from elitist snobs like Harvard .
The only way I ’ d support “ reimagining ” them is more inline with what our Founding Fathers intended .
For the record , since that included heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m certain it wouldn ’ t involve the government telling me what I can and can ’ t have .
It damn sure doesn ’ t involve Harvard doing it .

The Ivy League has long been associated with the best and brightest our nation has to offer.
Of course, they also accepted David Hogg to college after he got rejected pretty much everywhere else he applied, so that association is more than a bit misguided, but it persists in many minds. When people see the name of an Ivy League school on something, they generally figure it was concocted by some pretty smart people.
They’re wrong, of course, but it’s still true.
Worse than that, though, is the fact that the “minds” at places like Harvard have no problem “reimagining” your rights because they know better than you do.
A report released today by researchers at Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights offers 80 recommendations for reimagining Americans’ rights and responsibilities. This blueprint for protecting and expanding citizens’ rights proposes policy changes to strengthen democratic processes; safeguard equal protection, equal opportunity, and due process of law; and better protect freedoms of speech, media, religion and privacy. The report, “Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities in the United States,” was released at a virtual event at the Kennedy School. The Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities Project is directed by John Shattuck, Carr Center senior fellow and former U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. The report and the project are overseen by a faculty committee chaired by Carr Center Director Mathias Risse, the Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration. … To promote due process and the rule of law: secure due process and humanitarian protections in immigration proceedings; reduce incarceration and juvenile detention; reform sentencing laws; and enact laws that balance gun rights with public safety.
Now, on the surface, that might not look too bad…except for the fact that anytime anyone says anything about “balancing” gun rights with public safety, what they mean is continue to enact laws that do nothing to inhibit criminals buying guns off the black market but do a wonderful job of making life difficult for law-abiding gun owners.
See, practically no one at Harvard bothers to own a gun. Generally, they’re just too “above” that kind of nonsense. That’s what we plebes in flyover country do, after all. .
As a result, they probably don’t even blink at gun control laws. They also tend to argue that if you can still buy a gun, your gun rights aren’t being restricted, which isn’t really the case. Then again, they’re in anti-gun Massachusetts, so it may not even be a case of not wanting a gun so much as not wanting to deal with the hassle of getting one there. They might not even realize that there are Americans living in free states who don’t have to jump through all of those hoops.
At the end of the day, no one needs our rights reimagined or any such thing, especially from elitist snobs like Harvard. The only way I’d support “reimagining” them is more inline with what our Founding Fathers intended. For the record, since that included heavy artillery in private hands, I’m certain it wouldn’t involve the government telling me what I can and can’t have.
It damn sure doesn’t involve Harvard doing it.


bearingarms--2020-10-10--Reader Review: Springfield Armory's Hellcat Takes CCW To Next Level

Editor ’ s note : The following review comes from reader and outdoors writer Dan Silvers .
To submit a review of your own favorite firearm , please email [ email protected ] for more information .
It used to be if you wanted high-capacity in a striker fired handgun you had accept a bulkier gun .
This compromise made it more difficult to accept a high-capacity pistol as an everyday CCW .
Sig Sauer started the trend of the micro-compact , high-capacity , CCW pistol a few years ago with their P365 .
I had an opportunity to shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , and I ’ ll admit , I was very impressed .
It seemed almost beyond physics that a gun that small could hold 10 rounds of 9mm .
I could tell that gun would change everything when it came to concealed carry .
I ’ ve been a fan of Springfield Armory for a very long time , going back to when all they really had was the M1A .
The hit it out of the park with the 1911 , XD , XD-M , and XD-S line of pistols .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only had the letter “ H ” in it , like many of you , I was curious what was coming .
Then the team at Springfield contacted me to let me in on the secret .
The “ Hellcat ” was coming , and was officially unveiled by the company in September 2019 .
Since its release , the Hellcat has not only become one of my favorite handguns , it ’ s earned a place as my daily carry pistol .
The Hellcat is Springfield Armory ’ s micro-compact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an 11 round and a 13 round magazine .
It honestly has all the things I love about the P365 , but it ’ s different ( in a better way ) .
• The stippling ( or as they call it “ Adaptive Grip Texturing ” ) is smooth to the touch , but the microscopic ridges beneath the smooth part allow you to grip the gun tightly .
• The flat trigger makes the pull easy and uniform .
The reset is also short , allowing one to reduce the finger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The sights were the one thing I was unsure on when I originally pulled it out of the box .
However , the Tactical Rack U-Dot ( “ U ” shaped rear sight ) and Tritium front sight dot makes it feel natural to shoot with both eyes open .
It also allows for quick target acquisition .
As for shooting , the Hellcat excelled in this area as well .
The increase capacity allows for more weight at the back to the gun .
So the first several shots give the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to group shots close together on the steel plate .
In addition , the Federal Hydra-Shok ammo made short work of some watermelons and other various fruits I had laying around .
Over the years I ’ ve carried a multitude of CCW pistols , going back to the Walther PPK 380 .
Then a slew of several other single-stack 9mm , 40 S & W , and 45 ACP .
They all provided something the other didn ’ t have , but I always felt they were missing something .
The Hellcat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the capacity and durability of a duty pistol .
I can honestly say that I can ’ t find any fault in the design of this gun .
It ’ s for that reason that my CCW is now the Springfield Hellcat .
Dan Silvers has been an independent writer for the outdoor industry since 2010 , writing for various online and print publications .
He ’ s covered everything from the newest trends in firearms , to the next vehicle you might be looking to buy for your daily commute ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having experience as a custom gun manufacturer , he has also aided companies in the research and development of guns and gun parts .
Dan Silvers can be contacted on Twitter : @ blackswampradio and by email at : [ email protected ]

Editor’s note: The following review comes from reader and outdoors writer Dan Silvers. To submit a review of your own favorite firearm, please email [email protected] for more information.
It used to be if you wanted high-capacity in a striker fired handgun you had accept a bulkier gun. This compromise made it more difficult to accept a high-capacity pistol as an everyday CCW. Sig Sauer started the trend of the micro-compact, high-capacity, CCW pistol a few years ago with their P365. I had an opportunity to shoot several magazines through the P365 back in 2018, and I’ll admit, I was very impressed. It seemed almost beyond physics that a gun that small could hold 10 rounds of 9mm. I could tell that gun would change everything when it came to concealed carry.
I’ve been a fan of Springfield Armory for a very long time, going back to when all they really had was the M1A. The hit it out of the park with the 1911, XD, XD-M, and XD-S line of pistols. When I started getting the teaser emails that only had the letter “H” in it, like many of you, I was curious what was coming. Then the team at Springfield contacted me to let me in on the secret. The “Hellcat” was coming, and was officially unveiled by the company in September 2019. Since its release, the Hellcat has not only become one of my favorite handguns, it’s earned a place as my daily carry pistol.
The Hellcat is Springfield Armory’s micro-compact, high-capacity, CCW. It ships with an 11 round and a 13 round magazine. It honestly has all the things I love about the P365, but it’s different (in a better way).
The stippling (or as they call it “Adaptive Grip Texturing”) is smooth to the touch, but the microscopic ridges beneath the smooth part allow you to grip the gun tightly.
The flat trigger makes the pull easy and uniform. The reset is also short, allowing one to reduce the finger travel time on subsequent shots.
The sights were the one thing I was unsure on when I originally pulled it out of the box. However, the Tactical Rack U-Dot (“U” shaped rear sight) and Tritium front sight dot makes it feel natural to shoot with both eyes open. It also allows for quick target acquisition.
As for shooting, the Hellcat excelled in this area as well. The increase capacity allows for more weight at the back to the gun. So the first several shots give the gun great balance. It was relatively easy to group shots close together on the steel plate. In addition, the Federal Hydra-Shok ammo made short work of some watermelons and other various fruits I had laying around.
Over the years I’ve carried a multitude of CCW pistols, going back to the Walther PPK 380. Then a slew of several other single-stack 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP. They all provided something the other didn’t have, but I always felt they were missing something. The Hellcat has the concealability of a micro pistol with the capacity and durability of a duty pistol. I can honestly say that I can’t find any fault in the design of this gun. It’s for that reason that my CCW is now the Springfield Hellcat.
Dan Silvers has been an independent writer for the outdoor industry since 2010, writing for various online and print publications. He’s covered everything from the newest trends in firearms, to the next vehicle you might be looking to buy for your daily commute (or you next hunting adventure). Having experience as a custom gun manufacturer, he has also aided companies in the research and development of guns and gun parts. Dan Silvers can be contacted on Twitter: @blackswampradio and by email at: [email protected]


bearingarms--2020-10-10--Survey Finds Students Afraid To Speak For Gun Rights, Other Issues

I am the father of a college-aged son .
Now in his sophomore year of college , my son has seen plenty of left-leaning nonsense from his professors .
He even dropped a U.S. history class because it was more about social justice jihadism than actual American history .
He ’ s not overly political , but it was way too much for him .
And yet , this isn ’ t one of the worst campuses for this sort of thing .
A lot of universities are far , far worse .
With professors espousing their leftist ideology as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of students are concerned to speak out for many subjects , such as gun rights .
College campuses are prime targets for mass shooters , especially after Virginia Tech , and yet many faculty and administrators want to hide behind gun free zone signs , as if they ’ re some kind of talisman that protects .
For students , campaigning for gun rights might well make a great deal of sense in the grand scheme of things .
Unfortunately , as a new study has found , the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that .
The College Free Speech Rankings project , a joint undertaking by FIRE , College Pulse and RealClearEducation , released their report last week .
Based on a survey of nearly 20,000 students at 55 colleges , this is the largest-ever examination of how conducive colleges and universities are to free expression .
Some of its key findings are : • Overall 60 % of the students note that they self-censor at least once during their college careers for fear of how others will respond .
• The predominant viewpoint at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberal compared with 94 % of private colleges and 100 % of the Ivies sampled .
• Only 1 in 4 students reports being very comfortable discussing a controversial political topic with their classmates .
• Among the topics that students deem the most difficult to discuss are abortion , race , the Israel-Palestine conflict , gun control and transgender issues .
I won ’ t say I don ’ t care about any of those other issues , but they ’ re irrelevant for our purposes here .
Gun control , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually interesting that more than half of the liberal students surveyed felt the need to self-censor , though , since the schools are predominantly liberal , as noted in the survey .
It suggests that many left-leaning students are insufficiently left for some professors ’ tastes .
Then again , there could be other reasons they self-censor as well .
The truth of the matter , though , is that our college campuses aren ’ t open for free discussion of ideas .
Students fear speaking out on some topics because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand on something like supporting the Second Amendment .
It ’ s absolutely pathetic that anyone should feel that way .
Of course , these are typically the same kind of people that try to cancel any celebrity that doesn ’ t drink the anti-gun Kool-Aid .
Except for Keanu Reeves , at least .
Then again , they might just be too scared of Keanu to screw with him .
Anyway , at least we can now see how widespread the problem actually is .
Now the question is , what are @ @ @ @ @ @ @

I am the father of a college-aged son. Now in his sophomore year of college, my son has seen plenty of left-leaning nonsense from his professors. He even dropped a U.S. history class because it was more about social justice jihadism than actual American history. He’s not overly political, but it was way too much for him.
And yet, this isn’t one of the worst campuses for this sort of thing. A lot of universities are far, far worse.
With professors espousing their leftist ideology as if it were an unassailable position, a lot of students are concerned to speak out for many subjects, such as gun rights.
College campuses are prime targets for mass shooters, especially after Virginia Tech, and yet many faculty and administrators want to hide behind gun free zone signs, as if they’re some kind of talisman that protects. For students, campaigning for gun rights might well make a great deal of sense in the grand scheme of things.
Unfortunately, as a new study has found, the vast majority are afraid to speak out on subjects like that.
The College Free Speech Rankings project, a joint undertaking by FIRE, College Pulse and RealClearEducation, released their report last week. Based on a survey of nearly 20,000 students at 55 colleges, this is the largest-ever examination of how conducive colleges and universities are to free expression. Some of its key findings are: • Overall 60% of the students note that they self-censor at least once during their college careers for fear of how others will respond. • A significantly larger number of Conservative students report self-censoring (72%) compared to Liberal students (55%). • The predominant viewpoint at about 75% for state colleges is Liberal compared with 94% of private colleges and 100% of the Ivies sampled. • Only 1 in 4 students reports being very comfortable discussing a controversial political topic with their classmates. • Among the topics that students deem the most difficult to discuss are abortion, race, the Israel-Palestine conflict, gun control and transgender issues.
I won’t say I don’t care about any of those other issues, but they’re irrelevant for our purposes here. Gun control, however, isn’t.
It’s actually interesting that more than half of the liberal students surveyed felt the need to self-censor, though, since the schools are predominantly liberal, as noted in the survey. It suggests that many left-leaning students are insufficiently left for some professors’ tastes. Then again, there could be other reasons they self-censor as well.
The truth of the matter, though, is that our college campuses aren’t open for free discussion of ideas. Students fear speaking out on some topics because they fear academic repercussions of they make a stand on something like supporting the Second Amendment. It’s absolutely pathetic that anyone should feel that way.
Of course, these are typically the same kind of people that try to cancel any celebrity that doesn’t drink the anti-gun Kool-Aid. Except for Keanu Reeves, at least. Then again, they might just be too scared of Keanu to screw with him.
Anyway, at least we can now see how widespread the problem actually is. Now the question is, what are we going to do about it?


bearingarms--2020-10-11--1-In-5 Gun Owners Got Another Gun Due To Riots

We ’ ve spilled a fair amount of digital ink over the plethora of new gun owners who joined our ranks in the last six months or so .
For the most part , many of us believe this to be a good thing , but we ’ ve talked a lot about new gun owners .
However , it seems that it ’ s not just the newbies buy guns .
At least , that ’ s what a recent survey found , anyway .
Gun-owning Americans are purchasing additional firearms in response to the violent Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities and communities across the country in recent months .
A Rasmussen survey published this week found that 22 % of Americans who already have a gun in their household have added another since the start of protests and that a large majority feel safer having done so .
In all , 43 % of those surveyed told the polling group that they or someone in their household owns a gun .
Slightly over half ( 54 % ) of those adults who live in a gun-owning household said that they feel safer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while only 7 % said they feel less safe , and 38 % said the gun ’ s presence doesn ’ t affect their feelings of personal safety .
But among the roughly 1 in 5 people whose households have added another firearm in recent months , a whopping 90 % reported feeling safer .
Yeah , it ’ s not .
Like , at all .
The truth of the matter is that a lot of households only had one firearm and for a burglar or something , they figured that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets and that same mob threatening to spill over into the neighborhoods , one gun really doesn ’ t look like enough anymore .
Instead , you want everyone armed and ready to fight if it comes to that .
Honestly , no one is surprised that those folks bought another gun .
So what about the other 4 in 5 ?
Well , we have to speculate , but I suspect that some already had plenty of guns .
Others might have wanted to buy another gun , but haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still others live in places where there hasn ’ t been much in the way of “ protests , ” so they haven ’ t bothered to try and get another firearm .
Either way , though , this spells bad news for rioters who think the neighborhoods are easy pickings for their looting and destruction .
Oh , they ’ ll probably hit a few houses , but at some point , they ’ ll pick the wrong one and someone is going to need a body bag .
Probably multiple someones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think I can actually feel bad for them , either .
Then again , it ’ s not like I felt bad for the scumbags killed in Kenosha , so this shouldn ’ t be surprising .
Violent thugs pretending to be protesting injustice but really just looking for a place to destroy and steal aren ’ t exactly high on my list of sympathetic people , after all , so I won ’ t lose a wink of sleep over them .
Neither should anyone else , either .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone , we should worry about the good guy who puts them down , because the mob will demand their head on a platter and too many prosecutors are willing to deliver it .

We’ve spilled a fair amount of digital ink over the plethora of new gun owners who joined our ranks in the last six months or so. For the most part, many of us believe this to be a good thing, but we’ve talked a lot about new gun owners.
However, it seems that it’s not just the newbies buy guns.
At least, that’s what a recent survey found, anyway.
Gun-owning Americans are purchasing additional firearms in response to the violent Black Lives Matter protests that have taken place in many cities and communities across the country in recent months. A Rasmussen survey published this week found that 22% of Americans who already have a gun in their household have added another since the start of protests and that a large majority feel safer having done so. In all, 43% of those surveyed told the polling group that they or someone in their household owns a gun. Slightly over half (54%) of those adults who live in a gun-owning household said that they feel safer with a gun in the house, while only 7% said they feel less safe, and 38% said the gun’s presence doesn’t affect their feelings of personal safety. But among the roughly 1 in 5 people whose households have added another firearm in recent months, a whopping 90% reported feeling safer.
Shocking, right?
Yeah, it’s not. Like, at all.
The truth of the matter is that a lot of households only had one firearm and for a burglar or something, they figured that was enough. When mobs are rampaging through the streets and that same mob threatening to spill over into the neighborhoods, one gun really doesn’t look like enough anymore. Instead, you want everyone armed and ready to fight if it comes to that.
Honestly, no one is surprised that those folks bought another gun.
So what about the other 4 in 5?
Well, we have to speculate, but I suspect that some already had plenty of guns. Others might have wanted to buy another gun, but haven’t been able to find one. Still others live in places where there hasn’t been much in the way of “protests,” so they haven’t bothered to try and get another firearm.
Either way, though, this spells bad news for rioters who think the neighborhoods are easy pickings for their looting and destruction. Oh, they’ll probably hit a few houses, but at some point, they’ll pick the wrong one and someone is going to need a body bag. Probably multiple someones.
At that point, I don’t think I can actually feel bad for them, either. Then again, it’s not like I felt bad for the scumbags killed in Kenosha, so this shouldn’t be surprising.
Violent thugs pretending to be protesting injustice but really just looking for a place to destroy and steal aren’t exactly high on my list of sympathetic people, after all, so I won’t lose a wink of sleep over them. Neither should anyone else, either.
If we’re going to worry about anyone, we should worry about the good guy who puts them down, because the mob will demand their head on a platter and too many prosecutors are willing to deliver it.


bearingarms--2020-10-11--Portland's Antifa-Loving Mayoral Candidate Has Thoughts On Gun Control

Iannarone ’ s pathway includes a call for “ rethinking public safety ” by ( among other things ) cutting the funding to the Portland police , legalizing all sex workers , establishing supervised injection sites where drug addicts can shoot up under the watchful eyes of counselors , removing armed school resources officers from public schools , and : creating a “ red flag registry and implementing a gun buyback program.
” “ A gun safety task force should be implemented that will focus on the prevalence of domestic violence , white nationalist terrorism , misogynistic violence , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not done enough to end mass gun violence , there are things that the City of Portland could do to make all of us safer .
Sarah ’ s administration will immediately create a gun buyback program that will pay community members for any firearm with no questions asked .
These weapons should then be immediately destroyed .
Further , Portland should use the code enforcement process to ensure that all gun shops require background checks for guns , including at gun shows.
” Gun “ buybacks ” work to reduce violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase prosperity and happiness , which is to say not at all .
It ’ s also laughable that Iannarone ’ s task force will focus on things like “ fascist gangs ” without even glancing at the issue of actual gang violence , which is the most prevalent kind of gun-involved violence in the city .
To be fair , the candidate does have a separate section on her campaign website addressed specifically to “ gun violence prevention ” where she talks about her favored ways to reduce gang-related violence .
Violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public health approach to end it .
That means considering violence not as a criminal justice problem in need of increased policing but one requiring holistic , community-led responses and prevention strategies .
To solve this crisis , we must build and maintain healthy partnerships across governments , sectors , organizations , and social , educational and healthcare providers to focus on upstream prevention even as we address the public ’ s immediate safety needs .
As Portland ’ s next mayor , my decision-making will be driven by the best available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and address the underlying conditions from which gun violence emerges .
Though Iannarone says that violence isn ’ t a criminal justice problem , as you read through her policy proposals you eventually realize that despite saying things like “ Gun violence is a public health crisis that must be addressed through multifaceted structural reforms that strengthen and stabilize communities while eliminating long-standing inequity , ” and “ Portland must not revert to antiquated , racist systems when leaders have failed to embrace a comprehensive public health approach ” ( referring to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Portland Police Bureau ) , her plan actually does contain plenty of support for old-school gun control laws that require enforcement by armed agents of the state .
The campaign notes that Iannarone ’ s policy was put together : “ in partnership with Oregon teens who have been working on this project since middle school , as a part of March for Our Lives , and who are now ending their time in high school having seen nowhere near the progress they deserve to be safe in their schools and lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct involvement , vetted by experts on Gun Violence prevention , and BIPOC Portlanders who have faced worse incidence of violence as well as unequal enforcement of related laws.
” I ’ ll give a little credit to Iannarone for not demanding an increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition , though given her support for gun “ buybacks ” that may just be an oversight .
Still , Iannarone starts from the premise that guns are bad , gun ownership should be limited , and that we should be working for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a utopian fantasy as Communism itself .
Despite her protests about the inequities of the criminal justice system , she still calls for enforcement and prosecution of existing laws within that system .
If she truly believe the system is broken , then why does she still want to use it ?
Ultimately , it seems like Iannarone realizes that enforcement of non-violent , possessory gun control laws falls primarily on communities of color , but she fails to reach the obvious conclusion that , amidst all of the community violence prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to address root causes , there needs to be a shift towards building a culture of lawful gun ownership .
Iannarone ’ s plan includes giving drug users a safe place to shoot up , but has no room for ensuring that there are safe places for gun owners to shoot .
There ’ s no mention of teaching youth how to be safe and responsible with firearms while inculcating lessons about the values of human life .
Gun sales and concealed carry applications are both increasing in Portland , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon no matter who ’ s elected in November .
Any plan that claims to be about re-thinking criminal justice and public safety while still relying on the old-school premise that guns are bad and should go away is ultimately still going to depend on the threat of cops and courts to enforce a gun control agenda .
Iannarone may very well be the next mayor of Portland , but if she does occupy City Hall , she ’ ll bring the same anti-gun ideology that current mayor Ted Wheeler shares with her @

Iannarone’s pathway includes a call for “rethinking public safety” by (among other things) cutting the funding to the Portland police, legalizing all sex workers, establishing supervised injection sites where drug addicts can shoot up under the watchful eyes of counselors, removing armed school resources officers from public schools, and :creating a “red flag registry and implementing a gun buyback program.”
“A gun safety task force should be implemented that will focus on the prevalence of domestic violence, white nationalist terrorism, misogynistic violence, and fascist gangs. While the federal government has not done enough to end mass gun violence, there are things that the City of Portland could do to make all of us safer. Sarah’s administration will immediately create a gun buyback program that will pay community members for any firearm with no questions asked. These weapons should then be immediately destroyed. Further, Portland should use the code enforcement process to ensure that all gun shops require background checks for guns, including at gun shows.”
Gun “buybacks” work to reduce violent crime as well as Communism does to increase prosperity and happiness, which is to say not at all. It’s also laughable that Iannarone’s task force will focus on things like “fascist gangs” without even glancing at the issue of actual gang violence, which is the most prevalent kind of gun-involved violence in the city.
To be fair, the candidate does have a separate section on her campaign website addressed specifically to “gun violence prevention” where she talks about her favored ways to reduce gang-related violence.
Violence is a disease and we must adopt a public health approach to end it. That means considering violence not as a criminal justice problem in need of increased policing but one requiring holistic, community-led responses and prevention strategies. To solve this crisis, we must build and maintain healthy partnerships across governments, sectors, organizations, and social, educational and healthcare providers to focus on upstream prevention even as we address the public’s immediate safety needs. As Portland’s next mayor, my decision-making will be driven by the best available science to help us stem gun violence and address the underlying conditions from which gun violence emerges.
Though Iannarone says that violence isn’t a criminal justice problem, as you read through her policy proposals you eventually realize that despite saying things like “Gun violence is a public health crisis that must be addressed through multifaceted structural reforms that strengthen and stabilize communities while eliminating long-standing inequity,” and “Portland must not revert to antiquated, racist systems when leaders have failed to embrace a comprehensive public health approach” (referring to the now-shuttered Gun Violence Reduction Team within the Portland Police Bureau), her plan actually does contain plenty of support for old-school gun control laws that require enforcement by armed agents of the state.
Expand access to Extreme Risk Protection Orders, educating the public so EPRO’s are widely accessible, including requiring a poster detailing how they work in all City buildings. Encourage use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders to remove guns from individuals that are at high risk of harming themselves or others. Highlight and track equity impacts, especially for BIPOC community members who may feel uncomfortable seeking assistance and/or to ensure the program is not disproportionately disarming BIPOC Portlanders. Direct city lobbyists to work with and credit local groups helping to further gun safety legislative efforts in Oregon’s capital for equitable statewide gun violence prevention policies. This includes measures such as ensuring safe storage of firearms, raising the minimum age to 21, imposing a waiting period to deter suicide and impulse shootings, and closing the Charleston Loophole. Enforce existing gun regulation legislation with an emphasis on preventing future disasters. Work with the District Attorney to hold those accountable who violate state statutes.
The campaign notes that Iannarone’s policy was put together:
“in partnership with Oregon teens who have been working on this project since middle school, as a part of March for Our Lives, and who are now ending their time in high school having seen nowhere near the progress they deserve to be safe in their schools and lives. This plan has been drafted with their direct involvement, vetted by experts on Gun Violence prevention, and BIPOC Portlanders who have faced worse incidence of violence as well as unequal enforcement of related laws.”
I’ll give a little credit to Iannarone for not demanding an increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, though given her support for gun “buybacks” that may just be an oversight. Still, Iannarone starts from the premise that guns are bad, gun ownership should be limited, and that we should be working for a gun-free society, which is as much of a utopian fantasy as Communism itself. Despite her protests about the inequities of the criminal justice system, she still calls for enforcement and prosecution of existing laws within that system. If she truly believe the system is broken, then why does she still want to use it?
Ultimately, it seems like Iannarone realizes that enforcement of non-violent, possessory gun control laws falls primarily on communities of color, but she fails to reach the obvious conclusion that, amidst all of the community violence prevention organizations, summer jobs programs, and efforts to address root causes, there needs to be a shift towards building a culture of lawful gun ownership. Iannarone’s plan includes giving drug users a safe place to shoot up, but has no room for ensuring that there are safe places for gun owners to shoot. There’s no mention of teaching youth how to be safe and responsible with firearms while inculcating lessons about the values of human life.
Gun sales and concealed carry applications are both increasing in Portland, and the city isn’t going gun-free anytime soon no matter who’s elected in November. Any plan that claims to be about re-thinking criminal justice and public safety while still relying on the old-school premise that guns are bad and should go away is ultimately still going to depend on the threat of cops and courts to enforce a gun control agenda. Iannarone may very well be the next mayor of Portland, but if she does occupy City Hall, she’ll bring the same anti-gun ideology that current mayor Ted Wheeler shares with her.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--The Anti-Hunting Jihad Against NJ Bear Hunt Continues

Hunters are having a much harder time in this day and age than they used to .
Hunting just isn ’ t as popular as it once was , which means less revenue going in to state budgets to help fund hunting resources .
It also means there ’ s less political will to oppose anti-hunting measures that we see pop up from time to time .
While it ’ s been ages since I went hunting , my time in the woods with my dad gave us some of our favorite stories together .
However , there are practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably , the ability to control animal populations .
Yet that reason is absent from many of the discussions surrounding bear hunting in New Jersey .
First , let ’ s start off with the good news , this will be the last bear hunt while Governor Murphy is in office .
Senator Bob Toricelli , the Animal Protection League of New Jersey , the Sierra Club , the Humane Society of the United States , the Animal Welfare Institute and I , together with the hundreds of thousands of residents of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s bear hunt .
We not only protest this year ’ s bear hunt , we also intend to insure that this will be the last bear hunt under any Governor of the State of New Jersey .
In order or stop any further bear hunts , we will file a lawsuit to declare that the appointing process and the composition of the Fish & Game Council is unconstitutional because it allows the Sportsmen ’ s Clubs to dominate the makeup of the Fish and Game Council precluding the public from its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the State and Federal Constitutions .
It is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and establishes animal cruelty as a permitted practice in the State of New Jersey .
And honestly , calling hunting “ animal cruelty ” firmly establishes the writer of this screed as someone not worthy of being taken seriously .
See , no hunter worth their salt wants the animal to suffer .
They put down the animal as quickly and efficiently as possible because contrary to anti-hunting claims , we ’ re not cruel people .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the Fish and Game Council , I need to explain to this individual the idea of something called rational self-interest .
See , sportsmen and their groups have a vested interest in making damn sure that the bears aren ’ t hunted into obscurity in the state .
After all , their members want to hunt bears for years to come , so these members have a self-interested reason to make sure the bear populations are protected to as large a degree as possible .
The last thing Sportsmen ’ s Clubs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a popular game animal .
But then again , this is New Jersey .
Governor Phil Murphy has , indeed , put an end to bear hunting during his administration .
Murphy ’ s said : During a news conference in Trenton on Monday , Murphy elaborated , saying that the state and the council would seek to “ chart a better way forward ” than the annual harvest , which has generated fierce opposition from anti-hunting advocates .
“ This would allow the council and the Department of Environmental Protection to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of current scientific data in developing a new black bear policy that promotes public safety and welfare while protecting important wildlife with a focus on non-lethal management techniques , ” he said .
However , hunting has always been an effective means of population management , a practice which prevents animal populations from growing so large that they outstrip the food resources in an area or increases the risk of disease .
Further , hunting generates revenue traditionally used for wildlife management .
Take that away and the money goes away .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vilify hunters , typically without ever bothering to sit down and meet one , and the state of New Jersey will be the ones paying the price .

Hunters are having a much harder time in this day and age than they used to. Hunting just isn’t as popular as it once was, which means less revenue going in to state budgets to help fund hunting resources. It also means there’s less political will to oppose anti-hunting measures that we see pop up from time to time.
And that’s a shame.
While it’s been ages since I went hunting, my time in the woods with my dad gave us some of our favorite stories together.
However, there are practical reasons for hunting as well. Most notably, the ability to control animal populations. Yet that reason is absent from many of the discussions surrounding bear hunting in New Jersey.
First, let’s start off with the good news, this will be the last bear hunt while Governor Murphy is in office. Senator Bob Toricelli, the Animal Protection League of New Jersey, the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Welfare Institute and I, together with the hundreds of thousands of residents of New Jersey we represent, protest this year’s bear hunt. We not only protest this year’s bear hunt, we also intend to insure that this will be the last bear hunt under any Governor of the State of New Jersey. In order or stop any further bear hunts, we will file a lawsuit to declare that the appointing process and the composition of the Fish & Game Council is unconstitutional because it allows the Sportsmen’s Clubs to dominate the makeup of the Fish and Game Council precluding the public from its decision-making thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause of the State and Federal Constitutions. It is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and establishes animal cruelty as a permitted practice in the State of New Jersey.
And honestly, calling hunting “animal cruelty” firmly establishes the writer of this screed as someone not worthy of being taken seriously.
In fact, as a one-time hunter, I’m deeply insulted.
See, no hunter worth their salt wants the animal to suffer. They put down the animal as quickly and efficiently as possible because contrary to anti-hunting claims, we’re not cruel people.
As for sportsmen’s clubs “dominating” the Fish and Game Council, I need to explain to this individual the idea of something called rational self-interest.
See, sportsmen and their groups have a vested interest in making damn sure that the bears aren’t hunted into obscurity in the state. After all, their members want to hunt bears for years to come, so these members have a self-interested reason to make sure the bear populations are protected to as large a degree as possible.
The last thing Sportsmen’s Clubs would want to see is overhunting of a popular game animal.
But then again, this is New Jersey. Governor Phil Murphy has, indeed, put an end to bear hunting during his administration. Murphy’s said:
During a news conference in Trenton on Monday, Murphy elaborated, saying that the state and the council would seek to “chart a better way forward” than the annual harvest, which has generated fierce opposition from anti-hunting advocates. “This would allow the council and the Department of Environmental Protection to engage in a thorough and a complete review of current scientific data in developing a new black bear policy that promotes public safety and welfare while protecting important wildlife with a focus on non-lethal management techniques,” he said.
However, hunting has always been an effective means of population management, a practice which prevents animal populations from growing so large that they outstrip the food resources in an area or increases the risk of disease.
Further, hunting generates revenue traditionally used for wildlife management. Take that away and the money goes away.
But Murphy and other anti-hunting jihadists will continue to vilify hunters, typically without ever bothering to sit down and meet one, and the state of New Jersey will be the ones paying the price.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Will Andrew Cuomo Be Biden's Pick For Attorney General?

Let ’ s acknowledge right up front that if Joe Biden wins the presidency in November , there is a zero percent chance of Second Amendment supporters being happy with whoever he picks to be his Attorney General .
If rumors are to be believed , however , Biden ’ s mulling over appointing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to the position , which would be a declaration of legal warfare on gun owners as well as the firearms industry .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we take a look at Cuomo ’ s longstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dates back to his time as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton administration .
As the National Shooting Sports Foundation pointed out earlier this year , Cuomo actually tried to enlist public housing agencies across the country in junk lawsuits against gun makers back in the late 1990s .
Cuomo ’ s antigun bona fides trace back to his time as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration where he threatened to have over 3,200 public housing authorities sue members of the firearm industry for crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly put a stop to his threatened litigation .
He also violated antitrust law in 2000 by conspiring with several big city mayors to politicize law enforcement purchasing by collectively refusing to buy from any handgun manufacturer that didn ’ t signed a so-called “ code of conduct ” that sought to implement gun control that Congress would never pass .
NSSF sued Cuomo and his allies in federal court prompting putting a stop to their illegal antitrust conspiracy .
You can bet that an Attorney General Cuomo would be a willing partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Safety and Giffords ( which both feature their own in-house law firms ) to target the firearms industry and even Second Amendment organizations .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have both been adamant about repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and empowering lawsuits against gun companies that seek to hold them responsible for the actions of criminals .
Cuomo ’ s made his own opinion of the National Rifle Association clear , penning an official press release earlier this year that stated , “ If the NRA goes away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my thoughts and prayers.
” Cuomo ’ s disdain for Second Amendment supporters is large enough to encompass individual gun owners as well .
Back in 2014 , a year after his SAFE Act gun control package became law in New York State , Cuomo told opponents of his gun control measure that they weren ’ t welcome in New York .
The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate !
Their problem is not me and the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are they ?
Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life , pro-assault-weapon , anti-gay ?
Is that who they are ?
Because if that ’ s who they are and they ’ re the extreme conservatives , they have no place in the state of New York , because that ’ s not who New Yorkers are .
The SAFE Act , by the way , hasn ’ t exactly been a huge win for Cuomo .
Federal courts have ruled his ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than 7-rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s requirement that ammunition sales go through background checks has never been put into effect , and there was massive non-compliance with both the registation requirements for so-called assault weapons as well as the mandate that all pistol owners re-register their handguns in order to create a statewide database .
Meanwhile , despite the gun control laws that Cuomo put in place seven years ago , shootings and homicides in many cities across the state , from New York City to Buffalo , are at levels not seen in a decade or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t made anyone any safer , in other words , though it ’ s turned a lot of otherwise legal gun owners into criminals on paper .
Sadly , that makes Cuomo the perfect choice to enforce Biden ’ s gun control agenda if the Democrats win the White House next month .

Let’s acknowledge right up front that if Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, there is a zero percent chance of Second Amendment supporters being happy with whoever he picks to be his Attorney General. If rumors are to be believed, however, Biden’s mulling over appointing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to the position, which would be a declaration of legal warfare on gun owners as well as the firearms industry.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we take a look at Cuomo’s longstanding hostility towards the Second Amendment, which dates back to his time as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton administration. As the National Shooting Sports Foundation pointed out earlier this year, Cuomo actually tried to enlist public housing agencies across the country in junk lawsuits against gun makers back in the late 1990s.
Cuomo’s antigun bona fides trace back to his time as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration where he threatened to have over 3,200 public housing authorities sue members of the firearm industry for crime committed in those housing projects. Congress quickly put a stop to his threatened litigation. He also violated antitrust law in 2000 by conspiring with several big city mayors to politicize law enforcement purchasing by collectively refusing to buy from any handgun manufacturer that didn’t signed a so-called “code of conduct” that sought to implement gun control that Congress would never pass. NSSF sued Cuomo and his allies in federal court prompting putting a stop to their illegal antitrust conspiracy.
You can bet that an Attorney General Cuomo would be a willing partner with gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords (which both feature their own in-house law firms) to target the firearms industry and even Second Amendment organizations. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have both been adamant about repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and empowering lawsuits against gun companies that seek to hold them responsible for the actions of criminals. Cuomo’s made his own opinion of the National Rifle Association clear, penning an official press release earlier this year that stated, “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember them in my thoughts and prayers.”
Cuomo’s disdain for Second Amendment supporters is large enough to encompass individual gun owners as well. Back in 2014, a year after his SAFE Act gun control package became law in New York State, Cuomo told opponents of his gun control measure that they weren’t welcome in New York.
The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
The SAFE Act, by the way, hasn’t exactly been a huge win for Cuomo. Federal courts have ruled his ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than 7-rounds to be unconstitutional, the SAFE Act’s requirement that ammunition sales go through background checks has never been put into effect, and there was massive non-compliance with both the registation requirements for so-called assault weapons as well as the mandate that all pistol owners re-register their handguns in order to create a statewide database.
Meanwhile, despite the gun control laws that Cuomo put in place seven years ago, shootings and homicides in many cities across the state, from New York City to Buffalo, are at levels not seen in a decade or more. The SAFE Act hasn’t made anyone any safer, in other words, though it’s turned a lot of otherwise legal gun owners into criminals on paper. Sadly, that makes Cuomo the perfect choice to enforce Biden’s gun control agenda if the Democrats win the White House next month.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Do Christianity And Guns Really Go Together?

I ’ m always amazed at the people who seem to believe that if we ’ re Christians , we should be anti-gun .
After all , they seem to think that if gun control were passed , we ’ d save oh-so-many lives and that if you really believed life was scared–a Christian belief–then you ’ d support people taking away our right to defend ourselves .
And , to be fair , many who describe themselves as Christians believe just that .
Many more of us , though , don ’ t .
Over at the Washington Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story up about Christianity and guns going together quite well .
Imagine if you will a place where kids as young as 3 years old are taught to handle a firearm — where women with increasing frequency are trained to defend self and family with guns — where middle-schoolers and high-schoolers alike are both competent and competitive at ready-aim-and-firing — and where going to church on Sunday is as natural as hitting the shooting range on Monday .
Nope .
That ’ s the AGFF/Jacksonville Shooting Sports Complex in Jacksonville , Arkansas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , beyond-the-D.C.-bubble-Beltway America , where God , guns and flag-waving patriotism is part and parcel of the normal growing experience .
Where Christians who shoot are as American as apple pie .
“ In my opinion , it ’ s our right as a Christian , as a non-Christian , ” said Jerry Hill , the manager of the Jacksonville shooting range — which is actually operated and funded under the local Parks & Recreation Department , rather than privately owned and maintained .
What would Jesus say , scold the leftists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He said to them , ‘ But now if you have a purse , take it , and also a bag ; and if you don ’ t have a sword , sell your cloak and buy one.
’ ” – Luke 22:36 ( NIV ) Sounds like Jesus would be down with this kind of thinking .
Of course , those who try to use Christianity to promote an anti-gun agenda tend to argue that the above is somehow taken out of context , but unsurprisingly , I disagree .
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Well , that ’ s beyond me .
What I can say , though , is that there ’ s nothing in Christianity to preclude people from owning guns and the people who tend to own guns are a lot less hostile to Christianity than the other side .
It ’ s not surprising that many Christians would embrace gun ownership .
Especially , as the author continues : But this just shows how different the thinking and mindsets between Outside City dwellers and Inside City dwellers — between the largely Democrat-dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country settings.
“ He is the ultimate peacemaker , but he also lost his temper … and tore everything apart , ” Hill said , in reference to the Bible passage about Jesus turning out the money-changers in the temple .
In other words : Jesus approves of righteous anger and self-defense .
Being Christian doesn ’ t mean being a docile victim .
Precisely , and absolutely no one should be docile in the face of unspeakable evil .
It ’ s like the meme says , if someone asks “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that flipping tables and chasing people with whips is on the menu .
Now , I ’ m not a theologian , of course , but there ’ s a natural alliance between Christianity and gun ownership .
One is protected by the First Amendment , the other by the Second , and both essential to liberty .

I’m always amazed at the people who seem to believe that if we’re Christians, we should be anti-gun. After all, they seem to think that if gun control were passed, we’d save oh-so-many lives and that if you really believed life was scared–a Christian belief–then you’d support people taking away our right to defend ourselves.
And, to be fair, many who describe themselves as Christians believe just that.
Many more of us, though, don’t. Over at the Washington Times, they’ve got an interesting story up about Christianity and guns going together quite well.
Imagine if you will a place where kids as young as 3 years old are taught to handle a firearm — where women with increasing frequency are trained to defend self and family with guns — where middle-schoolers and high-schoolers alike are both competent and competitive at ready-aim-and-firing — and where going to church on Sunday is as natural as hitting the shooting range on Monday. Twilight zone? Nope. That’s the AGFF/Jacksonville Shooting Sports Complex in Jacksonville, Arkansas. That’s the scene of small-town, beyond-the-D.C.-bubble-Beltway America, where God, guns and flag-waving patriotism is part and parcel of the normal growing experience. Where Christians who shoot are as American as apple pie. “In my opinion, it’s our right as a Christian, as a non-Christian,” said Jerry Hill, the manager of the Jacksonville shooting range — which is actually operated and funded under the local Parks & Recreation Department, rather than privately owned and maintained. Gasp, go the liberals. What would Jesus say, scold the leftists.
What would Jesus say? Well:
“He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’” – Luke 22:36 (NIV)
Sounds like Jesus would be down with this kind of thinking.
Of course, those who try to use Christianity to promote an anti-gun agenda tend to argue that the above is somehow taken out of context, but unsurprisingly, I disagree.
Do guns and Christianity go hand in hand? Well, that’s beyond me.
What I can say, though, is that there’s nothing in Christianity to preclude people from owning guns and the people who tend to own guns are a lot less hostile to Christianity than the other side. It’s not surprising that many Christians would embrace gun ownership.
Especially, as the author continues:
But this just shows how different the thinking and mindsets between Outside City dwellers and Inside City dwellers — between the largely Democrat-dominated cities and the largely Republican-dominated suburban and country settings.“ He is the ultimate peacemaker, but he also lost his temper … and tore everything apart,” Hill said, in reference to the Bible passage about Jesus turning out the money-changers in the temple. In other words: Jesus approves of righteous anger and self-defense. Being Christian doesn’t mean being a docile victim.
Precisely, and absolutely no one should be docile in the face of unspeakable evil. It’s like the meme says, if someone asks “What would Jesus do,” remind them that flipping tables and chasing people with whips is on the menu.
Now, I’m not a theologian, of course, but there’s a natural alliance between Christianity and gun ownership. One is protected by the First Amendment, the other by the Second, and both essential to liberty.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Blumenthal Accuses Amy Coney Barrett Of 2A Judicial Activism

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have largely ignored the Second Amendment in their opening statements during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , with one notable exception .
Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) , accused Barrett of being an “ activist judge that would legislate from the bench , ” including when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms .
Blumenthal , like virtually every other Democrat on the Judiciary Committee , aimed most of his fire at Barrett ’ s views on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial philosophy when it comes to the Second Amendment , which he says would cause many gun control laws around the country to be tossed out as unconstitutional .
“ An activist judge on the bench doing what Congress could not do would also strike down common sense gun safety laws.
” Blumenthal opined during his opening statement .
“ Connecticut has been at the forefront on gun violence protection .
On gun safety , Judge , you acknowledged that your dissenting opinion in Kanter sounds kind of radical .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views on the Second Amendment are adopted by the Supreme Court it would imperil common sense state laws like Connecticut ’ s all around the country.
” Blumenthal failed to mention any specific gun law that he believes would be endangered by Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Court , which isn ’ t surprising .
Most Democrats have been downplaying talk of gun control on the campaign trail in recent months , and Blumenthal doesn ’ t really want gun control to be a focus of this week ’ s confirmation hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records for gun sales are being set every month , and Americans across racial , economic , and political divides are embracing the right to keep and bear arms , the last thing that Democrats want to do is to use the Barrett hearings to remind voters of the anti-gun agenda of the Biden/Harris campaign .
For her part , Barrett has made it clear that she stands by her dissenting opinion in Kanter vs. Barr , in which she argued that not all crimes are created equal when it comes to depriving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms .
Barrett said that those convicted of non-violent offenses shouldn ’ t automatically lose their Second Amendment rights , and she backed up her argument with plenty of evidence .
Judge Barrett ’ s dissent carefully examined Founding-era laws regarding felonies and the consequences of a conviction .
Despite the government ’ s assertion that “ the historical record supports the conclusion that felons are not entitled to Second Amendment protection , ” she found that traditionally , felons serving a term of years had their rights suspended but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone could not support a “ permanent and pervasive ” loss of firearm rights .
Further , the government failed to show how disarming the “ immense and diverse category ” of non-violent offenders like Kanter ( or Martha Stewart ) was closely related to the goal of protecting public safety , or how Kanter ’ s own personal history was related to that interest .
All in all , Judge Barrett concluded that the relevant focus was dangerousness : legislatures could disarm those who had demonstrated a proclivity for violence or who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not completely deprive nonviolent felons of the right to possess arms solely because of their status as felons .
You ’ d think that Blumenthal , who holds himself up to be a champion of criminal justice reform , would actually be in agreement with Barrett on the issue of the full restoration of rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses , but Blumenthal apparently believes the Second Amendment is a special case ( or maybe he believes that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t protect a real right at all ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ common sense gun safety measures ” would be imperiled by the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , common sense is in the eye of the beholder , isn ’ t it ?
Senator Blumenthal may think it ’ s common sense to ban the sale and possession of the most-commonly sold centerfire rifle in the country today ( as well as the most commonly owned ammunition magazines ) in the name of public safety , but I know millions of Americans who disagree .
More importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ever-changing whims of the electorate , but on the Constitution .
If you want to change that document , you can amend it , but you can ’ t simply pretend that the parts you don ’ t like are non-existent .
Blumenthal ’ s real fear is that with Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court , the judicial branch would serve as a real and substantive check on anti-gun activists and legislators and their unconstitutional efforts to deprive people of their full exercise of the right to keep and bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply Blumenthal delves into Second Amendment issues when he was a chance to question Amy Coney Barrett directly .
Based on the talking points of Senate Democrats , I ’ d expect him to reserve most of his time to healthcare and the Affordable Care Act , but he ’ ll likely leave himself at least a few minutes for some grandstanding about gun control as well .

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have largely ignored the Second Amendment in their opening statements during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, with one notable exception. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), accused Barrett of being an “activist judge that would legislate from the bench,” including when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.
Blumenthal, like virtually every other Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, aimed most of his fire at Barrett’s views on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but also chided the judge for her judicial philosophy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which he says would cause many gun control laws around the country to be tossed out as unconstitutional.
“An activist judge on the bench doing what Congress could not do would also strike down common sense gun safety laws.” Blumenthal opined during his opening statement. “Connecticut has been at the forefront on gun violence protection. On gun safety, Judge, you acknowledged that your dissenting opinion in Kanter sounds kind of radical. That’s because it is. But if your views on the Second Amendment are adopted by the Supreme Court it would imperil common sense state laws like Connecticut’s all around the country.”
Blumenthal failed to mention any specific gun law that he believes would be endangered by Barrett’s confirmation to the Court, which isn’t surprising. Most Democrats have been downplaying talk of gun control on the campaign trail in recent months, and Blumenthal doesn’t really want gun control to be a focus of this week’s confirmation hearings either.
At a time when new records for gun sales are being set every month, and Americans across racial, economic, and political divides are embracing the right to keep and bear arms, the last thing that Democrats want to do is to use the Barrett hearings to remind voters of the anti-gun agenda of the Biden/Harris campaign.
For her part, Barrett has made it clear that she stands by her dissenting opinion in Kanter vs. Barr, in which she argued that not all crimes are created equal when it comes to depriving convicted felons of their right to keep and bear arms. Barrett said that those convicted of non-violent offenses shouldn’t automatically lose their Second Amendment rights, and she backed up her argument with plenty of evidence.
Judge Barrett’s dissent carefully examined Founding-era laws regarding felonies and the consequences of a conviction. Despite the government’s assertion that “the historical record supports the conclusion that felons are not entitled to Second Amendment protection,” she found that traditionally, felons serving a term of years had their rights suspended but not extinguished. Status as a convicted felon alone could not support a “permanent and pervasive” loss of firearm rights. Further, the government failed to show how disarming the “immense and diverse category” of non-violent offenders like Kanter (or Martha Stewart) was closely related to the goal of protecting public safety, or how Kanter’s own personal history was related to that interest. All in all, Judge Barrett concluded that the relevant focus was dangerousness: legislatures could disarm those who had demonstrated a proclivity for violence or who would otherwise threaten public safety, but could not completely deprive nonviolent felons of the right to possess arms solely because of their status as felons.
You’d think that Blumenthal, who holds himself up to be a champion of criminal justice reform, would actually be in agreement with Barrett on the issue of the full restoration of rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses, but Blumenthal apparently believes the Second Amendment is a special case (or maybe he believes that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a real right at all).
As for Blumenthal’s assertion that “common sense gun safety measures” would be imperiled by the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Senator Blumenthal may think it’s common sense to ban the sale and possession of the most-commonly sold centerfire rifle in the country today (as well as the most commonly owned ammunition magazines)in the name of public safety, but I know millions of Americans who disagree.
More importantly, our framework of government rests not on the ever-changing whims of the electorate, but on the Constitution. If you want to change that document, you can amend it, but you can’t simply pretend that the parts you don’t like are non-existent. Blumenthal’s real fear is that with Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, the judicial branch would serve as a real and substantive check on anti-gun activists and legislators and their unconstitutional efforts to deprive people of their full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
We’ll see how deeply Blumenthal delves into Second Amendment issues when he was a chance to question Amy Coney Barrett directly. Based on the talking points of Senate Democrats, I’d expect him to reserve most of his time to healthcare and the Affordable Care Act, but he’ll likely leave himself at least a few minutes for some grandstanding about gun control as well.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--WA Man Sentenced To 6 Years Over "Ghost Guns"

The media has been having a total meltdown “ ghost guns ” in the hands of bad guys .
To be sure , armed criminals are always a problem , but the vast majority are armed with traditionally manufactured firearms , not so-called “ ghost guns.
” Some are , but most have the same things that you ’ ll find in your gun dealers ’ cases .
In Washington , though , at least one criminal made somewhat prolific use of a 3D printer .
A federal judge handed a nearly six-year prison term Friday to an Edmonds man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ghost guns ” despite being on federal supervision for an earlier firearms conviction .
Nathan Brasfield was arrested in 2014 for being a felon in possession of a firearm .
After serving a prison term , he began a period of supervised release in 2017 .
Nevertheless , Brasfield acquired several machines used in home manufacturing of firearms : a 3D printer , drill press and computer numerical control machine — also known as a “ ghost gunner ” — and he started making guns .
Federal agents searched his home in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a package addressed to him .
Agents reported finding 17 pistols , 24 rifles and 10 silencers , with most of the guns being homemade and having no serial numbers .
Such weapons are called “ ghost guns ” because of the difficulty of tracing them .
The complaint said agents also found 300 pounds of ammunition — thousands of rounds , “ enough for a small war , ” Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Woods said in recommending a 70-month sentence .
Undoubtedly , some will argue that this is proof we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s also note that they said most of the guns were homemade .
That means Brasfield was able to get his hands on traditionally-manufactured firearms as well .
Just how many guns is too many for a convicted felon to have ?
One ?
That ’ s what I thought .
Further , even if you did ban so-called “ ghost guns , ” what impact do you really think that would have ?
Brasfield would have still been armed , after all .
Plus , let ’ s be honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the 1980s on how to build a submachine gun out of stuff you could get at the hardware store .
If there ’ s a will , there ’ s a way to get a gun despite all the gun laws in the world .
Which is , again , how gun laws only inhibit the law-abiding in the first place .
Now , these are people who aren ’ t going to rob , rape , murder , or any of that , but sure , take their guns while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what .
Brasfield ’ s being armed is sure to convince some that more gun control is needed , but those folks need to stop and think for a moment .
They need to ponder whether or not any new gun law would be more effective than the plethora of gun laws he repeatedly ignored to amass his arsenal .
The truth of the matter is that they wouldn ’ t and we all know it .
Gun control doesn ’ t impact the bad guys , just the good guys trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord has provided us .

The media has been having a total meltdown “ghost guns” in the hands of bad guys.
To be sure, armed criminals are always a problem, but the vast majority are armed with traditionally manufactured firearms, not so-called “ghost guns.” Some are, but most have the same things that you’ll find in your gun dealers’ cases.
In Washington, though, at least one criminal made somewhat prolific use of a 3D printer.
A federal judge handed a nearly six-year prison term Friday to an Edmonds man who amassed an arsenal of homemade “ghost guns” despite being on federal supervision for an earlier firearms conviction. Nathan Brasfield was arrested in 2014 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. After serving a prison term, he began a period of supervised release in 2017. … Nevertheless, Brasfield acquired several machines used in home manufacturing of firearms: a 3D printer, drill press and computer numerical control machine — also known as a “ghost gunner” — and he started making guns. Federal agents searched his home in February after customs agents found five silencers in a package addressed to him. Agents reported finding 17 pistols, 24 rifles and 10 silencers, with most of the guns being homemade and having no serial numbers. Such weapons are called “ghost guns” because of the difficulty of tracing them. The complaint said agents also found 300 pounds of ammunition — thousands of rounds, “enough for a small war,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Woods said in recommending a 70-month sentence.
Undoubtedly, some will argue that this is proof we need to ban such practices. However, let’s also note that they said most of the guns were homemade. That means Brasfield was able to get his hands on traditionally-manufactured firearms as well. Just how many guns is too many for a convicted felon to have? One? That’s what I thought.
Further, even if you did ban so-called “ghost guns,” what impact do you really think that would have? Brasfield would have still been armed, after all.
Plus, let’s be honest here. There have been instructions available since the 1980s on how to build a submachine gun out of stuff you could get at the hardware store. If there’s a will, there’s a way to get a gun despite all the gun laws in the world.
Which is, again, how gun laws only inhibit the law-abiding in the first place. Now, these are people who aren’t going to rob, rape, murder, or any of that, but sure, take their guns while the criminals will keep getting guns no matter what.
Brasfield’s being armed is sure to convince some that more gun control is needed, but those folks need to stop and think for a moment. They need to ponder whether or not any new gun law would be more effective than the plethora of gun laws he repeatedly ignored to amass his arsenal. The truth of the matter is that they wouldn’t and we all know it.
Gun control doesn’t impact the bad guys, just the good guys trying to make it in the world the good Lord has provided us.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Anti-Gun Activists Blame COVID-19 For Lack Of Gun Control Referendums

For the first time since the 2014 election cycle , there won ’ t be a single gun control ballot initiative or referendum before voters on Election Day , and anti-gun activists are blaming the COVID-19 pandemic for their absence .
According to the Michael Bloomberg-funded website The Tracestymied this year , gun control activists were when it came to collecting signatures for their favorite initiatives .
In 2016 , a group of gun safety activists in Ohio decided they wanted to get a universal background check initiative on the 2020 ballot .
Similar initiatives that expanded background checks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by voters in Washington State and Nevada , and the group , Ohioans for Gun Safety , wanted to replicate their success .
The all-volunteer staff spent more than a year conducting a listening campaign , during which they surveyed gun owners at gatherings across Ohio .
They spent another year crafting language with the help of national gun reform groups and legal experts .
They got the mayors of Cincinnati and Dayton on board .
They gathered 2,000 signatures to file the proposal , then moved on to the final step : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December , they decided to shoot for the 2021 ballot , instead , to give themselves more time .
Then the coronavirus hit .
The state Health Department issued a shutdown order in April .
Collecting signatures became too risky for Ohioans for Gun Safety ’ s volunteers , who skew older .
Four years of work was put on hold until 2022 — at least .
“ We have overcome so many hurdles , but we never anticipated a pandemic , ” Anne Wallace , one of the campaign ’ s organizers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohioans for Gun Safety actually had four years to put their universal background check measure on the 2020 ballot , but couldn ’ t come up with the 250,000 signatures they needed .
That ’ s why they decided to aim for 2021 instead , and that decision was made long before the first COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were ever issued .
The coronavirus may be a welcome excuse for gun control activists , but their failure to get on the ballot this year can ’ t be blamed on the pandemic .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lift Every Voice was trying to get three gun control measures on this year ’ s ballot , but The Trace neglects to point out that the same group tried and failed back in 2018 to successfully gather more than 88,000 signatures for a gun ban referendum , in part because the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that their proposed language was fundamentally flawed .
The pandemic may have stopped the signature gathering this year , but there ’ s no guarantee that Lift Every Voice would have had any more success this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Oklahoma , attempts to undo the state ’ s permitless carry law via a voter referendum were struck down by the state Supreme Court , not the coronavirus .
As NRA-ILA pointed out back in June , the court found that the referendum ’ s language was misleading to voters .
The court identified several deficiencies .
The use of the word “ restores ” in the gist was both confusing and misleading .
Not only did this require potential signatories to know the law as it was prior to HB 2597 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore ” this prior law because it retained several aspects of HB 2597 .
Further , the language of the gist gave “ the false impression ” that the existing law did not prohibit handguns on college , university , or technology center property , and that SQ 809 would change the law to create a “ campus carry ” ban .
“ Handguns are already prohibited on the campuses , and that will continue whether or not SQ 809 is approved.
” Another inaccurate provision referred to the confiscation of firearms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally prohibits confiscation of firearms during traffic stops when any person in the vehicle holds a valid handgun license.
” The existing law prohibits confiscation without regard to whether anyone in the vehicle has a license .
The majority found the sentence was misleading because it failed to accurately explain SQ 809 ’ s effect on the existing law ( by making confiscation easier ) .
It wasn ’ t the coronavirus that killed off the anti-gun referendum in Oklahoma , but ineptitude on the part of gun control activists .
I understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , were it not for COVID-19 , they would have been successful in their attempts to pass more gun laws via voter referendums this year , but the truth is that there are other reasons why the groups have failed to put their initiatives on the 2020 ballot , including legal flaws in their proposed ballot language as well as a lack of success in gathering signatures before the coronavirus hit the U.S. back in February and March .
Unfortunately for Second Amendment supporters , gun control groups like Everytown for Gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot initiatives and referendums to advance their agenda .
They ’ re spending millions of dollars in states like Texas , Arizona , and Iowa in an attempt to turn state legislatures blue .
If they ’ re successful they ’ ll be able to enact their same agenda with the help of newly-elected anti-gun lawmakers .
If gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are able to hold the line , however , expect a renewed push for gun control ballot referendums to begin almost as soon as the 2020 election results have @ @ @

For the first time since the 2014 election cycle, there won’t be a single gun control ballot initiative or referendum before voters on Election Day, and anti-gun activists are blaming the COVID-19 pandemic for their absence. According to the Michael Bloomberg-funded website The Tracestymied this year, gun control activists were when it came to collecting signatures for their favorite initiatives.
In 2016, a group of gun safety activists in Ohio decided they wanted to get a universal background check initiative on the 2020 ballot. Similar initiatives that expanded background checks to private gun sales had just been passed by voters in Washington State and Nevada, and the group, Ohioans for Gun Safety, wanted to replicate their success. The all-volunteer staff spent more than a year conducting a listening campaign, during which they surveyed gun owners at gatherings across Ohio. They spent another year crafting language with the help of national gun reform groups and legal experts. They got the mayors of Cincinnati and Dayton on board. They gathered 2,000 signatures to file the proposal, then moved on to the final step: collecting more than 250,000 signatures. In December, they decided to shoot for the 2021 ballot, instead, to give themselves more time. Then the coronavirus hit. The state Health Department issued a shutdown order in April. Collecting signatures became too risky for Ohioans for Gun Safety’s volunteers, who skew older. Four years of work was put on hold until 2022 — at least. “We have overcome so many hurdles, but we never anticipated a pandemic,” Anne Wallace, one of the campaign’s organizers, told The Trace.
So, Ohioans for Gun Safety actually had four years to put their universal background check measure on the 2020 ballot, but couldn’t come up with the 250,000 signatures they needed. That’s why they decided to aim for 2021 instead, and that decision was made long before the first COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were ever issued. The coronavirus may be a welcome excuse for gun control activists, but their failure to get on the ballot this year can’t be blamed on the pandemic.
Wallace’s was not the only gun-related ballot initiative effort derailed by COVID-19. Groups in at least three other states are facing similar obstacles in their efforts to bring gun reform measures to the ballot. Activists in Oregon and Oklahoma also stopped collecting signatures for fear of spreading the disease, depriving them of an important vehicle for state-level gun reform.
In Oregon, a gun control group called Lift Every Voice was trying to get three gun control measures on this year’s ballot, but The Trace neglects to point out that the same group tried and failed back in 2018 to successfully gather more than 88,000 signatures for a gun ban referendum, in part because the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that their proposed language was fundamentally flawed. The pandemic may have stopped the signature gathering this year, but there’s no guarantee that Lift Every Voice would have had any more success this year than they did in 2018.
In Oklahoma, attempts to undo the state’s permitless carry law via a voter referendum were struck down by the state Supreme Court, not the coronavirus. As NRA-ILA pointed out back in June, the court found that the referendum’s language was misleading to voters.
The court identified several deficiencies. The use of the word “restores” in the gist was both confusing and misleading. Not only did this require potential signatories to know the law as it was prior to HB 2597, SQ 809 did not completely “restore” this prior law because it retained several aspects of HB 2597. Further, the language of the gist gave “the false impression” that the existing law did not prohibit handguns on college, university, or technology center property, and that SQ 809 would change the law to create a “campus carry” ban. “Handguns are already prohibited on the campuses, and that will continue whether or not SQ 809 is approved.” Another inaccurate provision referred to the confiscation of firearms. The gist stated that SQ 809 “generally prohibits confiscation of firearms during traffic stops when any person in the vehicle holds a valid handgun license.” The existing law prohibits confiscation without regard to whether anyone in the vehicle has a license. The majority found the sentence was misleading because it failed to accurately explain SQ 809’s effect on the existing law (by making confiscation easier).
It wasn’t the coronavirus that killed off the anti-gun referendum in Oklahoma, but ineptitude on the part of gun control activists.
I understand why gun control advocates want to claim that, were it not for COVID-19, they would have been successful in their attempts to pass more gun laws via voter referendums this year, but the truth is that there are other reasons why the groups have failed to put their initiatives on the 2020 ballot, including legal flaws in their proposed ballot language as well as a lack of success in gathering signatures before the coronavirus hit the U.S. back in February and March.
Unfortunately for Second Amendment supporters, gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety aren’t relying solely on ballot initiatives and referendums to advance their agenda. They’re spending millions of dollars in states like Texas, Arizona, and Iowa in an attempt to turn state legislatures blue. If they’re successful they’ll be able to enact their same agenda with the help of newly-elected anti-gun lawmakers. If gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are able to hold the line, however, expect a renewed push for gun control ballot referendums to begin almost as soon as the 2020 election results have been finalized.