bearingarms--2020-10-07--The Key Takeaways From The McSally/Kelly Senate Debate

It ’ s not often that the co-founder of a major gun control organization actually engages in a debate , but Giffords co-founder Mark Kelly did just that on Tuesday night , squaring off with Arizona Senator Martha McSally in the sole televised debate between the two senatorial candidates before Election Day .
Unfortunately for Second Amendment supporters and Republicans in Arizona , McSally left a lot on the table when challenging Kelly over his views on gun control , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we breakdown the missed opportunities and unasked questions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat posed by Kelly ’ s anti-gun agenda .
McSally presented herself as a “ Second Amendment Senator ” , which is great , but Mark Kelly portrayed himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment as well , and McSally failed to tell voters exactly what his so-called support really looks like .
McSally said the background check system for guns doesn ’ t work as it should .
She also pointed to her support of the Fix NICS Act , which was a federal law in 2017 that applies penalties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Instant Criminal Background Check System .
“ We ’ ve had shootings where people should ’ ve been in the system , but instead they passed a background check ” McSally said .
Meanwhile , Kelly said there are common sense gun laws that can allow Americans to keep their rights but also ensure guns don ’ t wind up in the wrong hands .
“ These are common sense things that most Arizonans support , ” Kelly said… “ I ’ m a supporter of the Second Amendment , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly said .
“ Our rights and traditions are so important .
The Second Amendment is so important , but we can never let a bunch of kids in the classroom get killed and think there ’ s nothing we can do about it.
” As the co-founder of the gun control group that bears his wife ’ s name , Mark Kelly has a record in support of all kinds of ridiculous gun control laws , but McSally used his ties to the Giffords gun control organization as a way to attach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than delving into the policies that Giffords has been advocating for .
McSally sought to cast Kelly as operating an organization that supported liberal Democrats such as Omar , which generated blowback from Kelly .
“ The organization that Sen. McSally is referring to is named after my wife , Gabby , ( former Rep. ) Gabby Giffords , it ’ s named Giffords .
Gabby was injured , shot in the head , in 2011 .
The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me , ” Kelly said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t care about the congresswoman from Minnesota , and I suspect that trying to tie Kelly to Omar likely fell flat as an attack on the Democratic candidate .
A much more effective approach would have been to acknowledge the personal stakes for Mark Kelly in pushing gun control , while pointing out that Kelly ’ s gun control group is out of step with most Arizonans .
For instance , earlier this year Giffords gave California ’ s gun control laws an “ A ” rating , while giving Arizona a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have followed up with something like , “ Mark Kelly may love California ’ s gun control laws , but we here in Arizona feel differently .
In fact , many of you probably know someone who left California and moved here because of how screwy their laws are .
If Mark Kelly wants to live in a place with 10-day waiting periods on gun purchases , criminalizes the possession of semi-automatic rifles and 20-round magazines , and has a concealed carry process that allows local sheriffs to deprive almost everyone except for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , he should move there instead of trying to impose California ’ s gun control laws on every gun owner in Arizona and the rest of America.
” Unfortunately , McSally didn ’ t spell out for Arizona gun owners just what ’ s at stake with the election , nor did she deliver specifics about Kelly ’ s backing of draconian gun control proposals that would turn the right to keep and bear arms from a right of the people into a privilege for a chosen few .
I wish she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on Kelly ’ s anti-gun agenda , but unfortunately she failed to deliver a knockout blow against her opponent .

It’s not often that the co-founder of a major gun control organization actually engages in a debate, but Giffords co-founder Mark Kelly did just that on Tuesday night, squaring off with Arizona Senator Martha McSally in the sole televised debate between the two senatorial candidates before Election Day.
Unfortunately for Second Amendment supporters and Republicans in Arizona, McSally left a lot on the table when challenging Kelly over his views on gun control, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we breakdown the missed opportunities and unasked questions that could have brought home to voters the threat posed by Kelly’s anti-gun agenda.
McSally presented herself as a “Second Amendment Senator”, which is great, but Mark Kelly portrayed himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment as well, and McSally failed to tell voters exactly what his so-called support really looks like.
McSally said the background check system for guns doesn’t work as it should. She also pointed to her support of the Fix NICS Act, which was a federal law in 2017 that applies penalties to government agencies for not reporting criminal to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. “We’ve had shootings where people should’ve been in the system, but instead they passed a background check” McSally said. Meanwhile, Kelly said there are common sense gun laws that can allow Americans to keep their rights but also ensure guns don’t wind up in the wrong hands. “These are common sense things that most Arizonans support,” Kelly said… “I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment, I’m a gun owner,” Kelly said. “Our rights and traditions are so important. The Second Amendment is so important, but we can never let a bunch of kids in the classroom get killed and think there’s nothing we can do about it.”
I don’t know anyone, gun owner or not, who thinks that nothing can be done to keep kids safe at school. In fact, McSally herself talked about increasing funding for school safety. The difference between Mark Kelly and Martha McSally is that Mark Kelly believes that the way to increased safety lies with cracking down on legal gun owners in the hopes of stopping a criminal, while McSally supports increasing security for kids at school.
As the co-founder of the gun control group that bears his wife’s name, Mark Kelly has a record in support of all kinds of ridiculous gun control laws, but McSally used his ties to the Giffords gun control organization as a way to attach him to far-Left Democrats like Ilhan Omar rather than delving into the policies that Giffords has been advocating for. McSally sought to cast Kelly as operating an organization that supported liberal Democrats such as Omar, which generated blowback from Kelly. “The organization that Sen. McSally is referring to is named after my wife, Gabby, (former Rep.) Gabby Giffords, it’s named Giffords. Gabby was injured, shot in the head, in 2011. The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me,” Kelly said. Most voters in Arizona don’t care about the congresswoman from Minnesota, and I suspect that trying to tie Kelly to Omar likely fell flat as an attack on the Democratic candidate. A much more effective approach would have been to acknowledge the personal stakes for Mark Kelly in pushing gun control, while pointing out that Kelly’s gun control group is out of step with most Arizonans. For instance, earlier this year Giffords gave California’s gun control laws an “A” rating , while giving Arizona a big fat “F”.
McSally could have followed up with something like, “Mark Kelly may love California’s gun control laws, but we here in Arizona feel differently. In fact, many of you probably know someone who left California and moved here because of how screwy their laws are. If Mark Kelly wants to live in a place with 10-day waiting periods on gun purchases, criminalizes the possession of semi-automatic rifles and 20-round magazines, and has a concealed carry process that allows local sheriffs to deprive almost everyone except for campaign donors of their right to bear arms, he should move there instead of trying to impose California’s gun control laws on every gun owner in Arizona and the rest of America.”
Unfortunately, McSally didn’t spell out for Arizona gun owners just what’s at stake with the election, nor did she deliver specifics about Kelly’s backing of draconian gun control proposals that would turn the right to keep and bear arms from a right of the people into a privilege for a chosen few. I wish she’d been more effective in pushing back on Kelly’s anti-gun agenda, but unfortunately she failed to deliver a knockout blow against her opponent.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--Op-Ed Addresses Fight To Arm Teachers

Op-Ed Addresses Fight To Arm Teachers

School shootings are something no parent really wants to consider .
Even after we ’ ve seen them over and over again , we don ’ t want to consider them .
The idea that we can send our child off to school one day and them not come home is a devastating fact of life , but to lose that child to such a senseless act of merciless violence is more than many of us can bear .
However , we also know that there are solutions and that gun control ain ’ t one of them .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential solution : For the record , I graduated in 1992 and I can confirm this .
Rifles and shotguns were normal in the parking lot of my school since many of my classmates went hunting right before school .
And no , not a single person was ever shot on our campus .
What has changed since 1991 ?
Kids are not taught about morals and God like we were when I was young .
Parents are not allowed to actually discipline their children like my parents did when I was young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Mike Tyson ’ s Punch Out and Mortal Combat , but extreme violence was not glorified and marketed to children back when I was a kid like it is today .
Kids were not diagnosed with any number of mental issues and prescribed drugs at the drop of a hat for it either .
Kids were disciplined and held accountable for their actions .
Some Montanans seem to think that if we pass more gun control regulations , mass public shootings will stop ( Shannon Kinsella Thomas online-only guest column , Sept. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for giving in to the NRA .
But even many European countries with extremely strict gun control laws , such as Russia , Finland and Norway , have much higher per capita rates of these attacks than we do .
But there is a different approach .
20 states , including some parts of Montana , currently allow teachers and staff to carry concealed guns to varying degrees on school property , so we don ’ t need to guess about how safe these schools are .
Some states have had these rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only California and Rhode Island have moved to be more restrictive .
The Crime Prevention Research Center , of which I am the executive director , looked at all the school shootings of any type in the United States from 2000 through 2018 .
And yes , arming teachers is a vital step .
Let ’ s not pretend it will end the threat forever , but it is one of the best ways we have to change the landscape of school shootings .
They ’ ll continue , but rather than 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have stories about how a shooter fired several rounds before the math teacher put three round center mass of the shooter ’ s torso .
No , the shootings won ’ t vanish overnight , but once school shooters get killed before they can rack up a body count , many will start looking elsewhere to achieve their infamy .
All because teachers are allowed to defend their own lives and thus , by extension , will defend the lives of others .
The author of this piece is well acquainted with not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goeser was disarmed by law when her stalker murdered her husband right in front of her .
She was in a gun-free zone , but the killer wasn ’ t deterred by that , just like school shooters aren ’ t deterred by laws forbidding them from taking guns on campuses .
As a result , I agree with Goeser .
Let teachers arm themselves and watch the problem get sorted out in short order .

School shootings are something no parent really wants to consider. Even after we’ve seen them over and over again, we don’t want to consider them. The idea that we can send our child off to school one day and them not come home is a devastating fact of life, but to lose that child to such a senseless act of merciless violence is more than many of us can bear.
However, we also know that there are solutions and that gun control ain’t one of them.
An op-ed at the Missoulian points out one potential solution:
started high school back in 1991, before “active shooter” drills for students and teachers existed. Never did I imagine that we as a society would have to deal with such evil in the world and our schools would be left completely defenseless to stop that evil. Back then, some teenagers actually went to high school with a shotgun or rifle in their vehicle because they had been hunting in the morning before classes started. Kids were not shooting up schools back then.
For the record, I graduated in 1992 and I can confirm this. Rifles and shotguns were normal in the parking lot of my school since many of my classmates went hunting right before school.
And no, not a single person was ever shot on our campus.
What has changed since 1991? Kids are not taught about morals and God like we were when I was young. Parents are not allowed to actually discipline their children like my parents did when I was young. Sure, we had Nintendo games like Mike Tyson’s Punch Out and Mortal Combat, but extreme violence was not glorified and marketed to children back when I was a kid like it is today. Kids were not diagnosed with any number of mental issues and prescribed drugs at the drop of a hat for it either. Kids were disciplined and held accountable for their actions. Some Montanans seem to think that if we pass more gun control regulations, mass public shootings will stop ( Shannon Kinsella Thomas online-only guest column, Sept. 2 ). They blame Republican politicians for giving in to the NRA. But even many European countries with extremely strict gun control laws, such as Russia, Finland and Norway, have much higher per capita rates of these attacks than we do. But there is a different approach. 20 states, including some parts of Montana, currently allow teachers and staff to carry concealed guns to varying degrees on school property, so we don’t need to guess about how safe these schools are. Some states have had these rules for decades. In recent decades, only California and Rhode Island have moved to be more restrictive. The Crime Prevention Research Center, of which I am the executive director, looked at all the school shootings of any type in the United States from 2000 through 2018.
And yes, arming teachers is a vital step.
Let’s not pretend it will end the threat forever, but it is one of the best ways we have to change the landscape of school shootings. They’ll continue, but rather than 27 children being shot, we’ll have stories about how a shooter fired several rounds before the math teacher put three round center mass of the shooter’s torso.
No, the shootings won’t vanish overnight, but once school shooters get killed before they can rack up a body count, many will start looking elsewhere to achieve their infamy.
All because teachers are allowed to defend their own lives and thus, by extension, will defend the lives of others.
The author of this piece is well acquainted with not being allowed to protect yourself. Nikki Goeser was disarmed by law when her stalker murdered her husband right in front of her. She was in a gun-free zone, but the killer wasn’t deterred by that, just like school shooters aren’t deterred by laws forbidding them from taking guns on campuses.
As a result, I agree with Goeser. Let teachers arm themselves and watch the problem get sorted out in short order.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--Three 2A Questions Mike Pence Should Ask Kamala Harris

Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic VP candidate Kamala Harris will square off in the sole vice-presidential debate at 9 p.m. Eastern this evening in Salt Lake City , and while gun control and the Second Amendment didn ’ t come up during the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden , the issue can and should be brought up by Mike Pence at every given opportunity .
As I pointed out earlier today , a new Gallup poll shows that Republicans have an edge when it comes to both gun policy and crime , at least in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mike Pence can target Republican leaners by bringing up the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda during the debate , and he can expose Harris ’ true position on the Second Amendment with just a few simple questions .
Can you give me an example of a gun control law that you believe would violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ?
Harris has exhibited a hostility towards the Second Amendment throughout her time in office , even signing on to an amicus brief back in 2008 when the Supreme Court was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ban on handguns that argued overturning the ban would “ create ” a right to keep and bear arms .
Since then , Harris has repeatedly said that the Second Amendment isn ’ t an impediment to bans on commonly-owned firearms and magazines and other gun control laws , but she ’ s never said what , in her mind , the Second Amendment actually protects .
Pence could demonstrate that the Biden/Harris campaign doesn ’ t believe that any gun control law would infringe on the right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right as “ limited ” ( limited to what , exactly , they haven ’ t said ) .
You ’ re calling for a ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines , demanding that Americans either hand them over to the government or pay huge fees to maintain possession of the arms they currently own .
How would you enforce compliance with your ban , and what would the Biden/Harris administration do to those otherwise law-abiding gun owners who don ’ t abide by your confiscation and registration scheme ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite a bit about reducing the prison population , yet they want to make it a federal crime to continue to possess an AR-15 or a 20-round magazine without registering them under the National Firearms Act .
Under federal law , possession of an unregistered NFA item is punishable by up to ten years in a federal prison as well as a $ 250,000 fine .
Given that “ large capacity ” magazines likely make up more than half of all of the ammunition magazines owned by American gun owners , the Biden/Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans into potential felons for the non-violent offense of refusing to register the guns and magazines they legally own .
Rather than depopulating prisons , the Biden/Harris plan could see prisons filled with non-violent offenders if their administration strictly enforces their own laws .
You want to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and allow firearm manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products .
Do you also believe that Ford and other automakers should be sued when someone drives drunk or steals a car and uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The Biden/Harris campaign talks about “ accountability ” for firearm manufacturers , but what they really want is to make them culpable for any crime in which a gun is used .
Even if a firearm that was lawfully purchased a decade ago is stolen from a home and subsequently used in a carjacking or home invasion , the Biden/Harris administration would allow and encourage litigation against the original manufacturer of the gun .
It ’ s a legal strategy designed to bankrupt the industry and cripple the ability of Americans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , competition , hunting , and other protected activities .
I have no doubt that if these questions were posed to Harris , she ’ d try to weasel her way out of providing straight answers to both Mike Pence and the audience watching the debate .
Let her squirm .
The simple fact of the matter is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris aren ’ t promising “ common sense gun safety regulations ” if they ’ re elected ; they ’ re promising to gut the Second Amendment ’ s protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms .

Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic VP candidate Kamala Harris will square off in the sole vice-presidential debate at 9 p.m. Eastern this evening in Salt Lake City, and while gun control and the Second Amendment didn’t come up during the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the issue can and should be brought up by Mike Pence at every given opportunity.
As I pointed out earlier today, a new Gallup poll shows that Republicans have an edge when it comes to both gun policy and crime, at least in terms of voter interest in the issues. Mike Pence can target Republican leaners by bringing up the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda during the debate, and he can expose Harris’ true position on the Second Amendment with just a few simple questions.
Can you give me an example of a gun control law that you believe would violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
Harris has exhibited a hostility towards the Second Amendment throughout her time in office, even signing on to an amicus brief back in 2008 when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns that argued overturning the ban would “create” a right to keep and bear arms. Since then, Harris has repeatedly said that the Second Amendment isn’t an impediment to bans on commonly-owned firearms and magazines and other gun control laws, but she’s never said what, in her mind, the Second Amendment actually protects. Pence could demonstrate that the Biden/Harris campaign doesn’t believe that any gun control law would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because they view the right as “limited” (limited to what, exactly, they haven’t said).
You’re calling for a ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, demanding that Americans either hand them over to the government or pay huge fees to maintain possession of the arms they currently own. How would you enforce compliance with your ban, and what would the Biden/Harris administration do to those otherwise law-abiding gun owners who don’t abide by your confiscation and registration scheme?
Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have talked quite a bit about reducing the prison population, yet they want to make it a federal crime to continue to possess an AR-15 or a 20-round magazine without registering them under the National Firearms Act. Under federal law, possession of an unregistered NFA item is punishable by up to ten years in a federal prison as well as a $250,000 fine. Given that “large capacity” magazines likely make up more than half of all of the ammunition magazines owned by American gun owners, the Biden/Harris plan could turn tens of millions of Americans into potential felons for the non-violent offense of refusing to register the guns and magazines they legally own. Rather than depopulating prisons, the Biden/Harris plan could see prisons filled with non-violent offenders if their administration strictly enforces their own laws.
You want to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and allow firearm manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products. Do you also believe that Ford and other automakers should be sued when someone drives drunk or steals a car and uses it in the commission of a crime?
The Biden/Harris campaign talks about “accountability” for firearm manufacturers, but what they really want is to make them culpable for any crime in which a gun is used. Even if a firearm that was lawfully purchased a decade ago is stolen from a home and subsequently used in a carjacking or home invasion, the Biden/Harris administration would allow and encourage litigation against the original manufacturer of the gun. It’s a legal strategy designed to bankrupt the industry and cripple the ability of Americans to lawfully purchase and possess firearms for self-defense, competition, hunting, and other protected activities.
I have no doubt that if these questions were posed to Harris, she’d try to weasel her way out of providing straight answers to both Mike Pence and the audience watching the debate. Let her squirm. The simple fact of the matter is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris aren’t promising “common sense gun safety regulations” if they’re elected; they’re promising to gut the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--GOA Files Lawsuit Over Philly Gun Permit Backlog

Inherent in the “ right to keep and bear arms ” is that individuals have a right to carry a gun .
You know , that whole “ bear arms ” thing .
However , as a society , we somehow decided that people could only carry a firearm legally in many places if they obtained permission from the government .
Now , this was stupid , in my not-so-humble opinion , but it ’ s the law .
Because it ’ s the law , it ’ s imperative that the government make every effort to provide those required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people ’ s rights are being denied .
It seems the Gun Owners of America agree , which is why they ’ re using the courts to try and pressure the city of Philadelphia to cut down the permit delays .
A gun-rights group accused the Philadelphia Police Department of illegally forcing residents to wait up to 18 months to apply for a gun-carry permit in a lawsuit .
Gun Owners of America ( GOA ) said the city has infringed on the rights of local residents by ignoring a Pennsylvania law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 45 days .
Val Finnel , the group ’ s Pennsylvania director , said the lengthy wait times actively harm locals who are seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
“ They ’ re essentially denying the right to defend yourself , ” Finnel told the Washington Free Beacon .
The GOA acknowledged the strain that Covid-19 had placed on government agencies , but said the delays—some stretching into 2022—were unprecedented in the region .
While some Pennsylvania cities and counties moved the permitting process online or through the mail to accommodate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities have made no attempt to abide by state law .
Finnel pointed to neighboring Bucks County , which has managed to process applications on a walk-in basis without any of the delays Philadelphia residents face .
“ If they say they can delay receiving the application , then they can delay it indefinitely , ” Finnel said .
“ Our argument is a right delayed is a right denied.
” And , to be sure , a right delayed truly is a right denied , even if only for a short period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a short period of time .
While many may be understanding of temporary delays brought about by a combination of surging interest in obtaining firearm permits and decreased manpower due to COVID , the truth is that such understanding is temporary at best .
At some point , a municipality has to find a way around those delays and step up their efforts .
Philadelphia is clearly not doing that , hence the lawsuit .
Frankly , it ’ s litigation that needs to happen .
While some have seen their application @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of other law-abiding citizens are forced to wait for up to two years just to have a chance to get a permit .
That ’ s beyond ridiculous .
Meanwhile , let ’ s remember that the criminals don ’ t undergo wait times before they start carrying a gun .
In other words , this puts law-abiding citizens at a distinct and profound disadvantage when compared to the bad guys who would like to do them harm .
Of course , the state of Pennsylvania could do something about this once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t see Governor Tom Wolf signing constitutional carry in his state .

Inherent in the “right to keep and bear arms” is that individuals have a right to carry a gun. You know, that whole “bear arms” thing. However, as a society, we somehow decided that people could only carry a firearm legally in many places if they obtained permission from the government. Now, this was stupid, in my not-so-humble opinion, but it’s the law.
Because it’s the law, it’s imperative that the government make every effort to provide those required permits in a timely manner, otherwise, people’s rights are being denied.
It seems the Gun Owners of America agree, which is why they’re using the courts to try and pressure the city of Philadelphia to cut down the permit delays.
A gun-rights group accused the Philadelphia Police Department of illegally forcing residents to wait up to 18 months to apply for a gun-carry permit in a lawsuit. Gun Owners of America (GOA) said the city has infringed on the rights of local residents by ignoring a Pennsylvania law that requires localities to process applications within 45 days. Val Finnel, the group’s Pennsylvania director, said the lengthy wait times actively harm locals who are seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. “They’re essentially denying the right to defend yourself,” Finnel told the Washington Free Beacon. The GOA acknowledged the strain that Covid-19 had placed on government agencies, but said the delays—some stretching into 2022—were unprecedented in the region. While some Pennsylvania cities and counties moved the permitting process online or through the mail to accommodate a surge in gun sales, Philadelphia authorities have made no attempt to abide by state law. Finnel pointed to neighboring Bucks County, which has managed to process applications on a walk-in basis without any of the delays Philadelphia residents face. “If they say they can delay receiving the application, then they can delay it indefinitely,” Finnel said. “Our argument is a right delayed is a right denied.”
And, to be sure, a right delayed truly is a right denied, even if only for a short period of time. Waiting until 2022 is not a short period of time.
While many may be understanding of temporary delays brought about by a combination of surging interest in obtaining firearm permits and decreased manpower due to COVID, the truth is that such understanding is temporary at best. At some point, a municipality has to find a way around those delays and step up their efforts.
Philadelphia is clearly not doing that, hence the lawsuit.
Frankly, it’s litigation that needs to happen. While some have seen their application process sped up after media attention, plenty of other law-abiding citizens are forced to wait for up to two years just to have a chance to get a permit. That’s beyond ridiculous.
Meanwhile, let’s remember that the criminals don’t undergo wait times before they start carrying a gun. In other words, this puts law-abiding citizens at a distinct and profound disadvantage when compared to the bad guys who would like to do them harm.
Of course, the state of Pennsylvania could do something about this once and for all, but I just don’t see Governor Tom Wolf signing constitutional carry in his state.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--Virginia AG: Gun Raffles Not Allowed For Candidates

Gun raffles are a no-no for political campaigns , according to a new opinion by the state ’ s Attorney General that takes issue with a popular activity for Republicans running for office in the state .
Democrat Mark Herring says that gun raffles benefitting political candidates likely violates the state ’ s anti-gambling statutes , which limit raffles and other fundraisers that involve games of chance to “ charitable organizations.
” The Virginia Mercury reports that several Republicans currently campaigning in the state have recently held gun raffles as part of their campaign activities , but Herring might want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules from the campaigns .
Corey Stewart , the former Prince William County board chairman , gave away an AR-15 as part of his 2017 run for governor .
Sen. Amanda Chase , R-Chesterfield , advertised a similar AR-15 giveaway this summer , promising to make the presentation onstage at an event with gun-loving rocker Ted Nugent .
Republican Bob Good , a former Liberty University athletics official running for Congress in Central Virginia ’ s sprawling 5th District , recently participated in a “ God , Guns and a Good Time Rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I took a look at the terms of Chase ’ s “ gun giveaway ” and learned that entrants didn ’ t need to actually make a campaign contribution in order to win the AR-15 .
Each contribution to the Chase for Governor campaign of the recommended donation amount of $ 10 on the official giveaway contribution page will warrant one entry into the gun giveaway starting July 10 , 2020 through 11:59PM on August 5 , 2020 .
Entries can be made without a contribution by signing up on the gun giveaway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -gun-giveaway-entry-form/ .
No donation is required for entry to win the giveaway .
Entry with or without a contribution has an equal chance of winning .
It looks like in Chase ’ s case , the giveaway isn ’ t actually a raffle at all , which is defined in Virginia law as “ a lottery in which the prize is won by ( i ) a random drawing of the name or prearranged number of one or more persons purchasing chances or ( ii ) a random contest in which the winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more persons purchasing chances is determined by a race involving inanimate objects floating on a body of water , commonly referred to as a ‘ duck race.
’ ” Yes , a $ 10 donation to the Chase campaign got you an entry into the giveaway , but no donation was actually necessary in order to take part in the contest , which in my un-lawyered opinion makes Chase ’ s campaign event something other than a raffle .
As for the raffle at the campaign rally for congressional candidate Bob Good , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t going towards his election efforts .
That particular campaign rally was organized by a group called the Virginia Freedom Caucus , which describes itself as ” a non-profit tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) of the Internal Revenue Code.
” According to the Virginia gambling statutes , organizations that operate “ exclusively for religious , charitable , community or educational purposes ” can hold raffles , as long as the money goes towards those same purposes .
If pro-2A candidates in Virginia are hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giveaway to drum up interest and support , I ’ d say they ’ re better off using the model provided by the Chase campaign , which doesn ’ t require any money to enter and doesn ’ t meet the definition of a “ raffle ” under state law ( of course , I ’ d also recommend getting an opinion from an actual attorney ) .
A “ gun giveaway ” might lead to more huffing and puffing on the part of the state ’ s anti-gun Attorney General , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with state statutes .

Gun raffles are a no-no for political campaigns, according to a new opinion by the state’s Attorney General that takes issue with a popular activity for Republicans running for office in the state. Democrat Mark Herring says that gun raffles benefitting political candidates likely violates the state’s anti-gambling statutes, which limit raffles and other fundraisers that involve games of chance to “charitable organizations.”
The Virginia Mercury reports that several Republicans currently campaigning in the state have recently held gun raffles as part of their campaign activities, but Herring might want to read the fine print regarding the rules from the campaigns.
Corey Stewart, the former Prince William County board chairman, gave away an AR-15 as part of his 2017 run for governor. Sen. Amanda Chase, R-Chesterfield, advertised a similar AR-15 giveaway this summer, promising to make the presentation onstage at an event with gun-loving rocker Ted Nugent. Republican Bob Good, a former Liberty University athletics official running for Congress in Central Virginia’s sprawling 5th District, recently participated in a “God, Guns and a Good Time Rally” that advertised an AR-15 giveaway.
I took a look at the terms of Chase’s “gun giveaway” and learned that entrants didn’t need to actually make a campaign contribution in order to win the AR-15.
Each contribution to the Chase for Governor campaign of the recommended donation amount of $10 on the official giveaway contribution page will warrant one entry into the gun giveaway starting July 10, 2020 through 11:59PM on August 5, 2020. Entries can be made without a contribution by signing up on the gun giveaway entry form at https://www.chaseforva.com/giveaway:-gun-giveaway-entry-form/. No donation is required for entry to win the giveaway. Entry with or without a contribution has an equal chance of winning.
It looks like in Chase’s case, the giveaway isn’t actually a raffle at all, which is defined in Virginia law as “a lottery in which the prize is won by (i) a random drawing of the name or prearranged number of one or more persons purchasing chances or (ii) a random contest in which the winning name or preassigned number of one or more persons purchasing chances is determined by a race involving inanimate objects floating on a body of water, commonly referred to as a ‘duck race.’”
Yes, a $10 donation to the Chase campaign got you an entry into the giveaway, but no donation was actually necessary in order to take part in the contest, which in my un-lawyered opinion makes Chase’s campaign event something other than a raffle.
As for the raffle at the campaign rally for congressional candidate Bob Good, his campaign says that the money raised wasn’t going towards his election efforts.
Multiple fliers for the event specifically highlight that all proceeds go towards Good’s campaign for Virginia’s 5th District Congressional seat. A similar listing on the Fluvanna County Republican Party’s website advertising the rally also lists Good as the sole beneficiary of the sweepstakes. However, the Good campaign denies that it will be receiving funds from the raffle. Good for Congress Campaign Senior Advisor Chris Shores said in a statement to NBC29 the campaign has not received, and will not receive any money from the event. Shores says the campaign did not know the raffle was being advertised as going towards them, emphasizing that the campaign “did not host, plan or promote the event,” and in fact they were only invited to it.
That particular campaign rally was organized by a group called the Virginia Freedom Caucus, which describes itself as ” a non-profit tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.” According to the Virginia gambling statutes, organizations that operate “exclusively for religious, charitable, community or educational purposes” can hold raffles, as long as the money goes towards those same purposes.
If pro-2A candidates in Virginia are hoping to use the power of a gun giveaway to drum up interest and support, I’d say they’re better off using the model provided by the Chase campaign, which doesn’t require any money to enter and doesn’t meet the definition of a “raffle” under state law (of course, I’d also recommend getting an opinion from an actual attorney). A “gun giveaway” might lead to more huffing and puffing on the part of the state’s anti-gun Attorney General, but it would appear to be in compliance with state statutes.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--How Biden's Anti-Gun Policies Go Beyond Buying AR-15s

Anti-gunners often pretend they actually support the Second Amendment , they just think it needs some tweaking or something .
Oh , most will tell you all about how they don ’ t want to ban guns or anything of the sort .
They simply want to enact what they call “ common sense ” regulations .
And yet , they all rally around Joe Biden .
The problem , of course , is that Biden has no interest in just a few reforms he think will stop crime .
He wants to completely disrupt your ability to use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe me ?
The NRA has collected the words from the man himself .
If that sounds far-fetched , here is a direct quote from the so-called “ BIDEN PLAN TO END OUR GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC ” : “ Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms , ammunition , kits , and gun parts.
” Those are his words , not ours .
“ [ A ] ll ” online sales of – not just functional firearms or ammunition or even build kits – but “ gun parts ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
We all know that experienced gun owners like to customize their firearms to their personal preferences and anatomy .
We also know that certain high-wear parts will eventually need to be replaced by anyone keeping up his or her skills with regular range practice .
What is so threatening about the purchase of innocuous and commonplace parts like sights , grips , triggers , handguards , firing pins , choke tubes , plus any number of springs , screws , bushings , or other utilitarian hardware that it has to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun owner living in rural Alaska , Montana , or Wyoming who just wants to replace the stock grip panels on a revolver so it better fits his hand or to add night sights to a self-defense pistol or to change the spread of a shotgun with a new choke .
Any of these usually simple operations could necessitate an hours-long round trip to the nearest gun store if Biden has his way .
Also note that ammunition is up for tighter regulations , and that problem should be clear to anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lately .
Ammunition is scarce right now , which means people looking to keep their skills sharp are having to look high and low for the ammo they need .
That means looking online and buying what they can find .
With Biden ’ s plan , though , that won ’ t be possible .
Now , let ’ s think about the millions of new gun owners who may be shopping for ammunition right now , only to find it online .
Then they learn that Biden wants to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammunition they need in order to protect themselves and their families Biden may not be in his right mind , but certainly we can all agree that his Second Amendment policy is anything but support for the right to keep and bear arms .
Instead , he ’ s outright hostile to your rights .
He wants to make it virtually impossible for you to do any work yourself or even buy ammo in enough bulk to train yourself .
After all , a lot of firearm courses require 1,000 rounds of ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , but my local gun stores almost never have that kind of stock just sitting around waiting for me to walk in and buy it .
I ’ ve had to get it online .
I know some stores do carry that kind of inventory , but a lot don ’ t .
While anti-gunners routinely argue that armed citizens aren ’ t trained well enough to handle certain situations , they also seem to be lining up behind a man who wants to make it even harder for any of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , isn ’ t our training level .
It never was .
That was just an excuse .
At the end of the day , then want to break us upon the rocks until there ’ s no Second Amendment left to defend .

Anti-gunners often pretend they actually support the Second Amendment, they just think it needs some tweaking or something. Oh, most will tell you all about how they don’t want to ban guns or anything of the sort. They simply want to enact what they call “common sense” regulations.
And yet, they all rally around Joe Biden.
The problem, of course, is that Biden has no interest in just a few reforms he think will stop crime. He wants to completely disrupt your ability to use and maintain your firearm.
Don’t believe me? The NRA has collected the words from the man himself.
If that sounds far-fetched, here is a direct quote from the so-called “BIDEN PLAN TO END OUR GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC”: “Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.” Those are his words, not ours. “[A]ll” online sales of – not just functional firearms or ammunition or even build kits – but “gun parts” would be banned under a Joe Biden administration. Think about that. We all know that experienced gun owners like to customize their firearms to their personal preferences and anatomy. We also know that certain high-wear parts will eventually need to be replaced by anyone keeping up his or her skills with regular range practice. What is so threatening about the purchase of innocuous and commonplace parts like sights, grips, triggers, handguards, firing pins, choke tubes, plus any number of springs, screws, bushings, or other utilitarian hardware that it has to be completely banned from the Internet? Pity the gun owner living in rural Alaska, Montana, or Wyoming who just wants to replace the stock grip panels on a revolver so it better fits his hand or to add night sights to a self-defense pistol or to change the spread of a shotgun with a new choke. Any of these usually simple operations could necessitate an hours-long round trip to the nearest gun store if Biden has his way.
Also note that ammunition is up for tighter regulations, and that problem should be clear to anyone who has walked in a gun store lately.
Ammunition is scarce right now, which means people looking to keep their skills sharp are having to look high and low for the ammo they need. That means looking online and buying what they can find. With Biden’s plan, though, that won’t be possible.
Now, let’s think about the millions of new gun owners who may be shopping for ammunition right now, only to find it online. Then they learn that Biden wants to make it even harder for them to obtain the ammunition they need in order to protect themselves and their families
Biden may not be in his right mind, but certainly we can all agree that his Second Amendment policy is anything but support for the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, he’s outright hostile to your rights. He wants to make it virtually impossible for you to do any work yourself or even buy ammo in enough bulk to train yourself.
After all, a lot of firearm courses require 1,000 rounds of ammunition. I don’t know about you, but my local gun stores almost never have that kind of stock just sitting around waiting for me to walk in and buy it. I’ve had to get it online. I know some stores do carry that kind of inventory, but a lot don’t.
While anti-gunners routinely argue that armed citizens aren’t trained well enough to handle certain situations, they also seem to be lining up behind a man who wants to make it even harder for any of us to get any training.
The problem, though, isn’t our training level. It never was. That was just an excuse.
At the end of the day, then want to break us upon the rocks until there’s no Second Amendment left to defend.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--Gallup Poll Shows GOP Edge On Guns, Crime

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden concluded without a single reference to gun control or pro-Second Amendment policies , but the issue could come up during Wednesday ’ s vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris .
In fact , if the Pence debate prep team has seen a new Gallup poll on the issues most important to voters , they might be advising the vice-president to bring up Harris ’ embrace of nearly every gun control law imaginable .
According to the Gallup poll , “ crime ” is seen as an important issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gun policy ” not far behind at 68 % .
A deeper look at the poll indicates that there ’ s a partisan divide on the issues , however , with far more Republicans than Democrats saying that both issues are important to them .
While 70 % of Democrats or Democrat-leaners say that crime is an important issue to them , 85 % of Republicans and leaners say the same thing .
The gap between red and blue voters on “ gun policy ” is even larger .
Just 60 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and important issue , but 76 % of GOP voters and leaners call the issue an important one .
This helps to explain why the Biden/Harris campaign has largely been avoiding talking about their gun control agenda , and why their allies in the media haven ’ t been eager to bring up the issue either .
Talking about their plans to ban AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms along with commonly-owned ammunition magazines fires up Trump voters far more than it energizes their own base of support , so Joe Biden and Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit on the back burner , at least until the election is over .
If Biden/Harris win in November , however , expect them to turn up the heat on their gun ban plans .
Conversely , the Gallup poll ’ s finding suggest that the Trump campaign should be spending more time talking about the issue of gun control , including at tonight ’ s vice-presidential debate .
Later today I ’ ll have a few suggestions for Mike Pence when it comes to debating Kamala Harris , but honestly , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last weeks of the election , and not just a one-off reference during the debate .
It would be easy for the Trump campaign to tie in the issue of crime with gun policy , since the concern over civil unrest and increasing violent crime is largely what ’ s driving the historic rise in firearm sales .
Team Trump can rightfully point out that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris plan to address violent crime by targeting legal gun owners with their gun and magazine ban , prohibitions on online sales of ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentivizing states to adopt restrictive and subjective gun licensing laws , allowing local police chiefs and sheriffs to decide if an applicant is “ suitable ” to own a gun .
The Trump campaign has done a pretty good job of portraying the president as a defender of the Second Amendment , but they could do much more to hammer home what the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda would mean for the more than 100-million Americans who own firearms .
It ’ s a winning issue for Republicans at the moment , and they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden concluded without a single reference to gun control or pro-Second Amendment policies, but the issue could come up during Wednesday’s vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris. In fact, if the Pence debate prep team has seen a new Gallup poll on the issues most important to voters, they might be advising the vice-president to bring up Harris’ embrace of nearly every gun control law imaginable.
According to the Gallup poll, “crime” is seen as an important issue for 79% of voters, with “gun policy” not far behind at 68%. A deeper look at the poll indicates that there’s a partisan divide on the issues, however, with far more Republicans than Democrats saying that both issues are important to them.
While 70% of Democrats or Democrat-leaners say that crime is an important issue to them, 85% of Republicans and leaners say the same thing. The gap between red and blue voters on “gun policy” is even larger. Just 60% of Democrats and leaners call gun policy and important issue, but 76% of GOP voters and leaners call the issue an important one.
This helps to explain why the Biden/Harris campaign has largely been avoiding talking about their gun control agenda, and why their allies in the media haven’t been eager to bring up the issue either. Talking about their plans to ban AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms along with commonly-owned ammunition magazines fires up Trump voters far more than it energizes their own base of support, so Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are content to let the issue sit on the back burner, at least until the election is over. If Biden/Harris win in November, however, expect them to turn up the heat on their gun ban plans.
Conversely, the Gallup poll’s finding suggest that the Trump campaign should be spending more time talking about the issue of gun control, including at tonight’s vice-presidential debate. Later today I’ll have a few suggestions for Mike Pence when it comes to debating Kamala Harris, but honestly, this should be a continual theme in the last weeks of the election, and not just a one-off reference during the debate.
It would be easy for the Trump campaign to tie in the issue of crime with gun policy, since the concern over civil unrest and increasing violent crime is largely what’s driving the historic rise in firearm sales. Team Trump can rightfully point out that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris plan to address violent crime by targeting legal gun owners with their gun and magazine ban, prohibitions on online sales of ammunition and gun parts, as well as incentivizing states to adopt restrictive and subjective gun licensing laws, allowing local police chiefs and sheriffs to decide if an applicant is “suitable” to own a gun.
The Trump campaign has done a pretty good job of portraying the president as a defender of the Second Amendment, but they could do much more to hammer home what the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda would mean for the more than 100-million Americans who own firearms. It’s a winning issue for Republicans at the moment, and they should be pressing their advantage whenever possible.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--McCloskey Charges Really About Appealing To The Mob

Mark and Patricia McCloskey became famous for simply not wanting their house to be burned down .
A mob had already destroyed private property–a gate–and were trespassing on a private street .
They reportedly threatened to destroy the McCloskeys ’ home .
As a result , they couple got firearms to scare off the mob .
Now , as reported on Tuesday , they ’ re being prosecuted .
This isn ’ t about justice .
It ’ s not about a prosecutor seeing someone commit a crime and trying to make it right for society .
Oh no , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a prosecutor trying to appeal to the mob and little else .
As I noted a while back , there ’ s been a push to prosecute anyone who dared to stand up to the mob .
From Kyle Rittenhouse to the late Jake Gardner , prosecutors have been bound and determined to punish anyone who stands up to the mob .
Now , the McCloskeys are being prosecuted same as the other two .
The reason is that they hope the mob won ’ t come for them .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on the McCloskeys ’ doorstep was actually looking for the mayor of Saint Louis ’ home .
All over the nation , the mob has been calling for the proverbial heads of any and all politicians , regardless of their status as Democrats .
Prosecutors , who are elected , recognize that the mob could just as easily come for them , so they want to play the part of the ally .
So , the prosecute law-abiding citizens who are trying to defend their home .
That ’ s especially true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , why else press charges when you , as a prosecutor , have already engaged in activities that should get the case thrown out of course ?
After all , evidence tampering is a crime .
Even the detective in charge of the case apparently didn ’ t want to sign documents to charge the couple .
Only a fool would believe that this isn ’ t going to make things harder for the prosecution , but it ’ s not really about a successful prosecution .
Not really .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept a guilty verdict for a lesser charge to avoid the risk .
Unfortunately for the prosecutors , the McCloskeys are attorneys and likely know they ’ re going to walk due to the shenanigans .
But then the prosecutors can just claim to the mob that they tried , but the system is rigged and if they get reelected , they ’ ll make it a point to unrig the same system they ’ ve been working in and benefitting from for years .
However , understand one very important thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your life or home from the mob , there will be those who will call for your blood .
They ’ ll want to see you impaled in the city square so they can mock you as you slowly die before their very eyes .
It ’ s not about right or wrong anymore .
If it was , Jake Gardner wouldn ’ t have been hounded until he took his own life .
Kyle Rittenhouse would be worrying about things like school and getting dates and not whether or not he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mob , it ’ s never enough and those who seek to curry the mob ’ s favor will stop at nothing to destroy you on their behalf .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey became famous for simply not wanting their house to be burned down.
A mob had already destroyed private property–a gate–and were trespassing on a private street. They reportedly threatened to destroy the McCloskeys’ home. As a result, they couple got firearms to scare off the mob.
Now, as reported on Tuesday, they’re being prosecuted.
This isn’t about justice. It’s not about a prosecutor seeing someone commit a crime and trying to make it right for society. Oh no, this is something more. This is about a prosecutor trying to appeal to the mob and little else.
As I noted a while back, there’s been a push to prosecute anyone who dared to stand up to the mob. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the late Jake Gardner, prosecutors have been bound and determined to punish anyone who stands up to the mob. Now, the McCloskeys are being prosecuted same as the other two.
The reason is that they hope the mob won’t come for them.
Let’s remember that the mob that showed up on the McCloskeys’ doorstep was actually looking for the mayor of Saint Louis’ home. All over the nation, the mob has been calling for the proverbial heads of any and all politicians, regardless of their status as Democrats. Prosecutors, who are elected, recognize that the mob could just as easily come for them, so they want to play the part of the ally.
So, they prosecute law-abiding citizens who are trying to defend their home.
That’s especially true in the case of the McCloskeys. After all, why else press charges when you, as a prosecutor, have already engaged in activities that should get the case thrown out of course? After all, evidence tampering is a crime. Even the detective in charge of the case apparently didn’t want to sign documents to charge the couple.
Only a fool would believe that this isn’t going to make things harder for the prosecution, but it’s not really about a successful prosecution. Not really. The real hope is that the couple will accept a guilty verdict for a lesser charge to avoid the risk. Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the McCloskeys are attorneys and likely know they’re going to walk due to the shenanigans.
But then the prosecutors can just claim to the mob that they tried, but the system is rigged and if they get reelected, they’ll make it a point to unrig the same system they’ve been working in and benefitting from for years.
However, understand one very important thing. If you’re forced to defend your life or home from the mob, there will be those who will call for your blood. They’ll want to see you impaled in the city square so they can mock you as you slowly die before their very eyes. It’s not about right or wrong anymore. If it was, Jake Gardner wouldn’t have been hounded until he took his own life. Kyle Rittenhouse would be worrying about things like school and getting dates and not whether or not he’ll spend time in prison.
For the mob, it’s never enough and those who seek to curry the mob’s favor will stop at nothing to destroy you on their behalf.
Remember that.


bearingarms--2020-10-07--NY Times Columnist Wants UN Intervention, But The Result?

Most of the people who write for the New York Times tend to live in little bubbles .
They don ’ t understand what people outside of that bubble think or believe .
In their world , progressive politics hold sway and pretty much no one values things much of the rest of the nation holds dear .
After all , look at the gun control laws that have held on there for over a century at this point and no one seems inclined to challenge them .
Yet because of living in that bubble , they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country have for the United Nations .
That ’ s clear , because if they did , they wouldn ’ t float boneheaded proposals like this .
The rightful president of Belarus , Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , appeared via video last month before the United Nations Human Rights Council .
Her country ’ s August election , she declared , had been “ stolen.
” Despite objections from a representative of the Belarusian government , who said she had no right to address the body , Ms. Tikhanovskaya implored the United Nations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles and human rights is not interfering in internal affairs , ” she insisted , “ it is a universal question of human dignity.
” No one knows how Donald Trump ’ s Covid-19 diagnosis will affect his presidential campaign , but before falling ill , he repeatedly suggested that he won ’ t accept the results of the election , should he lose .
In that case , Joe Biden should follow Ms. Tikhanovskaya ’ s example and appeal to the world for help .
The writer , Peter Beinart , clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside the bubble he lives in .
First , let ’ s understand where President Trump ’ s concerns come from .
These aren ’ t the empty ramblings born of someone who is sure they ’ re going to lose .
After all , how many times have we seen boxes of “ found ” ballots that completely shift an election ?
When that happens , it almost invariably swings over to the Democratic candidate .
The laws of probability would have made so at least one switched to the GOP candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s also a win for the Democrats .
Further , let ’ s not forget a number of military absentee ballots found discarded in Pennsylvania .
It seems all were Trump ballots .
While they were small in number , that doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t more we haven ’ t learned of .
Of course , it could also be an isolated case , but when taken in conjunction with the fact that “ found ” ballots tend to go Democrat , there ’ s reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was a massive push for mail-in ballots .
This is problematic , though , because anything other than in-person voting is perfect for election fraud .
I have three registered voters in a house .
Two aren ’ t sure they ’ re even going to vote .
The third decides to fill out their ballots and mail them in for them .
That someone just got three votes .
Do that enough times , and you shift an election .
So no , Trump isn ’ t just preparing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s also understand something .
For many in the gun community , there are pretty much two tripwires to civil war .
One is attempted gun confiscation .
The other is United Nation involvement in American affairs .
The only way to dislodge a president would be with blue-helmet military force , and that ’ s going to be a problem .
Much of the United States military would actively fight , but so would a great deal of the American people .
The United Nations would have a hard fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could overpower the military ( and that , in my opinion , is a big if ) , they ’ d then have a long insurgency ahead of them .
After almost 20 years fighting insurgents , we have a lot of people who understand insurgency .
While the New York Times crowd may well believe that the United Nations can swoop in and save the day , it ’ s because they don ’ t understand just how little the rest of the nation actually wants them on our shores at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us who would love to see the UN building dropped into the middle of the Atlantic , after all .
As a result , they think the UN can save us from ourselves , but the reality is that such a move will spark the kind of fight the world isn ’ t remotely ready for .

Most of the people who write for the New York Times tend to live in little bubbles. They don’t understand what people outside of that bubble think or believe. In their world, progressive politics hold sway and pretty much no one values things much of the rest of the nation holds dear.
After all, look at the gun control laws that have held on there for over a century at this point and no one seems inclined to challenge them.
Yet because of living in that bubble, they don’t seem to get the distrust many in this country have for the United Nations. That’s clear, because if they did, they wouldn’t float boneheaded proposals like this.
The rightful president of Belarus, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, appeared via video last month before the United Nations Human Rights Council. Her country’s August election, she declared, had been “stolen.” Despite objections from a representative of the Belarusian government, who said she had no right to address the body, Ms. Tikhanovskaya implored the United Nations to act. “Standing up for democratic principles and human rights is not interfering in internal affairs,” she insisted, “it is a universal question of human dignity.” No one knows how Donald Trump’s Covid-19 diagnosis will affect his presidential campaign, but before falling ill, he repeatedly suggested that he won’t accept the results of the election, should he lose. In that case, Joe Biden should follow Ms. Tikhanovskaya’s example and appeal to the world for help.
The writer, Peter Beinart, clearly doesn’t understand much of anything outside the bubble he lives in.
First, let’s understand where President Trump’s concerns come from. These aren’t the empty ramblings born of someone who is sure they’re going to lose.
After all, how many times have we seen boxes of “found” ballots that completely shift an election? When that happens, it almost invariably swings over to the Democratic candidate. The laws of probability would have made so at least one switched to the GOP candidate, but that never seems to happen. It’s also a win for the Democrats.
Further, let’s not forget a number of military absentee ballots found discarded in Pennsylvania. It seems all were Trump ballots. While they were small in number, that doesn’t mean there aren’t more we haven’t learned of. Of course, it could also be an isolated case, but when taken in conjunction with the fact that “found” ballots tend to go Democrat, there’s reason to be skeptical.
Earlier this year, there was a massive push for mail-in ballots. This is problematic, though, because anything other than in-person voting is perfect for election fraud. I have three registered voters in a house. Two aren’t sure they’re even going to vote. The third decides to fill out their ballots and mail them in for them. That someone just got three votes.
Do that enough times, and you shift an election.
So no, Trump isn’t just preparing the ground for sour grapes.
However, let’s also understand something. For many in the gun community, there are pretty much two tripwires to civil war. One is attempted gun confiscation. The other is United Nation involvement in American affairs.
The only way to dislodge a president would be with blue-helmet military force, and that’s going to be a problem. Much of the United States military would actively fight, but so would a great deal of the American people. The United Nations would have a hard fight on their hands. Even if they could overpower the military (and that, in my opinion, is a big if), they’d then have a long insurgency ahead of them. After almost 20 years fighting insurgents, we have a lot of people who understand insurgency.
While the New York Times crowd may well believe that the United Nations can swoop in and save the day, it’s because they don’t understand just how little the rest of the nation actually wants them on our shores at all. There are quite a few of us who would love to see the UN building dropped into the middle of the Atlantic, after all.
As a result, they think the UN can save us from ourselves, but the reality is that such a move will spark the kind of fight the world isn’t remotely ready for.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--ATF's Decision On Honey Badger Pistol Illustrates Huge Problem

The ATF is the final arbiter on what is and what isn ’ t allowed when it comes to guns .
That ’ s why the state of California is suing the agency in an effort to put an end to so-called “ ghost guns.
” This is also how bump stocks were perfectly cool to own one day , then suddenly they were classified as machineguns the next .
Oh , there was a grace period for turning them in or destroying them , but the point stands .
Now , there ’ s another controversy with the ATF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an arm brace–something similar to weapons offered by a wide variety of other manufacturers–stirred the ire of the bureaucrats charged with overseeing firearms in this country .
Firearms Policy Coalition ( FPC ) has issued the following statement regarding ATF ’ s action against Q , LLC ’ s ( Q ) Honey Badger Pistol and its status as a purported short barrel rifle : ATF has once again unlawfully and unconstitutionally exceeded its authority and changed the law by issuing a new determination that is devoid of logic and reason , contains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which it arrived at its conclusion , conflicts with its prior determinations , and embodies the very essence of “ arbitrary and capricious ” .
After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol , the ATF ’ s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division ( FATD ) concluded that “ the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm , configured with the subject stabilizing brace , indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ( GCA ) .
Yet , ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “ designed ” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR .
Earlier this summer , regarding the possible action regarding pistol braces , we said that our “ Constitution requires an accountable legislature to enact just laws within specific , limited , and enumerated powers , not decreed by nameless bureaucrats with a political agenda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ATF previously reversed a long-standing and well-understood position that bump stock-type devices were not machine guns , FPC and Firearms Policy Foundation led the charge with the first lawsuit in the nation against ATF ’ s unlawful and unconstitutional act .
And , honestly , this is a big chunk of the problem here .
See , the ATF can decide arbitrarily whether something is allowed or disallowed to such a degree that it becomes impossible for a law-abiding citizen to remain up to date as to what is and isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth on arm braces in the past .
First , you could have them and even shoulder them .
Then , you couldn ’ t .
Then , you could , then…honestly , I don ’ t even know right now .
I don ’ t have any , so I haven ’ t worried too much about it .
Still , the problem is that when bureaucrats can arbitrarily step in and declare something illegal , we have a problem .
That ’ s not how our laws should work .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while I get the arguments for empowering agencies to create regulations , that comes with legitimate problems , such as this kind of nonsense .
It ’ s well past time for the ATF to be wrangled in .

The ATF is the final arbiter on what is and what isn’t allowed when it comes to guns. That’s why the state of California is suing the agency in an effort to put an end to so-called “ghost guns.”
This is also how bump stocks were perfectly cool to own one day, then suddenly they were classified as machineguns the next. Oh, there was a grace period for turning them in or destroying them, but the point stands.
Now, there’s another controversy with the ATF. It seems an AR-15 pistol with an arm brace–something similar to weapons offered by a wide variety of other manufacturers–stirred the ire of the bureaucrats charged with overseeing firearms in this country.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement regarding ATF’s action against Q, LLC’s (Q) Honey Badger Pistol and its status as a purported short barrel rifle: ATF has once again unlawfully and unconstitutionally exceeded its authority and changed the law by issuing a new determination that is devoid of logic and reason, contains no explanation as to the manner in which it arrived at its conclusion, conflicts with its prior determinations, and embodies the very essence of “arbitrary and capricious”. After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol, the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) concluded that “the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA). Yet, ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “designed” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR. Earlier this summer, regarding the possible action regarding pistol braces, we said that our “Constitution requires an accountable legislature to enact just laws within specific, limited, and enumerated powers, not decreed by nameless bureaucrats with a political agenda, or even a president.” And when the ATF previously reversed a long-standing and well-understood position that bump stock-type devices were not machine guns, FPC and Firearms Policy Foundation led the charge with the first lawsuit in the nation against ATF’s unlawful and unconstitutional act.
And, honestly, this is a big chunk of the problem here.
See, the ATF can decide arbitrarily whether something is allowed or disallowed to such a degree that it becomes impossible for a law-abiding citizen to remain up to date as to what is and isn’t forbidden.
Take the back and forth on arm braces in the past. First, you could have them and even shoulder them. Then, you couldn’t. Then, you could, then…honestly, I don’t even know right now. I don’t have any, so I haven’t worried too much about it.
Still, the problem is that when bureaucrats can arbitrarily step in and declare something illegal, we have a problem. That’s not how our laws should work. We elect legislators to determine law, and while I get the arguments for empowering agencies to create regulations, that comes with legitimate problems, such as this kind of nonsense.
It’s well past time for the ATF to be wrangled in.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Louisiana Legislature Introduces the "Ka'Mauri Harrison" Act

Ka ’ Mauri Harrison , the 9-year old from Harvey , Louisiana who was suspended from school after a teacher saw him briefly grab a BB gun from the floor of his bedroom and place it against a desk during an online class session , is now getting a first-hand civics lesson in how a bill becomes a law .
On Wednesday the House Education Committee in the Louisiana legislature unanimously approved the “ Ka ’ Mauri Harrison Act , ” a piece of legislation that ’ s designed to prevent other students from being subjected to the same injustice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school district .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Ka ’ Mauri ’ s attorney Chelsea Cusimano joins me for a conversation about her client ’ s case and the legislative and legal response that ’ s followed his suspension .
In addition to the lawsuit that the Harrison family has filed against the Jefferson Parish school district , Cusimano recently won a temporary injunction blocking the school system from conducting a social services assessment on the Harrison family .
That ’ s right .
The school district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ka ’ Mauri ’ s home because he picked up an unloaded BB gun from his bedroom floor and rested it against his desk so his younger brother wouldn ’ t trip over it .
As you can imagine , the Harrison family is suspicious that the school system is now trying to retaliate against them for going public with their son ’ s case by trying to sic a social worker on the family of seven , but for now the school district has been thwarted , though another hearing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cusimano says in the wake of the national attention that Harrison ’ s case has received , she ’ s heard from many other parents , including from others in Jefferson Parish but also from states as far away as New Jersey , with similar stories of their own .
Most of these stories haven ’ t received any news attention at all , but Cusimano believes that many school districts around the country that are operating online are now viewing private homes as extensions of the school building itself , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being accused of violating the district ’ s policy of weapons possession on school property even though he was in the bedroom that he shares with his younger brother at the time of the incident .
The attorney suggests that parents be proactive in reaching out to their own local school districts to share Ka ’ Mauri ’ s story and urge the superintendent and school board to adopt specific policies for online learning that recognize that a private home is still a private home even when it ’ s connected via the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via Zoom .
I think that it would also be a good idea to contact your state representative and state senator and encourage them to introduce their own version of the Ka ’ Mauri Harrison Act , because this issue isn ’ t confined solely to the state of Louisiana .
By the way , if you want to help support the Harrison ’ s in their fight against the Jefferson Parish schools , a GoFundMe has been set up to do just that .
We ’ ll be keeping an eye on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ka ’ Mauri ’ s case , and I hope to speak with the family before long on an upcoming episode of Cam & Co. as well .

Ka’Mauri Harrison, the 9-year old from Harvey, Louisiana who was suspended from school after a teacher saw him briefly grab a BB gun from the floor of his bedroom and place it against a desk during an online class session, is now getting a first-hand civics lesson in how a bill becomes a law. On Wednesday the House Education Committee in the Louisiana legislature unanimously approved the “Ka’Mauri Harrison Act,” a piece of legislation that’s designed to prevent other students from being subjected to the same injustice that Harrison has experienced from his local school district.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Ka’Mauri’s attorney Chelsea Cusimano joins me for a conversation about her client’s case and the legislative and legal response that’s followed his suspension. In addition to the lawsuit that the Harrison family has filed against the Jefferson Parish school district, Cusimano recently won a temporary injunction blocking the school system from conducting a social services assessment on the Harrison family.
That’s right. The school district actually wants to send a social worker to Ka’Mauri’s home because he picked up an unloaded BB gun from his bedroom floor and rested it against his desk so his younger brother wouldn’t trip over it. As you can imagine, the Harrison family is suspicious that the school system is now trying to retaliate against them for going public with their son’s case by trying to sic a social worker on the family of seven, but for now the school district has been thwarted, though another hearing in that case is scheduled for early November.
Cusimano says in the wake of the national attention that Harrison’s case has received, she’s heard from many other parents, including from others in Jefferson Parish but also from states as far away as New Jersey, with similar stories of their own. Most of these stories haven’t received any news attention at all, but Cusimano believes that many school districts around the country that are operating online are now viewing private homes as extensions of the school building itself, which is what led to Ka’Mauri being accused of violating the district’s policy of weapons possession on school property even though he was in the bedroom that he shares with his younger brother at the time of the incident.
The attorney suggests that parents be proactive in reaching out to their own local school districts to share Ka’Mauri’s story and urge the superintendent and school board to adopt specific policies for online learning that recognize that a private home is still a private home even when it’s connected via the Internet to an educator teaching a class via Zoom. I think that it would also be a good idea to contact your state representative and state senator and encourage them to introduce their own version of the Ka’Mauri Harrison Act, because this issue isn’t confined solely to the state of Louisiana.
By the way, if you want to help support the Harrison’s in their fight against the Jefferson Parish schools, a GoFundMe has been set up to do just that. We’ll be keeping an eye on the latest legislative and legal moves in Ka’Mauri’s case, and I hope to speak with the family before long on an upcoming episode of Cam & Co. as well.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--TX Man Pleads Guilty To Providing Gun For Odessa Shooting

The Odessa-Midland shooting was a horrific thing .
The shooting rampage was just one of a number of high profile mass shootings that took place all around the same time , but it was different in that the killer was mobile pretty much the whole time .
When the dust settled , we learned that the killer obtained his AR-15 from someone in a face-to-face transfer , which sparked called for universal background checks .
Then we learned the firearm was built specifically to be sold , which is illegal .
Now , the Texas man who built the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who frequently sold firearms online pleaded guilty on Wednesday to illegally selling an AR-15-style rifle to < killer ’ s name redacted > , who used it to kill seven people and wound 25 in a 2019 mass shooting .
The plea agreement , filed in federal court in Lubbock , Texas , is a sign of increased scrutiny of private gun sales , including those conducted online .
Such transactions have proven challenging for authorities to regulate in recent years .
[ The killer ] , who was shot and killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court to be mentally unfit to own firearms before purchasing the weapon from Marcus Braziel .
Mr. Braziel admitted that he sold numerous guns without a firearm dealer ’ s license online , according to his plea agreement .
Several of the people who purchased firearms from him had been barred from buying guns .
Braziel claims he took people at their word .
If they said they were good to go , he sold them guns and didn ’ t bother to dig any further .
This despite selling a sufficient number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would have required him to perform background checks .
Meanwhile , now he ’ s trying to say he now supports universal background checks .
Braziel said his brief encounter with Ator and its horrific and lingering consequences have made him a fervent believer in universal background checks on would-be gun buyers .
“ I feel responsible for the role I played in selling him a firearm , ” he told CNN .
“ My primary objective is that this never happen to anyone else.
” Look , I think rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of guns to obtain a FFL is stupid , but it ’ s also the law .
Braziel seems to have sold more than enough guns himself that he should have obtained a license or gone through a licensed dealer to sell the weapons .
He didn ’ t because he didn ’ t care .
After all , going through a licensed dealer is an option for anyone selling any number of guns .
Now , he ’ s trying to cover himself .
That ’ s all any of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks now , he ’ s trying to signal that he ’ s remorseful over his actions .
That ’ s it .
He screwed up .
Now , he ’ s trying to screw the rest of us to cover for his own mistakes , and that ’ s beyond ridiculous .
We all know that Braziel didn ’ t care what people did with the guns he sold .
While he may be remorseful that one of the weapons he sold was used in such a horrific act , I suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got caught .

The Odessa-Midland shooting was a horrific thing. The shooting rampage was just one of a number of high profile mass shootings that took place all around the same time, but it was different in that the killer was mobile pretty much the whole time.
When the dust settled, we learned that the killer obtained his AR-15 from someone in a face-to-face transfer, which sparked called for universal background checks. Then we learned the firearm was built specifically to be sold, which is illegal.
Now, the Texas man who built the gun has pleaded guilty.
A Texas man who frequently sold firearms online pleaded guilty on Wednesday to illegally selling an AR-15-style rifle to , who used it to kill seven people and wound 25 in a 2019 mass shooting. The plea agreement, filed in federal court in Lubbock, Texas, is a sign of increased scrutiny of private gun sales, including those conducted online. Such transactions have proven challenging for authorities to regulate in recent years. [The killer], who was shot and killed by police , had been deemed by a court to be mentally unfit to own firearms before purchasing the weapon from Marcus Braziel. Mr. Braziel admitted that he sold numerous guns without a firearm dealer’s license online, according to his plea agreement. Several of the people who purchased firearms from him had been barred from buying guns.
Braziel claims he took people at their word. If they said they were good to go, he sold them guns and didn’t bother to dig any further. This despite selling a sufficient number of guns to have needed an FFL, which would have required him to perform background checks.
Meanwhile, now he’s trying to say he now supports universal background checks.
Braziel said his brief encounter with Ator and its horrific and lingering consequences have made him a fervent believer in universal background checks on would-be gun buyers. “I feel responsible for the role I played in selling him a firearm,” he told CNN. “My primary objective is that this never happen to anyone else.”
I’m calling male bovine excrement on that.
Look, I think rules requiring anyone selling more than X number of guns to obtain a FFL is stupid, but it’s also the law. Braziel seems to have sold more than enough guns himself that he should have obtained a license or gone through a licensed dealer to sell the weapons. He didn’t because he didn’t care.
After all, going through a licensed dealer is an option for anyone selling any number of guns.
Now, he’s trying to cover himself. That’s all any of this is. By saying he supports universal background checks now, he’s trying to signal that he’s remorseful over his actions. That’s it.
He screwed up. Now, he’s trying to screw the rest of us to cover for his own mistakes, and that’s beyond ridiculous.
We all know that Braziel didn’t care what people did with the guns he sold. While he may be remorseful that one of the weapons he sold was used in such a horrific act, I suspect he’s more remorseful that he got caught.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Feds Bust Alleged Plot To Kidnap MI Governor

Federal prosecutors are outlining charges against six men they say hatched a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as part of their plan to overthrow the government and establish a new regime .
The Detroit News broke the news of the arrest and charges on Thursday morning , based on an FBI affidavit filed in federal court hours earlier .
The court filing also alleges the conspirators twice conducted surveillance at Whitmer ’ s vacation home and discussed kidnapping her to a remote location in Wisconsin to stand “ trial ” for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ tyrants ’ or ‘ taking ’ a sitting governor , ” an FBI agent wrote in the affidavit .
“ The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message.
” The affidavit was filed hours after a team of FBI agents raided a Hartland Township home Wednesday and comes amid an ongoing investigation into the death of a Metro Detroit man killed during a shootout with FBI agents .
The Michigan home that was raided by the FBI is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who ’ s one of the six men named in the court filing .
According to the FBI affidavit , the men first popped up on law enforcement ’ s radar back in February , when they were alerted to social media posts discussing the “ violent overthrow of several state governments.
” Months later , the six men met with at least seven other individuals in Dublin , Ohio , but at least one of those in attendance was actually serving as an informant for the FBI , and recorded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new members to their cause , the government alleges that one of the suspects named Alan Fox reached out to a Michigan-based militia , which was already under surveillance by law enforcement .
The FBI was already tracking the militia in March after a local police department learned members were trying to obtain addresses of local law-enforcement officers , the FBI agent wrote .
“ At the time , the FBI interviewed a member of the militia group who was concerned about the group ’ s plans to target and kill police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ( confidential source ) , ” the agent wrote .
In late June , Fox posted on Facebook a video in which he complained about the state ’ s judicial system and COVID-19 restrictions on gyms operating in Michigan .
“ Fox referred to Governor Whitmer as ‘ this tyrant b—- , ’ and stated , ‘ I don ’ t know , boys , we got ta do something , ” according to the court affidavit .
“ You guys link with me on our other location system , give me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Honestly , what were these guys thinking would happen if they carried out their plan to fruition ?
They ’ d kidnap the governor and hold some sort of mock trial charging her with treason , and then… what ?
Residents in Michigan would shrug their shoulders and say , “ Well , I guess these guys are in charge now ” ?
While law enforcement officials describe the plot on the part of the six men as “ elaborate , ” it ’ s unclear how close the group was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officials say that Fox spoke in June about needing “ 200 men ” to help storm the state capitol building before Election Day in order to take hostages , including Whitmer , but also discussed ways to kidnap or even kill the governor at her vacation residence .
The affidavit also refers to several training sessions that the men allegedly conducted in August and September , all of which were monitored by either confidential sources or undercover agents .
It ’ s worth noting that while these self-proclaimed patriots were allegedly plotting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitmer ’ s COVID-19 executive orders , a lawsuit challenging those same orders was making its way through the court system , and the state ’ s Supreme Court declared her mask mandate unconstitutional just a few days ago .
It may very well be that one day the United States will have to face the real question of living under tyranny or fighting against it , but we certainly haven ’ t reached that point yet , and there are plenty of legal means to address unconstitutional power grabs without trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , starting with voting in November .

Federal prosecutors are outlining charges against six men they say hatched a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as part of their plan to overthrow the government and establish a new regime. The Detroit News broke the news of the arrest and charges on Thursday morning, based on an FBI affidavit filed in federal court hours earlier.
The court filing also alleges the conspirators twice conducted surveillance at Whitmer’s vacation home and discussed kidnapping her to a remote location in Wisconsin to stand “trial” for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election. “Several members talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor,” an FBI agent wrote in the affidavit. “The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message.” The affidavit was filed hours after a team of FBI agents raided a Hartland Township home Wednesday and comes amid an ongoing investigation into the death of a Metro Detroit man killed during a shootout with FBI agents.
The Michigan home that was raided by the FBI is the residence of 24-year old Ty Garbin, who’s one of the six men named in the court filing.
According to the FBI affidavit, the men first popped up on law enforcement’s radar back in February, when they were alerted to social media posts discussing the “violent overthrow of several state governments.” Months later, the six men met with at least seven other individuals in Dublin, Ohio, but at least one of those in attendance was actually serving as an informant for the FBI, and recorded the meetings.
In an effort to recruit new members to their cause, the government alleges that one of the suspects named Alan Fox reached out to a Michigan-based militia, which was already under surveillance by law enforcement.
The FBI was already tracking the militia in March after a local police department learned members were trying to obtain addresses of local law-enforcement officers, the FBI agent wrote. “At the time, the FBI interviewed a member of the militia group who was concerned about the group’s plans to target and kill police officers, and that person agreed to become a (confidential source),” the agent wrote. In late June, Fox posted on Facebook a video in which he complained about the state’s judicial system and COVID-19 restrictions on gyms operating in Michigan. “Fox referred to Governor Whitmer as ‘this tyrant b—-,’ and stated, ‘I don’t know, boys, we gotta do something,” according to the court affidavit. “You guys link with me on our other location system, give me some ideas of what we can do.”
Honestly, what were these guys thinking would happen if they carried out their plan to fruition? They’d kidnap the governor and hold some sort of mock trial charging her with treason, and then… what? Residents in Michigan would shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, I guess these guys are in charge now”?
While law enforcement officials describe the plot on the part of the six men as “elaborate,” it’s unclear how close the group was to attempting to carry out their plan. Officials say that Fox spoke in June about needing “200 men” to help storm the state capitol building before Election Day in order to take hostages, including Whitmer, but also discussed ways to kidnap or even kill the governor at her vacation residence. The affidavit also refers to several training sessions that the men allegedly conducted in August and September, all of which were monitored by either confidential sources or undercover agents.
It’s worth noting that while these self-proclaimed patriots were allegedly plotting to overthrow the state government in Michigan over Whitmer’s COVID-19 executive orders, a lawsuit challenging those same orders was making its way through the court system, and the state’s Supreme Court declared her mask mandate unconstitutional just a few days ago. It may very well be that one day the United States will have to face the real question of living under tyranny or fighting against it, but we certainly haven’t reached that point yet, and there are plenty of legal means to address unconstitutional power grabs without trying to kidnap politicians or kick off a civil war, starting with voting in November.