bearingarms--2020-10-01--Fact-Checking The Latest Anti-Gun Smear Against ACB

With the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett set to begin in less than two weeks , the organized opposition on the Left is doing everything they can to portray her as some sort of black-robed extremist who would plunge the United States into a new Dark Age with her judicial philosophy and religious beliefs .
The latest example of this comes from the Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun outlet known as The Trace , which unveiled a new attack on Barrett this week claiming that her judicial philosophy leaves “ little room for public safety.
” The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the fact that they mislead their readers by confusing “ public safety ” with “ gun control.
” There are plenty of gun control laws on the books that have no impact on public safety , but do impact the Second Amendment rights of American citizens , and the country wouldn ’ t be a more dangerous place if those gun control laws were to be declared unconstitutional .
The piece itself focuses on Barrett ’ s use of what ’ s called the “ history and tradition ” approach to determining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As The Trace describes the judicial philosophy : This “ text , history , and tradition ” test calls on courts to ask only one question : Is there some kind of historical precedent for a current gun law ?
If the answer is yes , then the court should uphold the gun regulation as constitutional .
If the answer is no , then the court must strike down the gun regulation .
This could potentially invalidate even politically popular regulations like strict permit requirements for public carry and bans on high-capacity magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might get difficult very quickly : We don ’ t allow guns on airplanes , but there couldn ’ t have been an airplane gun-ban in the 18th century because there were no airplanes .
This is a silly example .
We don ’ t have government-run airlines , so the private companies that own and run those airlines can put whatever policies they want in place , even if a government-imposed restriction on transporting firearms while flying were to be overturned by SCOTUS .
As it is , we actually do allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stored unloaded in locked and checked baggage .
As for striking down things like showing a “ justifiable need ” to carry a firearm or banning magazines that can hold more than ten rounds , courts have already struck down those laws as unconstitutional , even without Barrett on the bench .
One of the first high-profile evocations of the history and tradition test came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh , Trump ’ s last appointee to the high court .
When he was a judge for the D.C .
Circuit , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington ’ s ban on semiautomatic rifles , calling on courts to stop considering modern public safety concerns in their Second Amendment analyses .
He wrote , “ In my view , Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text , history , and tradition , not by a balancing test.
” Kavanaugh went on to conclude that , because laws have allowed civilians to own semiautomatic rifles since the early 20th century , they should be protected by the Second Amendment today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kavanaugh ’ s dissent in the case known as Heller II .
Kavanaugh did say that a balancing test was inappropriate in determining the constitutionality of gun laws , but he also pointed out that under the “ history and tradition ” test many gun control laws would remain constitutionally valid .
From his dissent : First , just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility or power to enact gun regulations .
Indeed , governments appear to have more flexibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test based on text , history , and tradition than they would under strict scrutiny .
After all , history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right , as the Court said in Heller .
By contrast , if courts applied strict scrutiny , then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld .
Indeed , Justice Breyer made this point in his dissent in Heller when he noted that the majority opinion had listed certain permissible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict-scrutiny standard would be far from clear.
” So the major difference between applying the Heller history- and tradition-based approach and applying one of the forms of scrutiny is not necessarily the number of gun regulations that will pass muster .
Instead , it is that the Heller test will be more determinate and “ much less subjective ” because “ it depends upon a body of evidence susceptible of reasoned analysis rather than a variety of vague ethico-political First Principles whose combined conclusion can be found to point in any direction the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the “ history and tradition ” test some sort of legal bogeyman , when in fact Kavanaugh makes it clear that the test actually removes some of the subjectivity on the part of judges in determining whether a gun control law passes constitutional muster .
The real problem for gun control advocates is that they keep pushing for laws that plainly violate the right to keep and bear arms under both the “ history and balancing ” test or strict scrutiny .
Their only hope is for judges to determine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat to a claim of public safety , no matter how weak or non-existent the evidence is that the gun control law in question actually has any benefit to public safety at all .
Amy Coney Barrett used the history and tradition test in the case of Kanter vs. Barr , when she wrote in a dissenting opinion that non-violent felony offenses shouldn ’ t automatically come with a lifetime prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms because the Founders were concerned about prohibiting “ dangerous ” people from owning a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibition on gun ownership for those convicted of a felony offense .
It ’ s clear that the “ history and tradition ” test that The Trace says would leave little room for public safety actually leaves room for “ long-standing ” gun control laws .
The test simply doesn ’ t allow for novel gun control schemes that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms while offering vague promises of some potential public safety benefit .
The real reason The Trace and gun control groups are so terrified of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court has less to do with her judicial philosophy and far more to do with the fact that she accepts that the Second Amendment isn ’ t a second-class right .

With the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett set to begin in less than two weeks, the organized opposition on the Left is doing everything they can to portray her as some sort of black-robed extremist who would plunge the United States into a new Dark Age with her judicial philosophy and religious beliefs. The latest example of this comes from the Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun outlet known as The Trace, which unveiled a new attack on Barrett this week claiming that her judicial philosophy leaves “little room for public safety.”
The first problem with The Trace‘s reporting is the fact that they mislead their readers by confusing “public safety” with “gun control.” There are plenty of gun control laws on the books that have no impact on public safety, but do impact the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, and the country wouldn’t be a more dangerous place if those gun control laws were to be declared unconstitutional.
The piece itself focuses on Barrett’s use of what’s called the “history and tradition” approach to determining the constitutionality of gun control laws. As The Trace describes the judicial philosophy:
This “text, history, and tradition” test calls on courts to ask only one question: Is there some kind of historical precedent for a current gun law? If the answer is yes, then the court should uphold the gun regulation as constitutional. If the answer is no, then the court must strike down the gun regulation. This could potentially invalidate even politically popular regulations like strict permit requirements for public carry and bans on high-capacity magazines. And you can see how it might get difficult very quickly: We don’t allow guns on airplanes, but there couldn’t have been an airplane gun-ban in the 18th century because there were no airplanes.
This is a silly example. We don’t have government-run airlines, so the private companies that own and run those airlines can put whatever policies they want in place, even if a government-imposed restriction on transporting firearms while flying were to be overturned by SCOTUS. As it is, we actually do allow guns on planes, though they must be stored unloaded in locked and checked baggage. As for striking down things like showing a “justifiable need” to carry a firearm or banning magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, courts have already struck down those laws as unconstitutional, even without Barrett on the bench.
One of the first high-profile evocations of the history and tradition test came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s last appointee to the high court. When he was a judge for the D.C. Circuit, he wrote a dissent in a case on Washington’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, calling on courts to stop considering modern public safety concerns in their Second Amendment analyses. He wrote, “In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test.” Kavanaugh went on to conclude that, because laws have allowed civilians to own semiautomatic rifles since the early 20th century, they should be protected by the Second Amendment today.
That’s a gross misreading of Kavanaugh’s dissent in the case known as Heller II. Kavanaugh did say that a balancing test was inappropriate in determining the constitutionality of gun laws, but he also pointed out that under the “history and tradition” test many gun control laws would remain constitutionally valid. From his dissent:
First, just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility or power to enact gun regulations. Indeed, governments appear to have more flexibility and power to impose gun regulations under a test based on text, history, and tradition than they would under strict scrutiny. After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller. By contrast, if courts applied strict scrutiny, then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld. Indeed, Justice Breyer made this point in his dissent in Heller when he noted that the majority opinion had listed certain permissible gun regulations “whose constitutionality under a strict-scrutiny standard would be far from clear.” So the major difference between applying the Heller history- and tradition-based approach and applying one of the forms of scrutiny is not necessarily the number of gun regulations that will pass muster. Instead, it is that the Heller test will be more determinate and “much less subjective” because “it depends upon a body of evidence susceptible of reasoned analysis rather than a variety of vague ethico-political First Principles whose combined conclusion can be found to point in any direction the judges favor.”
The Trace desperately tries to make the “history and tradition” test some sort of legal bogeyman, when in fact Kavanaugh makes it clear that the test actually removes some of the subjectivity on the part of judges in determining whether a gun control law passes constitutional muster. The real problem for gun control advocates is that they keep pushing for laws that plainly violate the right to keep and bear arms under both the “history and balancing” test or strict scrutiny. Their only hope is for judges to determine that the Second Amendment always takes a back seat to a claim of public safety, no matter how weak or non-existent the evidence is that the gun control law in question actually has any benefit to public safety at all.
Amy Coney Barrett used the history and tradition test in the case of Kanter vs. Barr, when she wrote in a dissenting opinion that non-violent felony offenses shouldn’t automatically come with a lifetime prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms because the Founders were concerned about prohibiting “dangerous” people from owning a gun, not just imposing a blanket prohibition on gun ownership for those convicted of a felony offense.
It’s clear that the “history and tradition” test that The Trace says would leave little room for public safety actually leaves room for “long-standing” gun control laws. The test simply doesn’t allow for novel gun control schemes that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms while offering vague promises of some potential public safety benefit. The real reason The Trace and gun control groups are so terrified of the possibility of Barrett on the bench at the Supreme Court has less to do with her judicial philosophy and far more to do with the fact that she accepts that the Second Amendment isn’t a second-class right.


bearingarms--2020-10-01--CA's New Microstamping Law Is A Slow-Motion Gun Ban

Californians could see the number of handguns available for sale in the state dwindle even further , thanks to an anti-gun overhaul of the state ’ s microstamping law signed by Gov .
Gavin Newsom on Wednesday .
AB 2847 makes some major changes to the existing microstamping law , which has been on the books since 2012 and has already blocked sales of new models of handguns for years .
The original version of the microstamping law required handgun manufacturers to design their handguns to imprint a unique identifying code on each ammunition cartridge as it was fired .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that there were actually two microstamps on each round of ammunition , which was virtually impossible for manufacturers to comply with .
As a result , not only have new handgun models not been approved for sale in the state since 2012 , but about half of the handguns that were on the state ’ s roster of approved handguns have been removed in the years since .
Every time a manufacturer made a small design tweak to an existing model , California ’ s Department of Justice claimed it was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions , and removed the handgun from the state ’ s roster .
The slow-motion handgun ban will continue , and likely speed up a bit with the new microstamping language .
Now manufacturers only need to imprint the microstamp on each fired round in one location , which the state says is feasible .
For every new microstamped model that becomes available for sale in California , however , several older models of handguns will disappear from the roster of approved guns .
The new law seeks to speed up micro-stamping of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove three models from the state list of handguns certified as safe for sale for each new compliant handgun model that is introduced .
The law is opposed by groups including the National Rifle Assn .
and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn .
Removing three firearm models certified by the state as safe from the list of allowable guns for every new one added is “ nonsensical and a blatant effort to curtail law-abiding citizens ’ choice to determine the right firearm for the defense of themselves and their loved ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action , wrote in a letter to lawmakers .
With anti-gun lawmakers and law-enforcement officers like California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and San Francisco D.A .
Chesa Boudin embracing the move , you know it ’ s not likely to benefit gun owners or firearms manufacturers .
Unfortunately , the new law isn ’ t likely to benefit law enforcement either .
The only way to imprint that unique microstamp on every spent round is to use the firing pin of each handgun to stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is easily defeated , either by defacing the firing pin with an abrasive material like a metal file or by simply swapping out the firing pin with another .
In fact , the law makes no mention of what happens if a legal gun owner needs to replace the firing pin in a microstamped handgun .
Firing pins can wear out and break through repeated use , but the law has no provision for replacing the gun part .
If a gun owner swaps out a microstamped firing pin with an unmicrostamped pin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Has their handgun suddenly become “ unsafe ” ?
Rather than a valuable crime fighting tool , microstamping is simply another way to reduce the numbers and types of handguns available to California gun owners .
The only silver lining with the new law is that it will likely lead to a new legal challenge .
A lawsuit filed against the state over the original microstamping law was one of nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this year , but the makeup of the Court will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new law reaches SCOTUS , which should give gun owners some hope that justices will be more amenable to grant cert to a microstamping challenge the next time around .

Californians could see the number of handguns available for sale in the state dwindle even further, thanks to an anti-gun overhaul of the state’s microstamping law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday. AB 2847 makes some major changes to the existing microstamping law, which has been on the books since 2012 and has already blocked sales of new models of handguns for years.
The original version of the microstamping law required handgun manufacturers to design their handguns to imprint a unique identifying code on each ammunition cartridge as it was fired. In fact, gun companies had to ensure that there were actually two microstamps on each round of ammunition, which was virtually impossible for manufacturers to comply with.
As a result, not only have new handgun models not been approved for sale in the state since 2012, but about half of the handguns that were on the state’s roster of approved handguns have been removed in the years since. Every time a manufacturer made a small design tweak to an existing model, California’s Department of Justice claimed it was an entirely new model subject to the microstamping provisions, and removed the handgun from the state’s roster.
The slow-motion handgun ban will continue, and likely speed up a bit with the new microstamping language. Now manufacturers only need to imprint the microstamp on each fired round in one location, which the state says is feasible. For every new microstamped model that becomes available for sale in California, however, several older models of handguns will disappear from the roster of approved guns.
The new law seeks to speed up micro-stamping of guns by instructing the attorney general to remove three models from the state list of handguns certified as safe for sale for each new compliant handgun model that is introduced. The law is opposed by groups including the National Rifle Assn. and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. Removing three firearm models certified by the state as safe from the list of allowable guns for every new one added is “nonsensical and a blatant effort to curtail law-abiding citizens’ choice to determine the right firearm for the defense of themselves and their loved ones,” Daniel Reid, western regional director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
With anti-gun lawmakers and law-enforcement officers like California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin embracing the move, you know it’s not likely to benefit gun owners or firearms manufacturers. Unfortunately, the new law isn’t likely to benefit law enforcement either. The only way to imprint that unique microstamp on every spent round is to use the firing pin of each handgun to stamp the cartridge case, but the technology is easily defeated, either by defacing the firing pin with an abrasive material like a metal file or by simply swapping out the firing pin with another.
In fact, the law makes no mention of what happens if a legal gun owner needs to replace the firing pin in a microstamped handgun. Firing pins can wear out and break through repeated use, but the law has no provision for replacing the gun part. If a gun owner swaps out a microstamped firing pin with an unmicrostamped pin, are they breaking the law? Has their handgun suddenly become “unsafe”?
Rather than a valuable crime fighting tool, microstamping is simply another way to reduce the numbers and types of handguns available to California gun owners. The only silver lining with the new law is that it will likely lead to a new legal challenge. A lawsuit filed against the state over the original microstamping law was one of nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this year, but the makeup of the Court will have changed by the time a challenge to the new law reaches SCOTUS, which should give gun owners some hope that justices will be more amenable to grant cert to a microstamping challenge the next time around.


bearingarms--2020-10-01--CDC Funds First Gun Research In Decades, But That's On Them

The Centers for Disease Control was legally barred from conducting research that promoted gun control .
That ’ s precisely what the law said .
In other words , they weren ’ t allowed to conduct biased research , which is what much of the firearm research out there happened to be at the time .
Now , though , that block is lifted , and the CDC is back in the game .
Once upon a time , way back in December 2019 , US lawmakers made a decision that would allow federal agencies to fund gun violence prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades .
And while so much has changed since then , some parts of the world barrel on as usual : Today , Sept. 30 , awardees of the first research grants are starting their work .
Last week , the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) announced the recipients of nearly $ 8 million in funding to 16 research groups across the US to study firearm injury prevention .
Their objectives over the next few years are to find ways to enhance safety and lower gun deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategies in practice or proposing new ones .
Research grants on the same topic awarded by the US National Institutes of Health are still under consideration .
The total funding of $ 25 million represents a compromise made by lawmakers ; Democrats had initially pushed for $ 50 million .
“ It won ’ t get us where we need to be , but it ’ s a great start , ” Emmy Betz , the deputy director at the Program for Injury Prevention , Education and Research at the Colorado School of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
The new research projects breaks a 24-year hiatus on this kind of federally funded research .
Back in 1996 , US legislators passed the Dickey Amendment , which explicitly prohibited federal funding for any research that advocated for gun control .
As a result , all federal funding for gun injury prevention screeched to a halt .
And that last bit is an important point .
See , research isn ’ t supposed to be advocating any position at all .
It ’ s to establish the facts as they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
The fact that the CDC interpreted this as a halt on all research tells us that they weren ’ t after the truth , but a narrative .
They wanted to use the “ research ” to push for gun control policies and now the law wouldn ’ t allow them to do that .
Science is supposed to be the search for truth .
However , there have always been those who would use their positions to try and advance whatever causes they cared to advance .
This is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spewed forth about how there wasn ’ t any gun research being conducted , all while citing the latest studies that supported their claims .
In fairness , they also ignored those studies that didn ’ t support gun control as well , so we shouldn ’ t be too surprised .
The fact that federal funding wasn ’ t used for gun violence research was on people like the CDC and no one else .
While anti-gunners will preen about how that wasn ’ t the case , anyone with a fully-functional @ @ @ @ @

The Centers for Disease Control was legally barred from conducting research that promoted gun control. That’s precisely what the law said. In other words, they weren’t allowed to conduct biased research, which is what much of the firearm research out there happened to be at the time.
Now, though, that block is lifted, and the CDC is back in the game.
Once upon a time, way back in December 2019, US lawmakers made a decision that would allow federal agencies to fund gun violence prevention research for the first time in over two decades. And while so much has changed since then, some parts of the world barrel on as usual: Today, Sept. 30, awardees of the first research grants are starting their work. Last week, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the recipients of nearly $8 million in funding to 16 research groups across the US to study firearm injury prevention. Their objectives over the next few years are to find ways to enhance safety and lower gun deaths and crime, either by evaluating current strategies in practice or proposing new ones. Research grants on the same topic awarded by the US National Institutes of Health are still under consideration. The total funding of $25 million represents a compromise made by lawmakers; Democrats had initially pushed for $50 million. “It won’t get us where we need to be, but it’s a great start,” Emmy Betz, the deputy director at the Program for Injury Prevention, Education and Research at the Colorado School of Public Health, told the Verge in 2019. The new research projects breaks a 24-year hiatus on this kind of federally funded research. Back in 1996, US legislators passed the Dickey Amendment, which explicitly prohibited federal funding for any research that advocated for gun control. As a result, all federal funding for gun injury prevention screeched to a halt.
And that last bit is an important point.
See, research isn’t supposed to be advocating any position at all. It’s to establish the facts as they are, not as someone wishes them to be. The fact that the CDC interpreted this as a halt on all research tells us that they weren’t after the truth, but a narrative. They wanted to use the “research” to push for gun control policies and now the law wouldn’t allow them to do that.
Science is supposed to be the search for truth. However, there have always been those who would use their positions to try and advance whatever causes they cared to advance. This is no different.
Meanwhile, anti-gunners have routinely spewed forth about how there wasn’t any gun research being conducted, all while citing the latest studies that supported their claims. In fairness, they also ignored those studies that didn’t support gun control as well, so we shouldn’t be too surprised.
The fact that federal funding wasn’t used for gun violence research was on people like the CDC and no one else.
While anti-gunners will preen about how that wasn’t the case, anyone with a fully-functional brain can see otherwise.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--Is There A Looming Fight On The Left Over Gun Control?

I promise , this is the last time I plan on bringing up this topic for awhile , but before I put it to bed I wanted to get the opinion of someone with a different perspective than me .
That ’ s why on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Jane Coaston of Vox joins me to delve deeply into the question of whether Democrats have a looming problem on their hands ; the contradiction between support for old-fashioned gun control laws that rely on police to enforce versus the movement to defund , abolish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while seeking to depopulate or abolish prisons entirely .
It turned out to be a great conversation , and I appreciate Jane joining me to talk about the issue .
She agrees that the two positions are at odds with each other , though she portrays the fight more as one between two parts of the Democratic coalition rather than an internal struggle for individual Democrats .
While I definitely agree that the far-Left ( Bernie Sanders and beyond ) are less likely to support old-school gun control laws when you point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think there are also a number of Democratic politicians who haven ’ t really wrestled with their own contradictory positions .
Ayanna Pressley ’ s talked a lot about what she believes is the inherent racism in policing , but if she truly believes that to be the case , then why on earth did she sponsor a gun control bill just last year that would have empowered local police chiefs to determine whether or not someone could own a gun based on the chief ’ s subjective determination about “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Making America Safe and Secure ) would have given DOJ grants to states that implement Massachusetts-style gun licensing laws , including putting the ultimate power to approve or deny the exercise of one ’ s Second Amendment rights in the hands of a police chief .
The Making America Safe and Secure Act would incentivize states to adopt gun-licensing standards similar to those already proven to be effective in Massachusetts .
Massachusetts has comprehensive gun licensing laws , and not coincidentally , one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authorize Department of Justice grant funding to incentivize and encourage states to adopt and maintain comprehensive licensing standards for all gun owners and dealers .
Set forth principles to obtain grants , including , but not limited to , requirements that : • All gun owners have a license , not only at the time of a firearms purchase , but for the entirety of their ownership ; • Any person who sells ammunition or sells , rents , or leases a certain number of firearms — as established by the state — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms dealer license ; • The state establish standards for individuals prohibited from obtaining a firearms license or firearms dealer license ; • The chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town , or a designee of that department , function as the licensing authority ; • Licensing standards for firearms owners include a thorough background check and a determination of suitability by licensing authority , which may include an in-person interview and the submission of references stating that the applicant is of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licensing authority be given the discretion to deny , suspend , or revoke a firearms license or dealers license if an applicant is determined to be unsuitable That ’ s not just problematic for Second Amendment advocates , it ’ s problematic ( or at least it should be ) for those who believe that policing is rife with racism and bias ( conscious or not ) .
Coaston says in the intra-party disagreement between policing reform and police-powered gun control laws , the suburban Democratic voters who don ’ t consider themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the ones backing Bloomberg-style gun control laws , while younger and more urban voters will be more likely be to push back against them .
Ironically , conservatives may be able to gain some unlikely allies on the far-Left when it comes to protecting and securing our Second Amendment rights as more of them recognize that gun control laws have been and are being used to deny minorities and lower-income Americans their right to keep and bear arms in many states .
Be sure to check out the entire discussion above .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll likely revisit this issue again after the election .
It could be that a realignment within the Democratic Party is shaping up , and a new wing of pro-gun ( or at least anti old-school gun control ) Democrats are emerging .
Twenty years ago it was the Blue Dogs ; a group of moderate , mostly rural Democrats who were elected with solid 2A credentials , but of that group only Minnesota ’ s Collin Petersen is left in the House .
The new crop of Democrats who reject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those far to the left of Petersen , which definitely poses some challenges for bipartisan opposition to gun control in our polarized political climate , but politics does make for strange bedfellows , and no one can deny that these are already pretty strange times for us .

I promise, this is the last time I plan on bringing up this topic for awhile, but before I put it to bed I wanted to get the opinion of someone with a different perspective than me. That’s why on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Jane Coaston of Vox joins me to delve deeply into the question of whether Democrats have a looming problem on their hands; the contradiction between support for old-fashioned gun control laws that rely on police to enforce versus the movement to defund, abolish, and “reimagine” law enforcement while seeking to depopulate or abolish prisons entirely.
It turned out to be a great conversation, and I appreciate Jane joining me to talk about the issue. She agrees that the two positions are at odds with each other, though she portrays the fight more as one between two parts of the Democratic coalition rather than an internal struggle for individual Democrats. While I definitely agree that the far-Left (Bernie Sanders and beyond) are less likely to support old-school gun control laws when you point out that they require armed policing to enforce, I think there are also a number of Democratic politicians who haven’t really wrestled with their own contradictory positions.
The roots of policing can be traced to the antebellum slave patrols of the South, which led to the establishment of all-white police departments. Today, I join @OversightDems to examine white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. Tune in now: https://t.co/ujk3cIZZqy https://t.co/fn1vZroi2c — Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) September 29, 2020
Ayanna Pressley’s talked a lot about what she believes is the inherent racism in policing, but if she truly believes that to be the case, then why on earth did she sponsor a gun control bill just last year that would have empowered local police chiefs to determine whether or not someone could own a gun based on the chief’s subjective determination about “suitability”?
The MASS Act (Making America Safe and Secure) would have given DOJ grants to states that implement Massachusetts-style gun licensing laws, including putting the ultimate power to approve or deny the exercise of one’s Second Amendment rights in the hands of a police chief.
The Making America Safe and Secure Act would incentivize states to adopt gun-licensing standards similar to those already proven to be effective in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has comprehensive gun licensing laws, and not coincidentally, one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation. Specifically, the MASS Act would: Authorize Department of Justice grant funding to incentivize and encourage states to adopt and maintain comprehensive licensing standards for all gun owners and dealers. Set forth principles to obtain grants, including, but not limited to, requirements that: • All gun owners have a license, not only at the time of a firearms purchase, but for the entirety of their ownership; • Any person who sells ammunition or sells, rents, or leases a certain number of firearms — as established by the state — in a calendar year obtain a state firearms dealer license; • The state establish standards for individuals prohibited from obtaining a firearms license or firearms dealer license; • The chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town, or a designee of that department, function as the licensing authority; • Licensing standards for firearms owners include a thorough background check and a determination of suitability by licensing authority, which may include an in-person interview and the submission of references stating that the applicant is of sound mind and character; • The licensing authority be given the discretion to deny, suspend, or revoke a firearms license or dealers license if an applicant is determined to be unsuitable
That’s not just problematic for Second Amendment advocates, it’s problematic (or at least it should be) for those who believe that policing is rife with racism and bias (conscious or not).
Coaston says in the intra-party disagreement between policing reform and police-powered gun control laws, the suburban Democratic voters who don’t consider themselves radical or members of the far-Left will be the ones backing Bloomberg-style gun control laws, while younger and more urban voters will be more likely be to push back against them. Ironically, conservatives may be able to gain some unlikely allies on the far-Left when it comes to protecting and securing our Second Amendment rights as more of them recognize that gun control laws have been and are being used to deny minorities and lower-income Americans their right to keep and bear arms in many states.
Be sure to check out the entire discussion above. I enjoyed talking to Jane, and we’ll likely revisit this issue again after the election. It could be that a realignment within the Democratic Party is shaping up, and a new wing of pro-gun (or at least anti old-school gun control) Democrats are emerging.
Twenty years ago it was the Blue Dogs; a group of moderate, mostly rural Democrats who were elected with solid 2A credentials, but of that group only Minnesota’s Collin Petersen is left in the House. The new crop of Democrats who reject police-imposed gun control laws would consist of those far to the left of Petersen, which definitely poses some challenges for bipartisan opposition to gun control in our polarized political climate, but politics does make for strange bedfellows, and no one can deny that these are already pretty strange times for us.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--Small Town Editorial Places Onus On Guns On Wrong Group

Kingsbury , NY isn ’ t a bustling metropolis .
With just over 12,000 people , it usually skates below the national radar .
Frankly , it ’ s too small for most of us to care about .
Frankly , it still is .
However , an editorial addressing a potential move to allow concealed carry on town property betrays a nationwide problem regarding the right to keep and bear arms .
That ’ s the idea that someone should have to justify that right .
hy ?
” is the question that arises when hearing that the Kingsbury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed firearms into Town Hall and onto other town property .
Why make a change ?
Has any problem ever arisen in Town Hall or in a town park that could have been solved by a person with a pistol secretly tucked inside their jacket ?
Good reasons were given for prohibiting firearms on town property in 2005 , when the Town Board voted to ban them .
( Police officers , security guards , members of the military and town employees who , as part of their job , need to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
“ Firearms are dangerous weapons ” the 2005 law says .
It mentions the danger of accidental injuries and the commission of crimes by people armed with guns .
Also mentioned is the real possibility of intimidation of town employees .
Arrayed against these very good reasons for banning guns from town property we now have … nothing .
No justification has been offered for amending the 2005 law .
The problem is , the questions here are all wrong .
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally-protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or freedom of religion .
Yet none of those rights are restricted the way gun rights are .
When the law in Kingsbury was passed , they gave a ton of reasons , but no one seemed to ask if any of those threats had ever occurred .
Of course , they likely haven ’ t .
If they had , well , it wouldn ’ t matter if guns are banned on the property or not because things like using a gun to intimidate people is a crime in and of itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks just why should people ’ s rights be restored , as if someone should have to justify their rights to anyone .
In their mind , there ’ s no good reason to carry a gun on town property .
How would they feel if someone argued there was no good reason to , say , insult the president .
Would the editorial board agree with that line of reasoning ?
What about others who seem to think that we should have to justify our gun rights ?
Remember , this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few small-town journalists .
This is the law in places that require you to articulate why you need a concealed carry permit .
Yet that same reasoning can be used on other constitutionally-protected rights .
“ Oh , but guns are dangerous , ” they ’ ll claim .
The problem is , words can be just as dangerous .
The rise of the Nazi Party and the associated horrors in Germany didn ’ t start with guns , but with words .
The rise of communism and the starvation and privation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns .
It started with words .
Words can be dangerous too , yet we do not restrict them in any manner close to how guns are handled .
So why should people be allowed to carry guns ?
Because we ’ re free men and women and no free man or woman should be barred from carrying arms wherever they feel they may need to .
Same as how we should never be forbidden from speaking our minds .
Why should people be allowed to carry guns ?
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just why the hell should a government keep people from exercising those rights .

Kingsbury, NY isn’t a bustling metropolis. With just over 12,000 people, it usually skates below the national radar. Frankly, it’s too small for most of us to care about.
Frankly, it still is.
However, an editorial addressing a potential move to allow concealed carry on town property betrays a nationwide problem regarding the right to keep and bear arms. That’s the idea that someone should have to justify that right.
hy?” is the question that arises when hearing that the Kingsbury Town Board may allow people to carry concealed firearms into Town Hall and onto other town property. Why make a change? Has any problem ever arisen in Town Hall or in a town park that could have been solved by a person with a pistol secretly tucked inside their jacket? Good reasons were given for prohibiting firearms on town property in 2005, when the Town Board voted to ban them. (Police officers, security guards, members of the military and town employees who, as part of their job, need to carry a gun onto town property were exceptions.) “Firearms are dangerous weapons” the 2005 law says. It mentions the danger of accidental injuries and the commission of crimes by people armed with guns. Also mentioned is the real possibility of intimidation of town employees. Arrayed against these very good reasons for banning guns from town property we now have … nothing. No justification has been offered for amending the 2005 law.
The problem is, the questions here are all wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally-protected right, just like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Yet none of those rights are restricted the way gun rights are.
When the law in Kingsbury was passed, they gave a ton of reasons, but no one seemed to ask if any of those threats had ever occurred. Of course, they likely haven’t. If they had, well, it wouldn’t matter if guns are banned on the property or not because things like using a gun to intimidate people is a crime in and of itself.
Now, though, the editorial asks just why should people’s rights be restored, as if someone should have to justify their rights to anyone.
In their mind, there’s no good reason to carry a gun on town property. How would they feel if someone argued there was no good reason to, say, insult the president. Would the editorial board agree with that line of reasoning? What about others who seem to think that we should have to justify our gun rights?
Remember, this isn’t just the mentality of a few small-town journalists. This is the law in places that require you to articulate why you need a concealed carry permit.
Yet that same reasoning can be used on other constitutionally-protected rights.
“Oh, but guns are dangerous,” they’ll claim. The problem is, words can be just as dangerous. The rise of the Nazi Party and the associated horrors in Germany didn’t start with guns, but with words. The rise of communism and the starvation and privation that killed millions didn’t start with guns. It started with words.
Words can be dangerous too, yet we do not restrict them in any manner close to how guns are handled.
So why should people be allowed to carry guns? Because we’re free men and women and no free man or woman should be barred from carrying arms wherever they feel they may need to. Same as how we should never be forbidden from speaking our minds.
Why should people be allowed to carry guns? That’s the wrong question.
The correct one is just why the hell should a government keep people from exercising those rights.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--Rittenhouse Attorney Demands Biden Apologize For Defamation

L. Lin Wood , the lead attorney on the team representing the Illinois teenager charged with two counts of murder in a shooting during unrest in Kenosha , Wisconsin last month , has sent a letter to Joe Biden ’ s campaign demanding that a video released by the campaign showing Rittenhouse while Biden talked about “ white supremacists ” be taken off the Internet , along with a retraction and an apology by the Democratic presidential candidate .
News of the letter first broke with this tweet by attorney Ron Coleman , also a part of the Rittenhouse defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Wood , a video that Biden released after this week ’ s presidential debate defamed Rittenhouse by including him in a “ montage of images depicting violence and disorder presumably committed by ‘ white supremacists ’ ” or self-styled militia members .
Wood says the “ political use of this photo of a 17-year old boy under attack- and it is undisputed that he only used his weapon in self-defense against multiple attackers- as a prop to advance Mr. Biden ’ s long-denied political ambition is reprehensible .
And it is actionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not aware of any evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or a racist , though from the moments after his identify became known there ’ s been a loud chorus of voices on the Left claiming that he ’ s both .
Biden ’ s campaign clearly had no problem accusing Rittenhouse , though , and I think it ’ s both right and appropriate for Biden to be called out for the baseless smear on a 17-year old .
However , I ’ m not sure why Wood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense , given the fact that he ’ s facing murder and assault charges in Wisconsin .
It ’ s true that even the charging documents filed by prosecutors don ’ t portray Rittenhouse as the initial aggressor , and I happen to think that Rittenhouse has an incredibly strong self-defense argument .
Still , prosecutors obviously disagree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense , and I can ’ t figure out the logic behind Wood claiming otherwise .
As for the defamation claim itself , Woods writes in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The juxtaposition of Kyle ’ s photo with Mr. Biden ’ s misrepresentation of the colloquy that occurred between President Trump and his two opponents in the debate regarding the supposed phenomenon of white supremacist violence conveys the false and defamatory impression that Mr. Biden ’ s words and Kyle ’ s picture are meaningfully related- that is , that Kyle is a white supremacist , a member of a militia group or was involved in the violence perpetrated on people and property in Kenosha and Portland in recent weeks .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being and would reasonably be construed by the average viewer to mean that Kyle engaged in reprehensible and unlawful conduct.
” Wood goes on to write that his client has been falsely accused of murder and that publicly available videos show “ beyond a doubt ” that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he was attacked .
Rittenhouse , according to Wood , had gone to Kenosha to “ render medical aid ” , as opposed to creating any violence .
Biden ’ s actions , argues Rittenhouse ’ s attorney , amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is currently the most offensive political epithet that can be applied to anyone in civil society merely to achieve tawdry political points on social media.
” The Biden camp could choose to simply take down the video on the assumption that it ’ s already generated the bulk of its views anyway , but I don ’ t see them issuing a formal retraction or apologizing to Rittenhouse .
That would inevitably generate howls of protest from Biden ’ s supporters , and any lawsuit that Rittenhouse or his family might file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long after Election Day is over .
Besides , Biden has plenty of deep-pocketed donors who would probably consider it a badge of honor to help him pay off any judgement that might eventually be handed down for defamation .
As for Rittenhouse himself , the extradition hearing that was supposed to take place has now been pushed back to October 9th after Rittenhouse attorney John Pierce asked for an extension because he plans on challenging the extradition from Illinois , where Rittenhouse turned himself in to police , and Wisconsin , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I were Rittenhouse ’ s counsel I ’ d be trying to get to a preliminary hearing as soon as possible , because that ’ s when prosecutors will have to show that there ’ s probable cause to charge Rittenhouse with murder and the teen ’ s defense can begin to present their self-defense arguments in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion , but for the moment the strategy seems to be to fight the charges every step of the way .

L. Lin Wood, the lead attorney on the team representing the Illinois teenager charged with two counts of murder in a shooting during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin last month, has sent a letter to Joe Biden’s campaign demanding that a video released by the campaign showing Rittenhouse while Biden talked about “white supremacists” be taken off the Internet, along with a retraction and an apology by the Democratic presidential candidate.
News of the letter first broke with this tweet by attorney Ron Coleman, also a part of the Rittenhouse defense team.
According to the letter sent by Wood, a video that Biden released after this week’s presidential debate defamed Rittenhouse by including him in a “montage of images depicting violence and disorder presumably committed by ‘white supremacists’” or self-styled militia members.
Wood says the “political use of this photo of a 17-year old boy under attack- and it is undisputed that he only used his weapon in self-defense against multiple attackers- as a prop to advance Mr. Biden’s long-denied political ambition is reprehensible. And it is actionable as well”.
First, I’m not aware of any evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or a racist, though from the moments after his identify became known there’s been a loud chorus of voices on the Left claiming that he’s both. Biden’s campaign clearly had no problem accusing Rittenhouse, though, and I think it’s both right and appropriate for Biden to be called out for the baseless smear on a 17-year old.
However, I’m not sure why Wood would claim that it’s undisputed that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, given the fact that he’s facing murder and assault charges in Wisconsin. It’s true that even the charging documents filed by prosecutors don’t portray Rittenhouse as the initial aggressor, and I happen to think that Rittenhouse has an incredibly strong self-defense argument. Still, prosecutors obviously disagree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, and I can’t figure out the logic behind Wood claiming otherwise.
As for the defamation claim itself, Woods writes in his letter to the Biden campaign that:
“The juxtaposition of Kyle’s photo with Mr. Biden’s misrepresentation of the colloquy that occurred between President Trump and his two opponents in the debate regarding the supposed phenomenon of white supremacist violence conveys the false and defamatory impression that Mr. Biden’s words and Kyle’s picture are meaningfully related- that is, that Kyle is a white supremacist, a member of a militia group or was involved in the violence perpetrated on people and property in Kenosha and Portland in recent weeks. Every one of these inferences is capable of being and would reasonably be construed by the average viewer to mean that Kyle engaged in reprehensible and unlawful conduct.”
Wood goes on to write that his client has been falsely accused of murder and that publicly available videos show “beyond a doubt” that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he was attacked. Rittenhouse, according to Wood, had gone to Kenosha to “render medical aid”, as opposed to creating any violence.
Biden’s actions, argues Rittenhouse’s attorney, amounts to “besmirching this young man with what is currently the most offensive political epithet that can be applied to anyone in civil society merely to achieve tawdry political points on social media.”
The Biden camp could choose to simply take down the video on the assumption that it’s already generated the bulk of its views anyway, but I don’t see them issuing a formal retraction or apologizing to Rittenhouse. That would inevitably generate howls of protest from Biden’s supporters, and any lawsuit that Rittenhouse or his family might file against the Biden campaign would be resolved long after Election Day is over. Besides, Biden has plenty of deep-pocketed donors who would probably consider it a badge of honor to help him pay off any judgement that might eventually be handed down for defamation.
As for Rittenhouse himself, the extradition hearing that was supposed to take place has now been pushed back to October 9th after Rittenhouse attorney John Pierce asked for an extension because he plans on challenging the extradition from Illinois, where Rittenhouse turned himself in to police, and Wisconsin, where the shootings took place. Personally, if I were Rittenhouse’s counsel I’d be trying to get to a preliminary hearing as soon as possible, because that’s when prosecutors will have to show that there’s probable cause to charge Rittenhouse with murder and the teen’s defense can begin to present their self-defense arguments in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion, but for the moment the strategy seems to be to fight the charges every step of the way.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--Black Lives Matter Activists To Hold Gun Rights Rally

Gun rights rallies tend to be viewed as a thing of the political right , and for pretty good reason .
The truth of the matter is that while the Second Amendment shouldn ’ t be a partisan issue , it is .
Democrats typically want to disarm us and Republicans generally don ’ t .
That fact alone makes it a fairly partisan issue , no matter what people want to claim .
However , it doesn ’ t have to be .
In fact , it shouldn ’ t be partisan .
An upcoming gun rights rally is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tips the partisan nature of gun rights rallies on its head .
Formed over a summer of Black Lives Matter protests , A Quad Cities civil rights organization is now advocating for another personal freedom—the right to bear arms .
The group , We F.I.G.H.T .
protested against a recent gun rally in Davenport , but this Saturday , it ’ s holding one of its own .
Eric Puryear says this Open Carry Rally is a peaceful alternative to one held last month by a Neo Nazi .
And he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong idea about gun ownership .
“ The idea that I would want to have only the police armed just doesn ’ t make any sense to me at all .
If we look at the history of gun restriction in the US , gun laws started out as a means of preventing recently-freed slaves from being armed for self-defense… The KKK , the Neo Nazis , they ’ re armed to the teeth .
If one of those people were to try to attack me or break into my house , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available , which is a gun.
” Now , I don ’ t know about a rally held by a Neo Nazi last month .
I can ’ t find anything besides Puryear saying that , but I may not be looking in the right place .
Frankly , it doesn ’ t matter to me .
The truth is that his statement , that leaving only the police armed making no sense , does .
See , I agree .
If you honestly believe the police are abusive and dangerous , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want them to be the only ones with firearms ?
The logic is beyond ridiculous , yet so many of the “ defund the police ” types are also all about gun control .
They don ’ t grok that with fewer police , people are likely to need more guns , not fewer .
And , additionally , while I may believe that much of the talk of racism is heavily overblown–the whole system isn ’ t necessarily stacked against any group of people–I ’ m not delusional .
Racism does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and some of those are violent bastards who will kill if they get half a chance and think they can get away with it .
If you ’ re a minority in this country , it just makes sense to arm yourself if you can do so lawfully .
Most can , of course , so why not ?
I support Puryear ’ s efforts and I sincerely hope he achieves all he wants to with this rally .
At the end of the day , the Second Amendment isn ’ t for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free Americans , which we all are thankfully .
Thanks to the Second Amendment , though , we can all stay free .

Gun rights rallies tend to be viewed as a thing of the political right, and for pretty good reason. The truth of the matter is that while the Second Amendment shouldn’t be a partisan issue, it is. Democrats typically want to disarm us and Republicans generally don’t. That fact alone makes it a fairly partisan issue, no matter what people want to claim.
However, it doesn’t have to be. In fact, it shouldn’t be partisan.
An upcoming gun rights rally is interesting because, well, it kind of tips the partisan nature of gun rights rallies on its head.
Formed over a summer of Black Lives Matter protests, A Quad Cities civil rights organization is now advocating for another personal freedom—the right to bear arms. The group, We F.I.G.H.T. protested against a recent gun rally in Davenport, but this Saturday, it’s holding one of its own. Eric Puryear says this Open Carry Rally is a peaceful alternative to one held last month by a Neo Nazi. And he says that other Black Lives Matter activists have the wrong idea about gun ownership. “The idea that I would want to have only the police armed just doesn’t make any sense to me at all. If we look at the history of gun restriction in the US, gun laws started out as a means of preventing recently-freed slaves from being armed for self-defense… The KKK, the Neo Nazis, they’re armed to the teeth. If one of those people were to try to attack me or break into my house, I certainly want the best self-defense tool available, which is a gun.”
Now, I don’t know about a rally held by a Neo Nazi last month. I can’t find anything besides Puryear saying that, but I may not be looking in the right place. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me.
The truth is that his statement, that leaving only the police armed making no sense, does.
See, I agree. If you honestly believe the police are abusive and dangerous, why on God’s green Earth would you want them to be the only ones with firearms? The logic is beyond ridiculous, yet so many of the “defund the police” types are also all about gun control. They don’t grok that with fewer police, people are likely to need more guns, not fewer.
And, additionally, while I may believe that much of the talk of racism is heavily overblown–the whole system isn’t necessarily stacked against any group of people–I’m not delusional. Racism does exist. Racists still walk among us and some of those are violent bastards who will kill if they get half a chance and think they can get away with it.
If you’re a minority in this country, it just makes sense to arm yourself if you can do so lawfully. Most can, of course, so why not? I support Puryear’s efforts and I sincerely hope he achieves all he wants to with this rally.
At the end of the day, the Second Amendment isn’t for any ethnicity. It’s for free Americans, which we all are thankfully. Thanks to the Second Amendment, though, we can all stay free.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--This 2A Referendum Could Have A Big Impact On The U.S Senate

Obviously the big story in the 2020 elections is the presidential race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden , and with the president testing positive for COVID-19 late Thursday , that ’ s not going to change anytime soon .
There are a number of key elections for Second Amendment supporters beyond the race at the top of the ticket , however , and a Montana ballot referendum could end up having a big impact in a political race that could determine who controls the U.S. Senate .
Voters in the state will be casting their ballots on a measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firearm preemption language already contained in state law .
The measure was placed on the ballot by Second Amendment supporters after gun control activists attempted to undo the preemption statute by putting a local universal background check measure in place in Billings .
The state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the local ordinance in 2019 , declaring that the measure violated the preemption law , but Republicans in the statehouse and Second Amendment supporters across the state decided that the voter referendum was necessary to ensure that other localities wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Legislative Referendum 130 asks voters to remove local governments ’ power to regulate the carrying of concealed firearms – or to restrict the open carry of firearms – except in public buildings within a government ’ s jurisdiction .
The measure , if approved , also would repeal local government ’ s authority to prevent the possession of firearms by convicted felons , minors , undocumented immigrants and or people judged to be mentally incompetent .
The measure doesn ’ t affect other federal or state firearms restrictions about such possession .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing Billings used to try to justify the city ’ s universal background check ordinance , and even with the state Supreme Court decision , Second Amendment activists say the statute needs to be repealed .
Gary Marbut , president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association , was one of the ballot issue ’ s architects .
He said that Montana already has a preemption law that , when boiled down , effectively prohibits local governments from regulating guns .
“ All local governments are creatures of the state , ” Marbut said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Montana Constitution on our right to keep and bear arms.
” So how could this impact the U.S. Senate ?
Well , the race between incumbent senator Steve Daines and his Democratic challanger , Gov .
Steve Bullock , is pretty tight right now , and who turns out on Election Day is going to be key in determining the winner .
With the pro-2A referendum on the ballot , gun owners have even more motivation to show up to the polls , especially since Bullock vetoed a bill that would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last legislative session .
If Republicans are going to keep control of the Senate , this is a race they can ’ t afford to lose , and LR-130 should help goose turnout among conservatives and gun owners .
The Great Falls Tribune does note in its reporting that opponents of LR-130 are spending several hundred thousand dollars to try to defeat the measure , but I suspect that in gun-friendly Montana , they ’ re facing an uphill battle in their quest to impose local gun controls on a freedom-loving populace @

Obviously the big story in the 2020 elections is the presidential race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and with the president testing positive for COVID-19 late Thursday, that’s not going to change anytime soon. There are a number of key elections for Second Amendment supporters beyond the race at the top of the ticket, however, and a Montana ballot referendum could end up having a big impact in a political race that could determine who controls the U.S. Senate.
Voters in the state will be casting their ballots on a measure known as LR-130, which would reinforce the firearm preemption language already contained in state law. The measure was placed on the ballot by Second Amendment supporters after gun control activists attempted to undo the preemption statute by putting a local universal background check measure in place in Billings.
The state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the local ordinance in 2019, declaring that the measure violated the preemption law, but Republicans in the statehouse and Second Amendment supporters across the state decided that the voter referendum was necessary to ensure that other localities wouldn’t attempt a similar stunt in the future.
Legislative Referendum 130 asks voters to remove local governments’ power to regulate the carrying of concealed firearms – or to restrict the open carry of firearms – except in public buildings within a government’s jurisdiction. The measure, if approved, also would repeal local government’s authority to prevent the possession of firearms by convicted felons, minors, undocumented immigrants and or people judged to be mentally incompetent. The measure doesn’t affect other federal or state firearms restrictions about such possession.
It was that language that anti-gun attorneys representing Billings used to try to justify the city’s universal background check ordinance, and even with the state Supreme Court decision, Second Amendment activists say the statute needs to be repealed.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, was one of the ballot issue’s architects. He said that Montana already has a preemption law that, when boiled down, effectively prohibits local governments from regulating guns. “All local governments are creatures of the state,” Marbut said. “LR-130 reinforces the restriction in the Montana Constitution on our right to keep and bear arms.”
So how could this impact the U.S. Senate? Well, the race between incumbent senator Steve Daines and his Democratic challanger, Gov. Steve Bullock, is pretty tight right now, and who turns out on Election Day is going to be key in determining the winner. With the pro-2A referendum on the ballot, gun owners have even more motivation to show up to the polls, especially since Bullock vetoed a bill that would have accomplished the same thing as LR-130 in the last legislative session.
If Republicans are going to keep control of the Senate, this is a race they can’t afford to lose, and LR-130 should help goose turnout among conservatives and gun owners. The Great Falls Tribune does note in its reporting that opponents of LR-130 are spending several hundred thousand dollars to try to defeat the measure, but I suspect that in gun-friendly Montana, they’re facing an uphill battle in their quest to impose local gun controls on a freedom-loving populace.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--With Murders Up 50%, Chicago Decides To Do "Something"

Just not something that works .
On Saturday , the Chicago Police Department will be hosting a “ gun turn in event ” at a local church , where people can hand over firearms in exchange for a $ 100 gift card .
While I ’ ll give the CPD credit for not calling the event a “ buyback , ” no matter what you call it , it ’ s still a completely ineffective way to fight the rise in shootings and homicides in the city .
Appearing on Chicago ’ s ABC affiliate on Friday morning , CPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if the event can really make a difference .
“ Absolutely , ” Brooks responded confidently .
“ You know , the common belief is that guns just come from dealers in back alleys and under the streetlight , but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the weapons that are used in the city come from people ’ s homes ; whether it ’ s an old gun that a teenager or young person finds or whether it ’ s an unwanted weapon that is stolen from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from that affect our city.
” Somebody tell Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot , who routinely blames Indiana for Chicago ’ s crime rates .
I do wish the ABC 7 anchors would have pressed Brooks even slightly about his belief that turn-ins are effective , because even if Brooks correctly notes that plenty of the guns used in crime in Chicago are locally-sourced , it doesn ’ t mean that a compensated confiscation event is going to make a difference .
There ’ s absolutely no evidence that these types of events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide rates , or incidents involving the accidental discharge of firearms .
Even the CPD spokesman wouldn ’ t offer any prediction of how much of a reduction in violent crime the city could see from the turn-in , sayin instead that “ the goal is to have a successful gun turn in where people can bring those unwanted weapons with no questions asked ; that we will give everyone who brings a weapon in $ 100 , we won ’ t ask any questions.
” To be fair , Brooks acknowledged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy that CPD is utilizing to try to bring down the violence in Chicago .
“ Not only do we have the strategy of moving officers to those areas where we ’ re seeing the most violence , but it ’ s also important that we work together to reduce the number of weapons that are available on the street , do outreach to our young men who are the primary victims of this violence , and really work together to address this .
This isn ’ t going to be an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is an all hands on deck where we work together with the community.
” It ’ s true that Chicago can ’ t simply arrest its way out of the problem , nor are more gun control laws likely to make a difference .
Still , the most effective way to bring down the homicide rate does involve handcuffs , because in order for the city ’ s violent criminals to get the message that crime doesn ’ t pay , there have to be consequences for their actions .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that gun turn-in money on a beefed-up witness protection program , as well as increasing the rewards offered for tips that lead to arrests in some of the nearly 600 murders in Chicago so far this year .
Anything that takes the focus off of the most violent offenders and instead puts the focus on junk guns that have been tucked away in a basement for 20 years is a distraction .
In this case , the real goal of the turn-in isn ’ t to reduce violent crime but to increase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can claim they ’ re “ doing something ” about the increased crime and the decrease in public safety , and they don ’ t have to worry too much about the local press asking them tough questions about whether or not they ’ re actually doing something that works .

Just not something that works. On Saturday, the Chicago Police Department will be hosting a “gun turn in event” at a local church, where people can hand over firearms in exchange for a $100 gift card. While I’ll give the CPD credit for not calling the event a “buyback,” no matter what you call it, it’s still a completely ineffective way to fight the rise in shootings and homicides in the city.
Appearing on Chicago’s ABC affiliate on Friday morning, CPD director of community policing Glen Brooks was asked if the event can really make a difference. “Absolutely,” Brooks responded confidently.
“You know, the common belief is that guns just come from dealers in back alleys and under the streetlight, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the weapons that are used in the city come from people’s homes; whether it’s an old gun that a teenager or young person finds or whether it’s an unwanted weapon that is stolen from the house. These are where these guns come from that affect our city.”
Somebody tell Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who routinely blames Indiana for Chicago’s crime rates.
I do wish the ABC 7 anchors would have pressed Brooks even slightly about his belief that turn-ins are effective, because even if Brooks correctly notes that plenty of the guns used in crime in Chicago are locally-sourced, it doesn’t mean that a compensated confiscation event is going to make a difference.
There’s absolutely no evidence that these types of events have any impact on crime rates, suicide rates, or incidents involving the accidental discharge of firearms. Even the CPD spokesman wouldn’t offer any prediction of how much of a reduction in violent crime the city could see from the turn-in, sayin instead that “the goal is to have a successful gun turn in where people can bring those unwanted weapons with no questions asked; that we will give everyone who brings a weapon in $100, we won’t ask any questions.”
To be fair, Brooks acknowledged that the turn-in isn’t the only strategy that CPD is utilizing to try to bring down the violence in Chicago.
“Not only do we have the strategy of moving officers to those areas where we’re seeing the most violence, but it’s also important that we work together to reduce the number of weapons that are available on the street, do outreach to our young men who are the primary victims of this violence, and really work together to address this. This isn’t going to be an issue that simply handcuffs are going to stop. This is an all hands on deck where we work together with the community.”
It’s true that Chicago can’t simply arrest its way out of the problem, nor are more gun control laws likely to make a difference. Still, the most effective way to bring down the homicide rate does involve handcuffs, because in order for the city’s violent criminals to get the message that crime doesn’t pay, there have to be consequences for their actions. The CPD would be far better off spending that gun turn-in money on a beefed-up witness protection program, as well as increasing the rewards offered for tips that lead to arrests in some of the nearly 600 murders in Chicago so far this year.
Anything that takes the focus off of the most violent offenders and instead puts the focus on junk guns that have been tucked away in a basement for 20 years is a distraction. In this case, the real goal of the turn-in isn’t to reduce violent crime but to increase the positive press for city leaders. They can claim they’re “doing something” about the increased crime and the decrease in public safety, and they don’t have to worry too much about the local press asking them tough questions about whether or not they’re actually doing something that works.


bearingarms--2020-10-02--Media Smears Guns At Protests, But They Miss Something

I ’ ve said before that the media isn ’ t our friend .
When it comes to the Second Amendment , it ’ s best to view the mainstream media and all those who try to emulate it as hostile to our goals .
After all , they don ’ t think you or I should be allowed to have guns .
With the protests that have raged off and on for months throughout much of the United States , the media has been anything but hostile , though .
They ’ ve supported the protests and even covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ mostly peaceful protests.
” However , now some in the media want to take aim at guns at protests .
In 2020 , Americans bought guns in record numbers .
They also brought them to Black Lives Matter protests , adding a menacing element to increasingly tense confrontations between protesters , counterprotesters , and cops .
These guns are not just for show ; an analysis by VICE News shows there have been at least 70 incidents involving guns since George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis in late May , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those incidents left 22 people dead .
It ’ s important to note that of the 10,600 demonstrations in the U.S. tallied by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project , 96 % were peaceful .
But the presence of guns at protests has raised the stakes , and shooting deaths only tell part of the story .
In addition to deaths by gunfire , VICE News ’ analysis also tallied incidents of “ brandishing , ” where someone threatens by pointing a gun ; random shots fired ; shootings ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that killed .
Of course , that “ 96 percent peaceful ” thing always annoys me .
Why ?
Well , because if that number is accurate , it betrays a bit of outright hypocrisy on the part of leftists .
See , the flip side to “ 96 percent peaceful ” is that four percent of protests aren ’ t .
You know what else is around four percent ?
The crude worldwide mortality rate for COVID-19 , according to the World Health Organization .
The WHO admits the actual mortality rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same people who shrug off four percent of protests being violent will scream bloody murder at you if you leave your house without a mask despite the rates being the same .
Our data collection focused primarily on incidents of gun violence that were linked to a protest .
We compiled incidents from social media , local news reports , and police reports .
Researcher Alexander Reid Ross , a lecturer at Portland State University and author of “ Against the Fascist Creep , ” also contributed data .
Here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since George Floyd was killed on May 25 , according to our analysis : • Incidents where Black Lives Matter protesters were threatened , shot at , or killed : 33 • Incidents where counterprotesters were threatened , shot at , or killed : 12 We also looked at who ’ s being targeted by shootings or threatened with gun violence , where it was possible to discern .
Of the 26 incidents of brandishing weapons , for example , 21 were targeting Black Lives Matter protesters .
This includes Patricia and Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who threatened protesters from the lawn of their mansion ( they were later invited to speak at the RNC ) , as well as an incident in Portland , where Proud Boy supporter Alan Swinney pointed a gun at protesters .
So , let ’ s break these numbers down for a bit .
Out of 70 total “ gun incidents , ” less than half were directed toward BLM protestors .
Not less by much , granted , but less than half .
It also seems clear they ’ re including cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that didn ’ t involve firearms , like Swinney ’ s .
Likely , it includes Kyle Rittenhouse as well .
So , if you account for that , the numbers drop even lower than that original “ less than half.
” Meanwhile , that leaves more than half of all so-called gun violence at protests being from BLM protestors .
“ Oh , but they said only 12 counterprotesters were threatened , shot , or killed , ” someone might counter , and sure .
That ’ s what they say and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count at face value .
However , all that means is that these “ protestors ” aren ’ t interested in limiting their violent acts toward people who are counter protesting .
There have been reports of people being shot and killed by fellow protestors , for example , which would likely screw these numbers way the hell up .
There have been innocent people simply trying to protect their businesses who have been shot and killed .
Frankly , there ’ s been a lot of violence , but while Vice is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s worth noting that the burning of buildings and throwing incendiary devices is violence as well .
There ’ s little mention of how much of that has played into the “ gun violence.
” See , Vice falls into a typical trap of believing all uses of a gun are somehow equal .
They start by talking about an armed protestor who was shot , but they fail to note that he pointed his gun at an armed citizen who didn ’ t take kindly to threats .
This is , unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Self-defense is merely relegated to the ranks of “ gun violence ” when it serves a media complicit in the lawlessness that has gripped our nation .
As I said before , they ’ re not just ignoring the truth on guns and gun rights , they ’ re outright hostile to those rights .

I’ve said before that the media isn’t our friend. When it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s best to view the mainstream media and all those who try to emulate it as hostile to our goals.
After all, they don’t think you or I should be allowed to have guns.
With the protests that have raged off and on for months throughout much of the United States, the media has been anything but hostile, though. They’ve supported the protests and even covered for the outright riots by calling them “mostly peaceful protests.”
However, now some in the media want to take aim at guns at protests.
In 2020, Americans bought guns in record numbers. They also brought them to Black Lives Matter protests, adding a menacing element to increasingly tense confrontations between protesters, counterprotesters, and cops. These guns are not just for show; an analysis by VICE News shows there have been at least 70 incidents involving guns since George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis in late May, sparking protests across the country. 21 of those incidents left 22 people dead. It’s important to note that of the 10,600 demonstrations in the U.S. tallied by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, 96% were peaceful. But the presence of guns at protests has raised the stakes, and shooting deaths only tell part of the story. In addition to deaths by gunfire, VICE News’ analysis also tallied incidents of “brandishing,” where someone threatens by pointing a gun; random shots fired; shootings; shootings that caused injury; and shootings that killed.
Of course, that “96 percent peaceful” thing always annoys me. Why? Well, because if that number is accurate, it betrays a bit of outright hypocrisy on the part of leftists.
See, the flip side to “96 percent peaceful” is that four percent of protests aren’t. You know what else is around four percent? The crude worldwide mortality rate for COVID-19, according to the World Health Organization. The WHO admits the actual mortality rate will be lower, though, yet the same people who shrug off four percent of protests being violent will scream bloody murder at you if you leave your house without a mask despite the rates being the same.
Anyway, moving on…
Our data collection focused primarily on incidents of gun violence that were linked to a protest. We compiled incidents from social media, local news reports, and police reports. Researcher Alexander Reid Ross, a lecturer at Portland State University and author of “Against the Fascist Creep,” also contributed data. Here are some key data points on shootings at protests since George Floyd was killed on May 25, according to our analysis: Total gun incidents: 70
Deaths due to gun violence at Black Lives Matter protests: 22
Shootings that resulted in non-fatal injuries: 14
Times guns were brandished in a threatening manner: 26
Incidents where Black Lives Matter protesters were threatened, shot at, or killed: 33
Incidents where counterprotesters were threatened, shot at, or killed: 12 We also looked at who’s being targeted by shootings or threatened with gun violence, where it was possible to discern. Of the 26 incidents of brandishing weapons, for example, 21 were targeting Black Lives Matter protesters. This includes Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the wealthy St. Louis couple who threatened protesters from the lawn of their mansion (they were later invited to speak at the RNC), as well as an incident in Portland, where Proud Boy supporter Alan Swinney pointed a gun at protesters.
So, let’s break these numbers down for a bit.
Out of 70 total “gun incidents,” less than half were directed toward BLM protestors. Not less by much, granted, but less than half. It also seems clear they’re including cases of self-defense like the McCloskeys or cases that didn’t involve firearms, like Swinney’s. Likely, it includes Kyle Rittenhouse as well.
So, if you account for that, the numbers drop even lower than that original “less than half.”
Meanwhile, that leaves more than half of all so-called gun violence at protests being from BLM protestors.
“Oh, but they said only 12 counterprotesters were threatened, shot, or killed,” someone might counter, and sure. That’s what they say and I’m going to take their count at face value.
However, all that means is that these “protestors” aren’t interested in limiting their violent acts toward people who are counter protesting. There have been reports of people being shot and killed by fellow protestors, for example, which would likely screw these numbers way the hell up. There have been innocent people simply trying to protect their businesses who have been shot and killed.
Frankly, there’s been a lot of violence, but while Vice is focused on gun violence, it’s worth noting that the burning of buildings and throwing incendiary devices is violence as well. There’s little mention of how much of that has played into the “gun violence.”
See, Vice falls into a typical trap of believing all uses of a gun are somehow equal. They start by talking about an armed protestor who was shot, but they fail to note that he pointed his gun at an armed citizen who didn’t take kindly to threats.
This is, unfortunately, the world we live in. Self-defense is merely relegated to the ranks of “gun violence” when it serves a media complicit in the lawlessness that has gripped our nation. As I said before, they’re not just ignoring the truth on guns and gun rights, they’re outright hostile to those rights.
It’s past time we start remembering that.


bearingarms--2020-10-03--Slain Parkland Student Urges Gun Control In New Ad

If Joaquin Oliver was alive , he would be getting ready to cast the first vote of his life next month .
Instead , Oliver ’ s parents have created an avatar of their son to promote a pro-gun control message ahead of the November elections .
Oliver was one of 17 people killed in the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida on February 14th , 2018 , and in the years since , Manuel and Patricia Oliver have been advocating for new gun laws that they say would have prevented the attack and kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad , a digitally recreated avatar of Oliver stands on a basketball court in the early evening twilight and encourages young voters to cast their vote for candidates who will back the kind of gun control laws that his parents are demanding .
“ I ’ ve been gone for two years and nothing has changed , bro .
People are still getting killed by guns .
What is that ?
Everyone knows it but they don ’ t do anything .
I am tired of waiting for someone to fix it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose the kind of world that I wanted to live in .
So you ’ ve got to replace my vote , ” Joaquin says in the video .
“ Vote for politicians who care more about people ’ s lives than the gun lobby ’ s money .
Vote for people not getting shot , bro.
” The Oliver ’ s started a gun control organization called “ Change The Ref ” after their son ’ s murder , which ( according to the group ’ s website ) is dedicated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic interventions that will reduce the influence of the NRA on the Federal level.
” Change The Ref doesn ’ t seem to be advocating for any specific gun control law , but instead is hoping to elect pro-gun control candidates by encouraging young Americans to register to vote .
Unfortunately , the accused killer in the Parkland attack was empowered , not by the NRA and “ corrupt politicians , ” but by the failures of then-Broward C0unty Sheriff Scott Israel and officials in the Broward County schools , who , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored warning signs and refused to take action in the months before the attack and even while the shooting was taking place .
Even before the attack , the suspect ( whose name I won ’ t use ) was the subject of dozens of calls to police between 2008 and 2017 .
Two years before the shooting , an anonymous tipster warned the sheriff ’ s office that the teen had threatened to shoot up the school , and in September of 2016 two school counselors and a school resource officer recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluation , which never happened .
In January of 2018 , the FBI also received a call to its tip line identifying the student and providing information about his “ desire to kill people , erratic behavior , and disturbing social media posts , as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.
” The information was never referred to the Miami field office of the FBI , and another opportunity to stop the suspect before the attack was wasted .
I understand the Oliver ’ s grief and anger over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get the idea of wanting to use his life and tragic death to work to ensure that others don ’ t have to deal with the same pain and anguish that they experience every day .
The truth is , though , that it wasn ’ t the NRA , the Second Amendment , or pro-2A politicians who robbed Joaquin Oliver and 16 others of their lives .
It was a disturbed young man who had raised many red flags that were ignored by bureaucrats , school officials , law enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was preventable , but not through gun control .
Instead , multiple human beings failed to follow procedures and use existing laws to deal with the suspect before he walked on to campus on Valentine ’ s Day with murder on his mind and evil in his heart .

If Joaquin Oliver was alive, he would be getting ready to cast the first vote of his life next month. Instead, Oliver’s parents have created an avatar of their son to promote a pro-gun control message ahead of the November elections. Oliver was one of 17 people killed in the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14th, 2018, and in the years since, Manuel and Patricia Oliver have been advocating for new gun laws that they say would have prevented the attack and kept their son alive.
In the new ad, a digitally recreated avatar of Oliver stands on a basketball court in the early evening twilight and encourages young voters to cast their vote for candidates who will back the kind of gun control laws that his parents are demanding.
In 2018, Joaquin Oliver was shot and killed in the Parkland school shooting.
His parents used AI to bring him back to tell people how voting can prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening to any more families.https://t.co/BpK4zZkkbi pic.twitter.com/4Zj70f7Oid — Change the Ref (@ChangeTheRef) October 2, 2020
“I’ve been gone for two years and nothing has changed, bro. People are still getting killed by guns. What is that? Everyone knows it but they don’t do anything. I am tired of waiting for someone to fix it.” “I’ll never get to choose the kind of world that I wanted to live in. So you’ve got to replace my vote,” Joaquin says in the video. “Vote for politicians who care more about people’s lives than the gun lobby’s money. Vote for people not getting shot, bro.”
The Oliver’s started a gun control organization called “Change The Ref” after their son’s murder, which (according to the group’s website) is dedicated to raising “awareness about mass shootings through strategic interventions that will reduce the influence of the NRA on the Federal level.” Change The Ref doesn’t seem to be advocating for any specific gun control law, but instead is hoping to elect pro-gun control candidates by encouraging young Americans to register to vote.
Unfortunately, the accused killer in the Parkland attack was empowered, not by the NRA and “corrupt politicians,” but by the failures of then-Broward C0unty Sheriff Scott Israel and officials in the Broward County schools, who, as the Sun-Sentinel newspaper has reported, repeatedly ignored warning signs and refused to take action in the months before the attack and even while the shooting was taking place.
The newspaper report says that a series of blunders, bad policies, sketchy training and poor leadership enabled a gunman to shoot 17 people to death at the high school on Feb. 14, 2018. The attack at the campus lasted 58 minutes and the Sun Sentinel’s investigation concludes that it was marked by no one taking charge, deputies dawdling, false information spreading, communications paralyzed and children stranded with nowhere to hide.
Even before the attack, the suspect (whose name I won’t use) was the subject of dozens of calls to police between 2008 and 2017. Two years before the shooting, an anonymous tipster warned the sheriff’s office that the teen had threatened to shoot up the school, and in September of 2016 two school counselors and a school resource officer recommended that he be committed for a mental evaluation, which never happened. In January of 2018, the FBI also received a call to its tip line identifying the student and providing information about his “desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”
The information was never referred to the Miami field office of the FBI, and another opportunity to stop the suspect before the attack was wasted.
I understand the Oliver’s grief and anger over their son’s murder, and I get the idea of wanting to use his life and tragic death to work to ensure that others don’t have to deal with the same pain and anguish that they experience every day. The truth is, though, that it wasn’t the NRA, the Second Amendment, or pro-2A politicians who robbed Joaquin Oliver and 16 others of their lives. It was a disturbed young man who had raised many red flags that were ignored by bureaucrats, school officials, law enforcement, and those closest to him. The attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was preventable, but not through gun control. Instead, multiple human beings failed to follow procedures and use existing laws to deal with the suspect before he walked on to campus on Valentine’s Day with murder on his mind and evil in his heart.