bearingarms--2020-06-17--Seattle Adds Concrete Barricades To CHOP

The City of Seattle isn ’ t quite as big as it was a month ago .
Well , technically , it ’ s the same size , but the among of real estate answerable to the local government is smaller by about six blocks .
The CHOP , formerly the CHAZ–which I was partial to myself–takes up a fair bit of real estate and claims that it doesn ’ t answer to any government except themselves .
Signs on the border make that very clear .
Still , Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan continues to try and sell a line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest and it actually a wonderful thing to watch .
She ’ s complicit in an attempt to succeed from the country .
More than that , though , she ’ s officially giving her government ’ s approval by essentially legitimizing the CHOP .
The occupied protest zone in Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill neighborhood known as the CHOP is getting some extra safety measures from the city .
Tuesday morning , the Seattle Department of Transportation replaced tent barriers with concrete barriers around the edges of the six-nine block protest zone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The barriers will help to prevent cars from driving through the protesters , which happened last week , while also leaving a travel lane for emergency responders .
Although the occupied protest has remained largely peaceful since it popped up more than a week ago , residents and business owners in the area have raised safety concerns over police response times tripling and officers not responding to calls inside the zone .
Mayor Jenny Durkan said Tuesday that the city is making changes to accommodate the protesters while still protecting nearby businesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that , but all evidence from within the CHOP suggests otherwise .
Laws are routinely being ignored , in particular , the gun control laws that the mayor and Gov .
Jay Inslee seem so fond of for regular citizens of Washington .
Then , on top of that , they provide concrete barriers to secure the site ?
I can ’ t help but wonder how much of this has to do with President Trump ’ s comments about sending the military to take care of the CHOP once and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tougher to get through than tents , after all .
Regardless , this move represents Durkan ’ s approval and her essentially ceding over control of parts of her city to another entity .
Honestly , how the people of Seattle can support her right now is beyond me .
Meanwhile , businesses inside the CHOP had best hope they don ’ t need law enforcement help .
While Durkan can claim the barriers are also to help facilitate emergency vehicles coming and going through the CHOP , law enforcement still isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are downright hostile to police .
I can ’ t imagine the police going in there for anything short of a war .
If they roll into the CHOP for anything , violence will follow .
As such , I don ’ t see them going in for any reason other than to push them out permanently .
And Durkan has not just made it clear she ’ s prepared to tolerate this kind of thing indefinitely , but is willing to outright support it .

The City of Seattle isn’t quite as big as it was a month ago. Well, technically, it’s the same size, but the among of real estate answerable to the local government is smaller by about six blocks.
The CHOP, formerly the CHAZ–which I was partial to myself–takes up a fair bit of real estate and claims that it doesn’t answer to any government except themselves. Signs on the border make that very clear.
Still, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan continues to try and sell a line of BS that this is just some protest and it actually a wonderful thing to watch. She’s complicit in an attempt to succeed from the country.
More than that, though, she’s officially giving her government’s approval by essentially legitimizing the CHOP.
The occupied protest zone in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood known as the CHOP is getting some extra safety measures from the city. Tuesday morning, the Seattle Department of Transportation replaced tent barriers with concrete barriers around the edges of the six-nine block protest zone surrounding the abandoned SPD East Precinct. The barriers will help to prevent cars from driving through the protesters, which happened last week, while also leaving a travel lane for emergency responders. Although the occupied protest has remained largely peaceful since it popped up more than a week ago, residents and business owners in the area have raised safety concerns over police response times tripling and officers not responding to calls inside the zone. Mayor Jenny Durkan said Tuesday that the city is making changes to accommodate the protesters while still protecting nearby businesses and residents.
Of course, Durkan can say that, but all evidence from within the CHOP suggests otherwise. Laws are routinely being ignored, in particular, the gun control laws that the mayor and Gov. Jay Inslee seem so fond of for regular citizens of Washington.
Then, on top of that, they provide concrete barriers to secure the site?
I can’t help but wonder how much of this has to do with President Trump’s comments about sending the military to take care of the CHOP once and for all. Concrete barricades are a lot tougher to get through than tents, after all.
Regardless, this move represents Durkan’s approval and her essentially ceding over control of parts of her city to another entity. Honestly, how the people of Seattle can support her right now is beyond me.
Meanwhile, businesses inside the CHOP had best hope they don’t need law enforcement help. While Durkan can claim the barriers are also to help facilitate emergency vehicles coming and going through the CHOP, law enforcement still isn’t welcome. These are people who are downright hostile to police. I can’t imagine the police going in there for anything short of a war. If they roll into the CHOP for anything, violence will follow. As such, I don’t see them going in for any reason other than to push them out permanently.
And Durkan has not just made it clear she’s prepared to tolerate this kind of thing indefinitely, but is willing to outright support it.
Pathetic.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--Conflict In Anti-Gun Camp As Some Want To Talk Police Shootings

When we talk about anti-gunners , we normally mention how they only seem to want the military and police to have guns .
Many reject that argument , saying they want no such thing , but plenty of others say precisely that .
They don ’ t want us ordinary citizens to have firearms .
They want them relegated only for military and law enforcement use .
That creates a problem for some anti-gunners who also want to blast police shootings as part of the gun violence issue .
Now , I don ’ t like the idea of getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-fighting , but these statistics won ’ t stay within the gun control community , so we might as well address them now .
First , how many of those 1,000 people killed each year by police are righteous shoots ?
I know that the writers will try to equate this to victim-blaming , but the truth is that some people do things that will get them shot .
Pointing a gun at police , for example , is a good way to get your free toe-tag .
It ’ s true of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but since you know the police have guns , it really is all on you .
I ’ m sorry , but the claims of “ victim-blaming ” are only applicable when someone was doing nothing wrong and still became a victim .
The prime example was trying to blame a woman for getting raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively .
Yet even they seem to acknowledge that many , if not most , of these shootings are justified .
After all , why else would you suppose they ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these shootings ?
Could it be because most of these people are armed and the police are just protecting themselves or others ?
However , all of this brings us to a broader question .
Just how do you propose to curb policing while , at the same time , creating an environment where there are more laws that can lead to people being shot ?
Constitutional carry , for example , means that the appearance of a firearm isn ’ t grounds for the police to detain someone and ask to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men lawfully carrying firearms would be less likely to be involved in a confrontation with police that could result in someone being killed over such a misunderstanding .
Cam wrote about how red flag laws and police reform as it ’ s being discussed are incompatible .
And really , if police are such a problem , how can you suggest sending them to confront people they know to be armed as a good thing ?
Red flag laws won ’ t just be used against white gun owners , after all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to more problems and more fatalities ?
The problem for the writers here is that their positions are at odds with one another and they seem to be among the few who don ’ t get that .
Gun control groups aren ’ t having that conversation because they know on some level that they need the police to make their Utopia a reality and I ’ ve already laid out why many gun-rights supporters think they ’ re off-base .
You can ’ t have it both ways .
You either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
That ’ s just how it works , which is why no one is going to talk about police shootings .
They ’ re either justified or they ’ re evidence that gun control shouldn ’ t even be considered .
I don ’ t think our intrepid authors want to see that one .

When we talk about anti-gunners, we normally mention how they only seem to want the military and police to have guns. Many reject that argument, saying they want no such thing, but plenty of others say precisely that. They don’t want us ordinary citizens to have firearms. They want them relegated only for military and law enforcement use.
That creates a problem for some anti-gunners who also want to blast police shootings as part of the gun violence issue.
We are experienced Black organizers in anti-violence and gun violence prevention work, and it has long been clear to us that the broad movement of which we have been a part has a huge hole in it. Police violence — in instances when officers use their guns to intimidate, shoot or kill Black or brown people — is also gun violence. And it rightly has a place in the movement against gun violence that is often celebrated by liberal politicians at the highest levels. But for far too many years, Black voices have been silenced and pushed out of the conversation on ending gun violence in America because we also wanted to talk about policing. For too long, communities of color have been othered within conversations about ending gun violence by those who wanted to victim-blame and reduce our experiences of gun violence to “Black on Black crime … Police take the lives of more than 1,000 people every year, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. In 2017, police shot and killed 986 people, 22 percent of whom were Black, even though African Americans make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population. Study after study has shown that weak gun laws and higher levels of gun ownership are correlated with increased shootings by police. Still, when Black organizers and movement leaders within the gun violence movement first began participating in Black Lives Matter, we were broadly shunned by political and philanthropic circles, further reducing our ability to have an impact within the movement to end gun violence. As millions now cry out for justice and reform because police violence is trending, that has changed — but it has left us years behind.
Now, I don’t like the idea of getting in the way of my opponents’ in-fighting, but these statistics won’t stay within the gun control community, so we might as well address them now.
First, how many of those 1,000 people killed each year by police are righteous shoots? I know that the writers will try to equate this to victim-blaming, but the truth is that some people do things that will get them shot. Pointing a gun at police, for example, is a good way to get your free toe-tag. It’s true of anyone who is armed, of course, but since you know the police have guns, it really is all on you. I’m sorry, but the claims of “victim-blaming” are only applicable when someone was doing nothing wrong and still became a victim. The prime example was trying to blame a woman for getting raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Yet even they seem to acknowledge that many, if not most, of these shootings are justified. After all, why else would you suppose they’d argue that week gun laws lead to these shootings? Could it be because most of these people are armed and the police are just protecting themselves or others?
However, all of this brings us to a broader question. Just how do you propose to curb policing while, at the same time, creating an environment where there are more laws that can lead to people being shot?
Constitutional carry, for example, means that the appearance of a firearm isn’t grounds for the police to detain someone and ask to see a permit. That means young black men lawfully carrying firearms would be less likely to be involved in a confrontation with police that could result in someone being killed over such a misunderstanding.
Cam wrote about how red flag laws and police reform as it’s being discussed are incompatible. And really, if police are such a problem, how can you suggest sending them to confront people they know to be armed as a good thing? Red flag laws won’t just be used against white gun owners, after all. Won’t this, too, lead to more problems and more fatalities?
The problem for the writers here is that their positions are at odds with one another and they seem to be among the few who don’t get that. Gun control groups aren’t having that conversation because they know on some level that they need the police to make their Utopia a reality and I’ve already laid out why many gun-rights supporters think they’re off-base.
You can’t have it both ways. You either need the police or you get gun control. That’s just how it works, which is why no one is going to talk about police shootings. They’re either justified or they’re evidence that gun control shouldn’t even be considered.
I don’t think our intrepid authors want to see that one.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--New Zealand Paper: Christchurch Killer Got Guns Thanks To Gov't Mistakes

The man responsible for the attack in Christchurch , New Zealand that killed more than 51 people was granted a gun license by the government thanks to mistakes by police , according to the New Zealand news site Stuff .
According to a source who spoke to the site , the killer , whose name won ’ t be mentioned here , wasn ’ t properly vetted by authorities before they approved him to legally purchase several firearms used in the attack .
Stuff has been told that , among other errors , police failed to interview a family member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men who met the terrorist through an internet chatroom .
The error was overlooked when police granted him the firearms licence , allowing the Australian citizen to stockpile the semi-automatic guns later used to murder 51 people .
More than a year on from the March 15 terror attack , police insiders say the error was the product of a long neglected police firearms system that did not have the resources to properly handle applications .
“ This was avoidable .
If police had addressed some of the issues with administering firearms years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a source said .
Unfortunately , it ’ s clear that the response to the Christchurch massacre was entirely reactive .
Instead of trying to actually correct the problems within law enforcement , Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern decided to ban semi-automatic long guns completely , resulting in a compensated confiscation scheme that may have managed to collect only about one-third of the banned guns in the country .
Keep in mind that in New Zealand , there is no Second Amendment or a right to own a firearm enshrined in law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own a gun in the country , and supposedly all legal gun owners are thoroughly checked out by law enforcement before a license is granted .
Despite all of the bureaucratic red tape that goes into legally purchasing a firearm , the officers responsible for vetting this particular individual were apparently cutting corners and not doing their job .
A licence applicant must provide two referees to be interviewed by police vetting staff , who are tasked with assessing the risk a person could pose if granted a firearms licence .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first needs to be a next of kin , such as a partner or parent , and the second an unrelated person who knows the applicant well .
The terrorist ’ s licence was granted without a family member being interviewed , or even called , according to a source with knowledge of the matter.Instead , the only referees interviewed by a police vetter were a Cambridge father and son .
They knew the terrorist through an internet chatroom .
Police sources , who include both current and former staff who spoke to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the licence would not have been granted if proper procedure was followed .
Another arms officer is supposed to check the applicant has been properly vetted before issuing the licence , yet no red flag was raised about the terrorist ’ s incomplete file .
As Stuff reports , in the immediate aftermath of the attack police proclaimed that all procedures had been followed in granting the killer his gun license , and now the Police Ministry is “ unwilling to respond ” to questions posed by journalists about the alleged failures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures that allowed this tragedy to occur , the New Zealand government simply turned its attention to the country ’ s other legal gun owners and confiscated their firearms ( or tried to , anyway ) .
Since the ban , gun-related crimes and shootings have climbed to the highest level in a decade , which is yet more evidence that Ardern ’ s gun ban has done nothing to make the country a safer place , and that the government should have undertaken internal reforms rather than a nationwide gun confiscation scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

As Stuff reports, in the immediate aftermath of the attack police proclaimed that all procedures had been followed in granting the killer his gun license, and now the Police Ministry is “unwilling to respond” to questions posed by journalists about the alleged failures. Instead of dealing with the institutional failures that allowed this tragedy to occur, the New Zealand government simply turned its attention to the country’s other legal gun owners and confiscated their firearms (or tried to, anyway). Since the ban, gun-related crimes and shootings have climbed to the highest level in a decade , which is yet more evidence that Ardern’s gun ban has done nothing to make the country a safer place, and that the government should have undertaken internal reforms rather than a nationwide gun confiscation scheme.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--New York Times Tries To Pull A Fast One On Guns Again

In journalism , articles tend to be written in a particular format called the inverted pyramid .
What you do is write a story with all the most pertinent details up at the top of the story , then you add details as you go down in order of importance .
The most important details go near the top and so on .
That ’ s so an editor can trim a story to find the space available in a newspaper without removing important points of the story .
However , it ’ s also so people can read just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gist of what ’ s going on .
In this day and age , though , many people never get much further than the headlines .
They read that and , depending on the information contained , may never click on a link .
That ’ s what you get headlines like the one above .
Sorry , but a fellow has to eat .
Couple that with how social media sites like Twitter tend to not just drive clicks but also “ inform ” people in 240 characters or less , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyway , creative uses of headlines and tweets to provide misleading information is nothing new .
It ’ s kind of a sport for some journalists , or so it seems .
Yet one who didn ’ t know any better would think the New York Times , supposedly the most respected publication in the nation , would be better than that .
In a June 3 tweet , the Times noted , “ A study of 700,000 first-time handgun buyers found that , on average , they were nine times as likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were.
” Sounds horrible .
And it is .
The story is about suicide , and covered a new study from California that tracked roughly 676,000 gun buyers between 2004 and 2016 .
The subject entails tragedy and woe , but the sensationalism of the tweet doesn ’ t match the guts of the study or the story .
For example , according to the study itself , the researchers tracked 26.3 million people for 12 years .
Of those , 676,425 — just 2.6 % — acquired one or more pistols during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly 1.5 million passed away .
Among that group , 17,894 committed suicide , of which 6,691 were gun-related .
In short , less than one-half of 1 % of people who died during the study died from a gun-related suicide .
Then why frame it in such a way ?
Of course , that ’ s easy .
The elitists at the Times don ’ t like the idea of the peasants having guns .
They can ’ t ban you from having them–that ’ s not within their power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you from buying a gun .
They want to make you think that if you have a gun , your life is in danger when they know that ’ s not the case .
You see , the media doesn ’ t necessarily lie .
They know that they can ’ t , not and still retain any level of credibility .
They can be wrong from time to time–that can be forgiven–but they can ’ t outright lie .
So , what they do is manipulate facts and frame them in such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being an outright fabrication .
They ’ re desperate to remove the gun culture from the American landscape and they ’ re using all the tools they have to accomplish that .
By doing it this way , they can claim in absolute honesty that their reporting is factually correct .
After all , it seems to be .
But the framing is deceptively framed so as to create an illusion that guns are inherently dangerous to those who own them , and I ’ ll be damned if I buy that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In journalism, articles tend to be written in a particular format called the inverted pyramid. What you do is write a story with all the most pertinent details up at the top of the story, then you add details as you go down in order of importance. The most important details go near the top and so on. That’s so an editor can trim a story to find the space available in a newspaper without removing important points of the story.
However, it’s also so people can read just a bit of the story and get the gist of what’s going on.
In this day and age, though, many people never get much further than the headlines. They read that and, depending on the information contained, may never click on a link. That’s what you get headlines like the one above. Sorry, but a fellow has to eat.
Couple that with how social media sites like Twitter tend to not just drive clicks but also “inform” people in 240 characters or less, and you have a huge problem.
Anyway, creative uses of headlines and tweets to provide misleading information is nothing new. It’s kind of a sport for some journalists, or so it seems. Yet one who didn’t know any better would think the New York Times, supposedly the most respected publication in the nation, would be better than that.
Well, they’re not.
In a June 3 tweet, the Times noted, “A study of 700,000 first-time handgun buyers found that, on average, they were nine times as likely to later deliberately shoot themselves than non-buyers were.” Sounds horrible. And it is. The story is about suicide, and covered a new study from California that tracked roughly 676,000 gun buyers between 2004 and 2016. The subject entails tragedy and woe, but the sensationalism of the tweet doesn’t match the guts of the study or the story. For example, according to the study itself, the researchers tracked 26.3 million people for 12 years. Of those, 676,425 — just 2.6% — acquired one or more pistols during the study period. Of that subset, nearly 1.5 million passed away. Among that group, 17,894 committed suicide, of which 6,691 were gun-related. In short, less than one-half of 1% of people who died during the study died from a gun-related suicide.
Then why frame it in such a way?
Of course, that’s easy. The elitists at the Times don’t like the idea of the peasants having guns. They can’t ban you from having them–that’s not within their power and they know it–so they want to dissuade you from buying a gun. They want to make you think that if you have a gun, your life is in danger when they know that’s not the case.
You see, the media doesn’t necessarily lie. They know that they can’t, not and still retain any level of credibility. They can be wrong from time to time–that can be forgiven–but they can’t outright lie.
So, what they do is manipulate facts and frame them in such a way that’s misleading without being an outright fabrication. They’re desperate to remove the gun culture from the American landscape and they’re using all the tools they have to accomplish that. By doing it this way, they can claim in absolute honesty that their reporting is factually correct. After all, it seems to be.
But the framing is deceptively framed so as to create an illusion that guns are inherently dangerous to those who own them, and I’ll be damned if I buy that they didn’t do that on purpose.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--Federal Judge Strikes Down Jackson, MS Open Carry Ban

When Jackson , Mississippi mayor Chockwe A. Lumumba instituted a temporary ban on the open carrying of firearms in the city back in April , he claimed it the move was both constitutional and necessary to stem rising violence on city streets .
Lumumba believed that the state of emergency in Mississippi empowered him to enforce the week-long ban , even though the state ’ s Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney in Mississippi both publicly declared that Lumumba ’ s gun ban had no basis in state law .
Now a federal judge has weighed in , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning open carry within the city limits .
From the Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson : The Mississippi Justice Institute , a nonprofit legal center , filed the lawsuit on behalf of state Rep. Dana Criswell , R-Olive Branch .
Criswell is a federal licensed firearms dealer and proponent of open carry laws in the state .
Attorneys for the mayor and the Jackson City Council on Friday agreed to the terms of a consent decree to never attempt to restrict open carry again .
A consent decree is an agreement between two parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case in court .
Under the decree , the city can not take any action “ that would directly or indirectly prohibit , restrict , or inhibit the open carry of firearms in the city ” unless Mississippi ’ s statutes and constitutional law are first changed to allow for that , according to court records .
“ I am very glad to know that this will never happen again in the future .
Mississippians should be able to protect themselves no matter what city they are in , ” said Criswell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only did Lumumba ’ s carry ban get struck down , he ’ s agreed to never again try to restrict the open carrying of firearms .
I ’ m actually somewhat surprised that the mayor isn ’ t continuing his fight , given that just a few weeks ago he was still defending his order to local media .
I don ’ t think anyone wants an apology from the mayor for being concerned about the public safety of Jackson residents , but an apology for trying to suspend the constitutional rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public safety would be good to see .
Jackson , Mississippi has a gang problem , not a gun problem , and in order to stem the violence Mayor Lumumba is going to have to focus on the relatively small number of people in his city that are actually driving the violence .
His open carry ban was never going to do that .
If there are gang members who are walking around open carrying firearms ( and I ’ m still not convinced that ’ s the case ) they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor says they can ’ t .
Most likely , they ’ d simply start concealing their firearms and continue shooting up neighborhoods , even when they murder children with their errant shots .
I encourage Mayor Lumumba to seriously tackle the violent crime plaguing his city , but he needs to develop strategies that are both effective and constitutional , instead of an ill-conceived and illegal ban on the open carrying of firearms .

When Jackson, Mississippi mayor Chockwe A. Lumumba instituted a temporary ban on the open carrying of firearms in the city back in April, he claimed it the move was both constitutional and necessary to stem rising violence on city streets. Lumumba believed that the state of emergency in Mississippi empowered him to enforce the week-long ban, even though the state’s Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney in Mississippi both publicly declared that Lumumba’s gun ban had no basis in state law.
Now a federal judge has weighed in, and he too says Lumumba overstepped his authority in banning open carry within the city limits. From the Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson:
The Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal center, filed the lawsuit on behalf of state Rep. Dana Criswell, R-Olive Branch. Criswell is a federal licensed firearms dealer and proponent of open carry laws in the state. Attorneys for the mayor and the Jackson City Council on Friday agreed to the terms of a consent decree to never attempt to restrict open carry again. A consent decree is an agreement between two parties issued by a judge instead of continuing the case in court. Under the decree, the city cannot take any action “that would directly or indirectly prohibit, restrict, or inhibit the open carry of firearms in the city” unless Mississippi’s statutes and constitutional law are first changed to allow for that, according to court records. “I am very glad to know that this will never happen again in the future. Mississippians should be able to protect themselves no matter what city they are in,” said Criswell in a news release.
So not only did Lumumba’s carry ban get struck down, he’s agreed to never again try to restrict the open carrying of firearms. I’m actually somewhat surprised that the mayor isn’t continuing his fight, given that just a few weeks ago he was still defending his order to local media.
Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba says he is a proud gun owner and his ban on the open carry law during a civil emergency was never about law abiding gun owners… “I do not apologize for being concerned for Jackson residents. I do not apologize for being moved not only emotionally but moved to action as it related to children’s lives that were cut short far too quickly”, Mayor Lumumba said.
I don’t think anyone wants an apology from the mayor for being concerned about the public safety of Jackson residents, but an apology for trying to suspend the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners in the name of public safety would be good to see.
Jackson, Mississippi has a gang problem, not a gun problem, and in order to stem the violence Mayor Lumumba is going to have to focus on the relatively small number of people in his city that are actually driving the violence. His open carry ban was never going to do that. If there are gang members who are walking around open carrying firearms (and I’m still not convinced that’s the case) they’re not going to stop just because the mayor says they can’t. Most likely, they’d simply start concealing their firearms and continue shooting up neighborhoods, even when they murder children with their errant shots. I encourage Mayor Lumumba to seriously tackle the violent crime plaguing his city, but he needs to develop strategies that are both effective and constitutional, instead of an ill-conceived and illegal ban on the open carrying of firearms.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--Gun Control Group Files Lawsuit Over Marketing

Firearm marketing is a thing for those of us into guns , but for most of the world , it ’ s practically invisible .
After all , you don ’ t see ads for Glock during your weekday television viewing unless you ’ re on a couple of particular channels .
Your episode of Big Bang Theory doesn ’ t have a commercial from Walther interrupting it , nor do you see such things on any of the cable news programs .
About the only places you see marketing for firearms is in media focused around guns and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shooting , outdoor magazines and websites , things like that .
That ’ s probably for a number of reasons , but part of it is that a lot of other media just won ’ t let gun companies advertise anymore .
Yet even with so little marketing allowed to gun companies , they ’ re still finding themselves sued for what marketing they do have .
A gun control group has filed a lawsuit on behalf of victims and survivors of the 2019 synagogue mass shooting near San Diego , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and marketed the attacker ’ s assault rifle .
The 19-year-old gunman terrorized Chabad of Poway Synagogue on April 27 last year , killing one worshiper , and injuring three others with his Smith & Wesson Model M & P 15 Sport II semiautomatic rifle .
When confronted by members of the congregation [ killer ’ s name redacted ] fled then called the police admitting to committing a hate crime and was later apprehended .
The gun control group claims the company falsely associated the weapon with the military and law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Monday filing says the weapon was marketed in violation of California ’ s unfair business practices law , in order to make it attractive to customers who they claim like the shooter , are ‘ young men predisposed to violence ’ .
I can ’ t help but believe all Smith & Wesson needs to do to counter this is show how a handful of departments actually use the M & P , and that ’ s assuming the marketing in question actually does link it to the police or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent sure it does , though .
The M & P line is a callback to a much earlier line of firearms that Smith & Wesson sold ages ago .
I can ’ t say for certain , but I suspect the marketing in question is the name of the line , and frankly , I don ’ t know that the plaintiffs will have a leg to stand on .
However , while this particular lawsuit using a particular California law , it ’ s not the first lawsuit that tries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ever since a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against Remington could continue–a lawsuit using this exact same kind of argument–we ’ ve seen a couple of these pop up .
The problem for me is that by suing companies for the actions of a third party by blaming the marketing for that product , you ’ re interfering with the First Amendment rights of an organization .
It ’ s been found that companies have free speech rights as well ( Citizens United ) so they ’ re free to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can ’ t lie about what a product can and can ’ t do , for example .
No one is saying that an M & P didn ’ t perform as advertised , they ’ re arguing that the advertising somehow led to a mass shooting , which is the most insane reasoning possible .
Still , we ’ re not going to see the last of this kind of nonsense for a while .
Not until and unless these lawsuits are universally swatted down .
Hard .

Firearm marketing is a thing for those of us into guns, but for most of the world, it’s practically invisible. After all, you don’t see ads for Glock during your weekday television viewing unless you’re on a couple of particular channels. Your episode of Big Bang Theory doesn’t have a commercial from Walther interrupting it, nor do you see such things on any of the cable news programs.
About the only places you see marketing for firearms is in media focused around guns and the outdoors. Television networks dedicated to hunting and shooting, outdoor magazines and websites, things like that.
That’s probably for a number of reasons, but part of it is that a lot of other media just won’t let gun companies advertise anymore.
Yet even with so little marketing allowed to gun companies, they’re still finding themselves sued for what marketing they do have.
A gun control group has filed a lawsuit on behalf of victims and survivors of the 2019 synagogue mass shooting near San Diego, California, claiming they negligently and unlawfully designed and marketed the attacker’s assault rifle. The 19-year-old gunman terrorized Chabad of Poway Synagogue on April 27 last year, killing one worshiper, and injuring three others with his Smith & Wesson Model M&P 15 Sport II semiautomatic rifle. When confronted by members of the congregation[killer’s name redacted] fled then called the police admitting to committing a hate crime and was later apprehended. The gun control group claims the company falsely associated the weapon with the military and law enforcement i ,[sic] marketing campaigns. The Monday filing says the weapon was marketed in violation of California’s unfair business practices law, in order to make it attractive to customers who they claim like the shooter, are ‘young men predisposed to violence’.
I can’t help but believe all Smith & Wesson needs to do to counter this is show how a handful of departments actually use the M&P, and that’s assuming the marketing in question actually does link it to the police or the military.
I’m not 100 percent sure it does, though. The M&P line is a callback to a much earlier line of firearms that Smith & Wesson sold ages ago. I can’t say for certain, but I suspect the marketing in question is the name of the line, and frankly, I don’t know that the plaintiffs will have a leg to stand on.
However, while this particular lawsuit using a particular California law, it’s not the first lawsuit that tries to focus on the marketing of the firearm. Ever since a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against Remington could continue–a lawsuit using this exact same kind of argument–we’ve seen a couple of these pop up.
The problem for me is that by suing companies for the actions of a third party by blaming the marketing for that product, you’re interfering with the First Amendment rights of an organization. It’s been found that companies have free speech rights as well (Citizens United) so they’re free to say what they want, with some parameters. They can’t lie about what a product can and can’t do, for example.
No one is saying that an M&P didn’t perform as advertised, they’re arguing that the advertising somehow led to a mass shooting, which is the most insane reasoning possible.
Still, we’re not going to see the last of this kind of nonsense for a while. Not until and unless these lawsuits are universally swatted down. Hard.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--He Says He Was Harassed By Armed Business Owners. Now He Wants The Law To Change.

A Peoria , Illinois businessman is flatly rejecting allegations that he and several other men verbally harassed a black newspaper carrier while standing guard over a restaurant earlier this month , while the driver says he wants to see changes to the state ’ s gun laws as a result of the incidents .
Geoffrey Landrum , the carrier , says twice while he was working in the early morning hours , armed business owners harrassed him , but Ken Jack , one of the business owners protecting his property , says Landrum is “ simply lying ” .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with any videos or corroborating witnesses .
It ’ s a classic he said/he said .
Landrum said he stops his vehicle occasionally on his route , so he can fold newspapers .
About 3:30 a.m. June 2 , he did just that on Humboldt Avenue , which skirts the northeast edge of Junction City .
As Landrum was folding papers , some men in a cart drove to the edge of the shopping-center parking lot , he said .
They appeared to be checking him out .
This night was the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police-involved death of George Floyd , an African-American man in Minneapolis .
Numerous Peoria businesses were damaged and looted , houses were set ablaze , shots were fired and people were injured .
“ I ’ ll admit I got indignant about it , but I continued to do what I do , which is to mind my own business and fold my papers , ” Landrum said about the attention he was receiving .
As Landrum pulled away toward Prospect Road , he saw at least one of the men was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also yelled at him and was walking parallel to him .
“ That ’ s when I got nervous , ” Landrum said .
Police arrived and talked to the Junction City men , according to Landrum .
Officers then told Landrum the men received permission from Junction City management to protect private property , which was legal .
I can see where Landrum would get nervous if he ’ s folding papers and some armed guys are giving him the hairy eyeball .
It also seems to me that , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business owners who were standing guard over their property would be curious about any car that pulled into a parking lot and just sat there at 3:30 in the morning .
Landrum says one of the men called out “ African American up to no good ” before he called police , an allegation that Ken Jack disputes .
Jack doesn ’ t deny he and other men on the Junction City property were armed .
Tavern on Prospect Facebook posts and electronic-media reports made clear Jack was using guns to protect his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jack estimated his business has lost at least $ 100,000 .
“ I understand people don ’ t like guns .
I don ’ t like guns , either , ” Jack said .
“ But what do you want me to do ?
You want me to let people burn my building ?
I didn ’ t do anything wrong.
” But Jack said most of the weapons he and others possessed – including handguns , a shotgun and an AK-47 — weren ’ t loaded .
He also said nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He pulled in and said , ‘ Oh ( expletive ) , you guys scare me with those guns , ’ ” Jack said .
“ Nobody talked to him .
These are literally made-up stories by somebody bored in life.
” The second incident , says Landruth , happened a two nights later when a couple of men “ tracked him ” from the parking lot of the shopping center while he delivered papers .
It doesn ’ t sound like there was any interaction between the two sides during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand why Landruth may believe that he was being singled out because of his race , I can also see why business owners who are standing guard over their property might take an interest in anyone coming to the shopping center at 3:30 in the morning .
Keep in mind , while both of these incidents were taking place , around Peoria “ businesses were [ being ] damaged and looted , houses were set ablaze , shots were fired and people were injured , ” in the words of the Peoria Journal-Star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday morning , in other words .
That might have put both Mr. Landruth and the armed business owners in a heightened state of awareness , but at no point does it sound like the business owners considered him or treated him like an actual threat .
Someone ’ s not telling the truth , but I don ’ t have enough evidence to declare either side a liar .
It ’ s certainly possible that one of the guys guarding the local businesses are awful racists who were targeting Landrum because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time of night when most people are home in their beds .
It ’ s possible that Landrum is mistaken about what happened , and is reading the apprehension that business owners felt as looting was taking place in the city as aggression towards him .
It ’ s also possible he ’ s telling a lie , perhaps because he believes it ’ s in pursuit of a greater good .
Landrum made it clear he did not hear the men use racial slurs .
He said he had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case .
“ What I want to have happen is something like this to never happen again , ” Landrum said .
“ This is how black men get killed in this country .
And I ’ m not talking about police .
“ You can ’ t tell me a black business owner would have been allowed to do the exact same thing.
” Landrum said he has contacted local legislators and others in an attempt to change state laws that allow open carry of firearms by business owners on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ House , M.D.
” a few weeks ago , so I still have the phrase “ everybody lies ” ringing in my ears .
There is also the distinct possibility that everyone involved is spinning what happened , and that nobody ’ s being completely honest .
Regardless of who may be telling more of the truth , it looks like Landrum ’ s focus at the moment is on trying to use this incident to change the gun laws in the state of Illinois , not to get the business owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I find it interesting ( and honestly , kind of refreshing ) to see Landrum use this incident to call for a specific legislative change rather than demanding the utter destruction of someone ’ s life over a real or imagined slight .
However , I completely disagree with Landrum ’ s quest to ban the open carrying of firearms on private property .
Not only would that be a violation of our right to keep and bear arms , his idea seems to be based on the idea that black business owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed and protect their property during unrest .
That ’ s simply untrue .
In fact , Zuri Davis of Reason recently devoted a story to the black gun owners who are defending their homes and businesses by exercising their Second Amendment right .
Here ’ s a taste , but go read the whole thing .
Here ’ s my advice to Mr. Landrum .
If your real issue is the belief that black gun owners wouldn ’ t be allowed to protect their property with guns , then before trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own property , work with black business owners to do the same .
Give it a shot .
I understand that you may be reluctant to do that , given what you fear might happen as a result , but what if you put out a call on social media for allies of all colors to join you in defending black-owned stores ?
I guarantee that you would be overwhelmed with volunteers of all races , colors , and creeds who stand ready to protect not only your business , but your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
I ’ d be a fool to pretend that there are no racist gun owners out there , but the vast majority of the Second Amendment community is dedicated to the principle that the People have a right to keep and bear arms .
All of the People .
Heck , if you can ’ t find anyone else , reach out to me on Twitter , Mr. Landrum .
Since I don ’ t have a FOID card , I ’ m not sure if I ’ m legally allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a black-owned business , but if I can , I ’ ll be there .
If not , I know plenty of gun owners in the state who I think would be more than willing to lend a hand and prove your hypothesis wrong .

A Peoria, Illinois businessman is flatly rejecting allegations that he and several other men verbally harassed a black newspaper carrier while standing guard over a restaurant earlier this month, while the driver says he wants to see changes to the state’s gun laws as a result of the incidents. Geoffrey Landrum, the carrier, says twice while he was working in the early morning hours, armed business owners harrassed him, but Ken Jack, one of the business owners protecting his property, says Landrum is “simply lying”. Unfortunately, this case doesn’t come with any videos or corroborating witnesses. It’s a classic he said/he said.
Landrum said he stops his vehicle occasionally on his route, so he can fold newspapers. About 3:30 a.m. June 2, he did just that on Humboldt Avenue, which skirts the northeast edge of Junction City. As Landrum was folding papers, some men in a cart drove to the edge of the shopping-center parking lot, he said. They appeared to be checking him out. This night was the second of several in which local destruction followed the police-involved death of George Floyd, an African-American man in Minneapolis. Numerous Peoria businesses were damaged and looted, houses were set ablaze, shots were fired and people were injured. “I’ll admit I got indignant about it, but I continued to do what I do, which is to mind my own business and fold my papers,” Landrum said about the attention he was receiving. As Landrum pulled away toward Prospect Road, he saw at least one of the men was holding a rifle. One or more also yelled at him and was walking parallel to him. “That’s when I got nervous,” Landrum said. Police arrived and talked to the Junction City men, according to Landrum. Officers then told Landrum the men received permission from Junction City management to protect private property, which was legal.
I can see where Landrum would get nervous if he’s folding papers and some armed guys are giving him the hairy eyeball. It also seems to me that, in the midst of looting and property destruction, business owners who were standing guard over their property would be curious about any car that pulled into a parking lot and just sat there at 3:30 in the morning.
Landrum says one of the men called out “African American up to no good” before he called police, an allegation that Ken Jack disputes.
Jack doesn’t deny he and other men on the Junction City property were armed. Tavern on Prospect Facebook posts and electronic-media reports made clear Jack was using guns to protect his business from looters. During the pandemic, Jack estimated his business has lost at least $100,000. “I understand people don’t like guns. I don’t like guns, either,” Jack said. “But what do you want me to do? You want me to let people burn my building? I didn’t do anything wrong.” But Jack said most of the weapons he and others possessed – including handguns, a shotgun and an AK-47 — weren’t loaded. He also said nobody in his group said anything to Landrum. “He pulled in and said, ‘Oh (expletive), you guys scare me with those guns,’” Jack said. “Nobody talked to him. These are literally made-up stories by somebody bored in life.”
The second incident, says Landruth, happened two nights later when a couple of men “tracked him” from the parking lot of the shopping center while he delivered papers. It doesn’t sound like there was any interaction between the two sides during that occasion, and while I can understand why Landruth may believe that he was being singled out because of his race, I can also see why business owners who are standing guard over their property might take an interest in anyone coming to the shopping center at 3:30 in the morning.
Keep in mind, while both of these incidents were taking place, around Peoria “businesses were [being] damaged and looted, houses were set ablaze, shots were fired and people were injured,” in the words of the Peoria Journal-Star. This wasn’t a typical Tuesday morning, in other words. That might have put both Mr. Landruth and the armed business owners in a heightened state of awareness, but at no point does it sound like the business owners considered him or treated him like an actual threat.
Someone’s not telling the truth, but I don’t have enough evidence to declare either side a liar. It’s certainly possible that one of the guys guarding the local businesses are awful racists who were targeting Landrum because he was a black man out and about at a time of night when most people are home in their beds. It’s possible that Landrum is mistaken about what happened, and is reading the apprehension that business owners felt as looting was taking place in the city as aggression towards him. It’s also possible he’s telling a lie, perhaps because he believes it’s in pursuit of a greater good.
Landrum made it clear he did not hear the men use racial slurs. He said he had no complaints about law enforcement or their actions in this case. “What I want to have happen is something like this to never happen again,” Landrum said. “This is how black men get killed in this country. And I’m not talking about police. “You can’t tell me a black business owner would have been allowed to do the exact same thing.” Landrum said he has contacted local legislators and others in an attempt to change state laws that allow open carry of firearms by business owners on their property.
I just finished binge-watching “House, M.D.” a few weeks ago, so I still have the phrase “everybody lies” ringing in my ears. There is also the distinct possibility that everyone involved is spinning what happened, and that nobody’s being completely honest.
Regardless of who may be telling more of the truth, it looks like Landrum’s focus at the moment is on trying to use this incident to change the gun laws in the state of Illinois, not to get the business owners evicted or to cancel them completely. I find it interesting (and honestly, kind of refreshing) to see Landrum use this incident to call for a specific legislative change rather than demanding the utter destruction of someone’s life over a real or imagined slight.
However, I completely disagree with Landrum’s quest to ban the open carrying of firearms on private property. Not only would that be a violation of our right to keep and bear arms, his idea seems to be based on the idea that black business owners wouldn’t be allowed to stand armed and protect their property during unrest. That’s simply untrue. In fact, Zuri Davis of Reason recently devoted a story to the black gun owners who are defending their homes and businesses by exercising their Second Amendment right. Here’s a taste, but go read the whole thing.
In the wake of the police-involved death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, armed black activists have stepped up as the city endures protests, riots, and looting. A video of a group of armed black residents in St. Paul went viral on Thursday. The video shows armed black men standing in front of a store. The person who is recording says that the business they’re protecting is black-owned. A black gunman can be seen in the background of another video featuring civilians protecting a store.
Here’s my advice to Mr. Landrum. If your real issue is the belief that black gun owners wouldn’t be allowed to protect their property with guns, then before trying to ban business owners from open carrying on their own property, work with black business owners to do the same. Give it a shot.
I understand that you may be reluctant to do that, given what you fear might happen as a result, but what if you put out a call on social media for allies of all colors to join you in defending black-owned stores? I guarantee that you would be overwhelmed with volunteers of all races, colors, and creeds who stand ready to protect not only your business, but your right to keep and bear arms as well.
I’d be a fool to pretend that there are no racist gun owners out there, but the vast majority of the Second Amendment community is dedicated to the principle that the People have a right to keep and bear arms. All of the People. Heck, if you can’t find anyone else, reach out to me on Twitter, Mr. Landrum. Since I don’t have a FOID card, I’m not sure if I’m legally allowed to stand guard with a gun over a black-owned business, but if I can, I’ll be there. If not, I know plenty of gun owners in the state who I think would be more than willing to lend a hand and prove your hypothesis wrong.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--Truckers Push For National Reciprocity Amid Riots, Pandemic

Truck drivers have it pretty rough .
While they were treated as heroes during the pandemic–and overused term that probably applied more to them than any athlete or actor–the truth is that they were often at risk .
Even the most low-end load a trucker might be hauling is worth thousands of dollars at a minimum , more than enough to justify someone trying to jack their load .
I suppose a load of Ramen noodles is probably only about $ 18 , but that would be the exception , not the rule .
Plus , couple that with truckers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and having to spend the night in the cab as they want for operations to resume in the morning , and they ’ re sitting ducks for any manner of depraved criminals .
Now , though , it seems many drivers are pushing for national reciprocity to pass .
Truck drivers have started to become concerned about their safety – and the vulnerability of their cargo – throughout the coronavirus pandemic and recent protests , renewing calls among Second Amendment proponents to allow them to carry licensed firearms .
Due to these recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson , known as The Concealed Carry Act , is getting renewed attention from the industry .
The bill allows a qualified individual to lawfully carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms .
A similar bill was introduced in the Senate by Texas Republican John Cornyn .
“ Truck drivers are the backbone of our economy and are facing increased pressures due to COVID-19 and social unrest , ” Hudson said in a statement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to supporting their safety and vital role in our economy.
” Hudson noted that truck drivers , who are often driving alone with valuable merchandise , understand the issue at stake more than most .
“ Currently , criminals only need to look for an out-of-state license plate to know who to target at a truck stop , ” Hudson told industry publication FreightWaves .
“ The Concealed Carry Act of 2019 would address this threat by ensuring law-abiding citizens , including truck drivers , can carry across state lines as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a valid license from a constitutional carry state.
” Honestly , it makes sense .
After all , their commercial driver ’ s license is honored regardless of where it originated from , and driving isn ’ t even considered a right .
Why shouldn ’ t carry permits from various states also be honored regardless of where they ’ re issued ?
The only reasons you ’ re going to find are based on outright hysterics .
Some argue that it will allow people who don ’ t meet a given state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on another state ’ s requirements .
However , if those lesser requirements were a problem , we ’ d see problems with concealed carriers turning into criminals on a regular basis in those states , and we don ’ t .
No , national reciprocity needs to happen and truck drivers are a prime example of just why it needs to happen .
Unfortunately , for it to happen , gun rights supporters need to hold the Senate and White House in November , as well as take the House back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some positive traction on this important issue .

Truck drivers have it pretty rough. While they were treated as heroes during the pandemic–and overused term that probably applied more to them than any athlete or actor–the truth is that they were often at risk. Even the most low-end load a trucker might be hauling is worth thousands of dollars at a minimum, more than enough to justify someone trying to jack their load.
I suppose a load of Ramen noodles is probably only about $18, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
Plus, couple that with truckers pulling into a warehouse late at night and having to spend the night in the cab as they want for operations to resume in the morning, and they’re sitting ducks for any manner of depraved criminals.
Now, though, it seems many drivers are pushing for national reciprocity to pass.
Truck drivers have started to become concerned about their safety – and the vulnerability of their cargo – throughout the coronavirus pandemic and recent protests, renewing calls among Second Amendment proponents to allow them to carry licensed firearms. Due to these recent challenges, legislation introduced in 2019 by North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson, known as The Concealed Carry Act, is getting renewed attention from the industry. The bill allows a qualified individual to lawfully carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate by Texas Republican John Cornyn. “Truck drivers are the backbone of our economy and are facing increased pressures due to COVID-19 and social unrest,” Hudson said in a statement to FOX Business. “I am committed to supporting their safety and vital role in our economy.” Hudson noted that truck drivers, who are often driving alone with valuable merchandise, understand the issue at stake more than most. “Currently, criminals only need to look for an out-of-state license plate to know who to target at a truck stop,” Hudson told industry publication FreightWaves. “The Concealed Carry Act of 2019 would address this threat by ensuring law-abiding citizens, including truck drivers, can carry across state lines as long as they have a concealed carry permit or a valid license from a constitutional carry state.”
Honestly, it makes sense. After all, their commercial driver’s license is honored regardless of where it originated from, and driving isn’t even considered a right. Why shouldn’t carry permits from various states also be honored regardless of where they’re issued?
The only reasons you’re going to find are based on outright hysterics. Some argue that it will allow people who don’t meet a given state’s strict standards to carry based on another state’s requirements. However, if those lesser requirements were a problem, we’d see problems with concealed carriers turning into criminals on a regular basis in those states, and we don’t.
No, national reciprocity needs to happen and truck drivers are a prime example of just why it needs to happen.
Unfortunately, for it to happen, gun rights supporters need to hold the Senate and White House in November, as well as take the House back. Then, maybe, we can get some positive traction on this important issue.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--MI Lawmaker's Bill Seeks To Address What Protestors Can Carry

Back in the old days , back when protests were a bad thing and were promised to lead to the spread of COVID-19 , there were some protests in Michigan .
They wanted to open up the economy .
They also carried firearms for their protests .
Right or wrong , they did and complied with the law in doing so .
We can debate whether it was wise or not , but the legality of it is beyond dispute .
Now , a Michigan lawmaker thinks the fact that signs are banned in the statehouse and guns aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
A bill introduced by state Rep. Kara Hope , D-Holt , on Wednesday would end an eight-year ban on political signs inside the Michigan Capitol .
The Michigan State Capitol Commission , tasked with setting rules inside Lansing ’ s Capitol , is currently deciding whether it will ban guns in response to concerns raised after armed protesters entered the building during protests of Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic .
“ As we all saw during the armed protest of the ‘ Stay Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Capitol that can cause far more serious harm than a sign , ” Hope said in a statement announcing House Bill 5865 .
“ It ’ s time to get rid of this ban.
” I…I uh…I actually agree with that .
I mean , sure , signs probably shouldn ’ t be banned .
Yet , as a Democrat , one would expect Holt to focus on guns .
She ’ s not .
Instead , she ’ s addressing the injustice she sees not by limiting rights , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a completely rational approach to the issue .
While some took the disparity as justification to try and ban guns–a move that still isn ’ t officially dead–Hope took a different path , one that we should all celebrate .
I have no idea if Hope is pro-gun or not ( though I suspect she ’ s not ) .
I honestly don ’ t care just now because this isn ’ t a gun issue .
It ’ s about basic , constitutionally-protected rights .
The right to free speech and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least should be , treated equally .
Hope ’ s proposal seeks to do just that .
As a matter of fact , she said as much .
“ Carrying a sign into the Capitol is protected by our First Amendment right to free speech , ” Hope said .
“ By allowing guns in the Capitol and not signs , we are sending a message to the people of Michigan that we respect one Constitutional right more than others .
“ Or we are just being disingenuous — or worse — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do more harm than a rifle.
” While I ’ d rather she not treat guns like they ’ re inherently dangerous just by being present , her argument isn ’ t necessarily wrong .
Someone who is seeking to do violence can do it as well , if not better , with a rifle than a sign .
Then again , there are far more people interested in violence with signs at protests than in violence with rifles , so that ’ s something to consider .
It ’ s my most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , all while the push by others to ban guns in the capitol fails miserably .
The question is , will this have a hope ( no pun intended ) in hell of happening ?
That remains to be seen .
Right now , Whitmer ’ s pushing hard to have guns shut down .
My guess is that if that happens , the ban on signs will hold .
Especially as that ban is being used by many to justify a ban on guns in the building .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s arguments are sound on this one .

Back in the old days, back when protests were a bad thing and were promised to lead to the spread of COVID-19, there were some protests in Michigan. They wanted to open up the economy. They also carried firearms for their protests.
Right or wrong, they did and complied with the law in doing so. We can debate whether it was wise or not, but the legality of it is beyond dispute.
Now, a Michigan lawmaker thinks the fact that signs are banned in the statehouse and guns aren’t is ridiculous and seeks to change that.
A bill introduced by state Rep. Kara Hope, D-Holt, on Wednesday would end an eight-year ban on political signs inside the Michigan Capitol. The Michigan State Capitol Commission, tasked with setting rules inside Lansing’s Capitol, is currently deciding whether it will ban guns in response to concerns raised after armed protesters entered the building during protests of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. “As we all saw during the armed protest of the ‘Stay Home’ order, there are items allowed in the Capitol that can cause far more serious harm than a sign,” Hope said in a statement announcing House Bill 5865. “It’s time to get rid of this ban.”
I…I uh…I actually agree with that.
I mean, sure, signs probably shouldn’t be banned. Yet, as a Democrat, one would expect Holt to focus on guns. She’s not. Instead, she’s addressing the injustice she sees not by limiting rights, but expanding them.
Honestly, this is a completely rational approach to the issue. While some took the disparity as justification to try and ban guns–a move that still isn’t officially dead–Hope took a different path, one that we should all celebrate.
I have no idea if Hope is pro-gun or not (though I suspect she’s not). I honestly don’t care just now because this isn’t a gun issue. It’s about basic, constitutionally-protected rights. The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are, or at least should be, treated equally. Hope’s proposal seeks to do just that.
As a matter of fact, she said as much.
“Carrying a sign into the Capitol is protected by our First Amendment right to free speech,” Hope said. “By allowing guns in the Capitol and not signs, we are sending a message to the people of Michigan that we respect one Constitutional right more than others. “Or we are just being disingenuous — or worse — by pretending that a poster board can do more harm than a rifle.”
While I’d rather she not treat guns like they’re inherently dangerous just by being present, her argument isn’t necessarily wrong. Someone who is seeking to do violence can do it as well, if not better, with a rifle than a sign. Then again, there are far more people interested in violence with signs at protests than in violence with rifles, so that’s something to consider.
It’s my most sincere hope that her effort yields positive results, all while the push by others to ban guns in the capitol fails miserably.
I’m just sincerely shocked.
The question is, will this have a hope (no pun intended) in hell of happening? That remains to be seen. Right now, Whitmer’s pushing hard to have guns shut down. My guess is that if that happens, the ban on signs will hold. Especially as that ban is being used by many to justify a ban on guns in the building.
It’s a shame, too, because Hope’s arguments are sound on this one.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--Are D.C. Police Slow-Walking Firearm Transfers?

Thanks to a quirk of federal law , residents of Washington , D.C. who want to purchase a handgun have to jump through some extra hurdles if they want to stay within the boundaries of the law .
There are no gun stores in D.C. , which means residents must drive to Virginia or Maryland in order to acquire a handgun .
Unlike rifles and shotguns , however , out-of-state handgun purchases must be transferred to an in-state licensed gun dealer , and for close to a decade , there ’ s only been one FFL in all of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For years , Charles Sykes actually operated out of an office in the Metropolitan Police Headquarters building , but when Sykes recently decided to stop conducting handgun transfers , that left D.C. residents with no way to legally get their hands on a handgun .
The MPD took the unprecedented step of becoming the District ’ s new FFL , and now the police are actually in charge of conducting those handgun transfers for lawful owners .
How ’ s that working out ?
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ s Stephen Gutowski joins me with news that at least two recent gun purchasers say they ’ ve waited weeks for the police to finish the transfers of the guns they purchased out of state .
“ I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks , ” Elby Godwin , a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24 , told the Free Beacon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point if MPD is even processing transfers.
” Christian , a former school teacher and civilian contractor in Afghanistan , bought a gun on June 2 because his girlfriend had grown concerned about potential societal fallout from the coronavirus pandemic as well as the recent civil unrest inside the city .
The D.C. resident , who asked for his identity to be withheld out of fear of career backlash over owning a gun , said the department has left him in limbo .
When his out-of-state dealer shipped his handgun to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not delivered and was instead returned to the post office .
He has yet to hear anything from MPD despite multiple attempts to contact the agency .
This is disturbing , and the fact that the MPD isn ’ t saying anything , either to the press ( they declined to comment to Gutowski ) or to gun owners themselves demonstrates the inherent problem with the police department taking over the firearm transfer process .
We already know that city leaders reject the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defended their ban on handguns all the way to the Supreme Court , where in 2008 justices ruled in the Heller case that the ban violated the individual rights of residents to keep a handgun in their home for self-defense .
Of course , the Supreme Court also just rejected ten cases dealing with the Second Amendment , including a challenge to the law requiring interstate sales of handguns to go through a licensed firearms seller in the buyer ’ s home state , so while a lawsuit might be necessary to goad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that its acting as the city ’ s lone FFL , who knows if the Supreme Court would even accept a case if the District decided to fight for its power to transfer firearms to their rightful owners as slowly as possible , or not at all .
We ’ re hearing a lot of calls for greater transparency by police departments around the country right now , and the Metropolitan Police Department could certainly be providing much more information to the public about the process ( if there is one ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few questions that need to be answered : • What is the average time to transfer a handgun in the District of Columbia right now ?
• How many transfers are currently pending ?
• Why has the MPD not responded to gun owners who are waiting on the police to transfer their firearm to them ?
• Why is it taking several weeks for the MPD to conduct the transfers ?
• Have there been any directives to MPD or from MPD officials to delay handgun transfers ?
• What steps is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these transfers ?
These aren ’ t “ gotcha ” questions .
There ’ s a legitimate need to know how long and how widespread these types of delays are , why they ’ re happening , and what the District is doing to fix the problem .
I strongly encourage Mayor Muriel Bowser and MPD Chief Peter Newsham to be transparent about why these simple transfers are stuck in limbo , but I ’ ve also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the MPD and the mayor ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe we ’ ll learn at least a little more about why the District is inviting another lawsuit with their apparent slow-walking of firearm transfers .

Thanks to a quirk of federal law, residents of Washington, D.C. who want to purchase a handgun have to jump through some extra hurdles if they want to stay within the boundaries of the law. There are no gun stores in D.C., which means residents must drive to Virginia or Maryland in order to acquire a handgun. Unlike rifles and shotguns, however, out-of-state handgun purchases must be transferred to an in-state licensed gun dealer, and for close to a decade, there’s only been one FFL in all of Washington, D.C. willing to conduct those transfers.
For years, Charles Sykes actually operated out of an office in the Metropolitan Police Headquarters building, but when Sykes recently decided to stop conducting handgun transfers, that left D.C. residents with no way to legally get their hands on a handgun. The MPD took the unprecedented step of becoming the District’s new FFL, and now the police are actually in charge of conducting those handgun transfers for lawful owners.
How’s that working out? On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski joins me with news that at least two recent gun purchasers say they’ve waited weeks for the police to finish the transfers of the guns they purchased out of state.
“I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks,” Elby Godwin, a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24, told the Free Beacon. “It is hard to tell at this point if MPD is even processing transfers.” Christian, a former school teacher and civilian contractor in Afghanistan, bought a gun on June 2 because his girlfriend had grown concerned about potential societal fallout from the coronavirus pandemic as well as the recent civil unrest inside the city. The D.C. resident, who asked for his identity to be withheld out of fear of career backlash over owning a gun, said the department has left him in limbo. When his out-of-state dealer shipped his handgun to the address listed by MPD, the package was not delivered and was instead returned to the post office. He has yet to hear anything from MPD despite multiple attempts to contact the agency.
This is disturbing, and the fact that the MPD isn’t saying anything, either to the press (they declined to comment to Gutowski) or to gun owners themselves demonstrates the inherent problem with the police department taking over the firearm transfer process.
We already know that city leaders reject the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Officials defended their ban on handguns all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 2008 justices ruled in the Heller case that the ban violated the individual rights of residents to keep a handgun in their home for self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court also just rejected ten cases dealing with the Second Amendment, including a challenge to the law requiring interstate sales of handguns to go through a licensed firearms seller in the buyer’s home state, so while a lawsuit might be necessary to goad the police into actually conducting the transfers now that its acting as the city’s lone FFL, who knows if the Supreme Court would even accept a case if the District decided to fight for its power to transfer firearms to their rightful owners as slowly as possible, or not at all.
We’re hearing a lot of calls for greater transparency by police departments around the country right now, and the Metropolitan Police Department could certainly be providing much more information to the public about the process (if there is one) of firearm transfers. Here are a few questions that need to be answered:
What is the average time to transfer a handgun in the District of Columbia right now?
How many transfers are currently pending?
Why has the MPD not responded to gun owners who are waiting on the police to transfer their firearm to them?
Why is it taking several weeks for the MPD to conduct the transfers?
Have there been any directives to MPD or from MPD officials to delay handgun transfers?
What steps is MPD taking to resolve the delays in these transfers?
These aren’t “gotcha” questions. There’s a legitimate need to know how long and how widespread these types of delays are, why they’re happening, and what the District is doing to fix the problem. I strongly encourage Mayor Muriel Bowser and MPD Chief Peter Newsham to be transparent about why these simple transfers are stuck in limbo, but I’ve also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the MPD and the mayor’s office in case they insist on opacity instead. Maybe we’ll learn at least a little more about why the District is inviting another lawsuit with their apparent slow-walking of firearm transfers.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--No, Recent Spike In Gun Sales Don't Underscore Anything

Since the very early days of the pandemic , people have bought a lot of guns .
There are now millions of new gun owners in this country , many more than there were before , all because people recognized that armed citizens can defend themselves while unarmed citizens can ’ t .
It ’ s just that simple .
After months of lockdown , followed by riots and other civil unrest , a lot of people feel pretty justified by their decision to buy a firearm .
I also suspect those who virtue-signaled by destroying their firearms might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neither here nor there .
However , for some , the surge in gun sales is really just an excuse to spend money to justify gun control .
Shortages of toilet paper at neighborhood grocery stores have become a symbol of the nation ’ s response to the COVID-19 virus , but recent reports suggest that people also reacted to the pandemic by purchasing firearms and ammunition in massive numbers .
Year over year , estimates of gun sales increased 85 % in March , the highest level ever recorded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a 71 % increase .
Eventually , the pandemic will recede , scientific rigor will lead to treatments or a vaccine , and life will start to return to a new normal — but those new firearms aren ’ t going anywhere .
What does this mean for public safety ?
And what can policymakers do to ensure that a spike in sales doesn ’ t result in more injuries or deaths ?
What follows is an attempt to justify using studies to advocate for more control , even going so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ score a political point .
The problem is , they really don ’ t .
The NRA advocates for people storing guns when not in use , sure , but Moms Demand Action advocate for laws that require weapons to be locked away .
Mandatory storage laws , unlike the NRA ’ s position , don ’ t allow anyone to make adjustments based on their own circumstances .
They ’ re require to lock them up and who cares what happens after that .
Which is why the NRA actually opposes laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to present it as if the NRA and Moms Demand Action are literally on the same page on the issue and that the only roadblock were politicians who just didn ’ t get it .
We also don ’ t allow studies to dictate what we have so far as rights , anyway .
If a study found that a growing number of people had coronary disease as a result of comments read on the internet , would these people advocate for infringing on the free speech of ordinary Americans ?
Yet that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights on a routine basis .
So no , I ’ m not going to agree with more studies .
If private parties want to fund them , go right ahead .
I ’ ve seen enough already to know that anything that inhibits my ability to protect my family is something I will vehemently oppose to my dying breath .
I don ’ t need studies to tell me about that .

Since the very early days of the pandemic, people have bought a lot of guns. There are now millions of new gun owners in this country, many more than there were before, all because people recognized that armed citizens can defend themselves while unarmed citizens can’t. It’s just that simple.
After months of lockdown, followed by riots and other civil unrest, a lot of people feel pretty justified by their decision to buy a firearm. I also suspect those who virtue-signaled by destroying their firearms might have felt a bit stupid, but that’s neither here nor there.
However, for some, the surge in gun sales is really just an excuse to spend money to justify gun control.
Shortages of toilet paper at neighborhood grocery stores have become a symbol of the nation’s response to the COVID-19 virus, but recent reports suggest that people also reacted to the pandemic by purchasing firearms and ammunition in massive numbers. Year over year, estimates of gun sales increased 85% in March, the highest level ever recorded in the United States, followed in April by a 71% increase. Eventually, the pandemic will recede, scientific rigor will lead to treatments or a vaccine, and life will start to return to a new normal — but those new firearms aren’t going anywhere. What does this mean for public safety? And what can policymakers do to ensure that a spike in sales doesn’t result in more injuries or deaths?
What follows is an attempt to justify using studies to advocate for more control, even going so far as to misrepresent facts in order to score a political point.
Check this out:
The debate over gun safety and gun rights often feels intractable, but this is one of the few common areas of agreement. Groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to Moms Demand Action all advocate for safe storage.
The problem is, they really don’t. The NRA advocates for people storing guns when not in use, sure, but Moms Demand Action advocate for laws that require weapons to be locked away. Mandatory storage laws, unlike the NRA’s position, don’t allow anyone to make adjustments based on their own circumstances. They’re require to lock them up and who cares what happens after that.
Which is why the NRA actually opposes laws like this.
Yet the authors tried to present it as if the NRA and Moms Demand Action are literally on the same page on the issue and that the only roadblock were politicians who just didn’t get it.
That’s a lie.
We also don’t allow studies to dictate what we have so far as rights, anyway. If a study found that a growing number of people had coronary disease as a result of comments read on the internet, would these people advocate for infringing on the free speech of ordinary Americans? Yet that’s what they do with our gun rights on a routine basis.
So no, I’m not going to agree with more studies. If private parties want to fund them, go right ahead. I’ve seen enough already to know that anything that inhibits my ability to protect my family is something I will vehemently oppose to my dying breath. I don’t need studies to tell me about that.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--New Zealand Doubles Down On Gun Control With New Registration Law

Lawmakers in New Zealand have approved another round of gun control measures , including the mandatory registration of firearms in the country , as authorities say they want to be able to track and trace every gun in the nation .
The new gun control measures are part of the government ’ s response to the Christchurch massacre in 2019 , which resulted in the ban and compensated confiscation of around 50,000 legally-owned firearms .
Critics of the ban claim that only about one-third of the firearms banned by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern were actually turned in , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compliance with the new laws as well .
The most significant change is the new firearms registry , which license holders will be required to update as they buy or sell guns .
Other changes include prohibiting high-risk firearms like short semi-automatic rifles , tighter rules for gun dealers , and reduced the length of the firearms license from 10 to 5 years for first-time license holders and those who had their license revoked or allowed it to expire .
“ The new law is designed to stop firearms falling into the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time that owning a firearm is a privilege , limited to responsible licensed owners , ” Minister of Police Stuart Nash said in a statement .
The legislation was an important step in making New Zealand a safer place , Nash said .
“ But it does not define us , what defines us is the actions we took to stop such a terror attack happening again.
” Nash says that these new laws are about stopping future terror attacks , but Ardern ’ s government is coming under increased scrutiny after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Christchurch attack was able to legally purchase his firearms thanks to government mistakes .
It sure looks like the New Zealand government continues to target legal gun owners in order to avoid scrutiny for their own failures .
Meanwhile , despite all of the new gun control laws in the country and the crackdown on lawful gun ownership , violent crime in the country is at its highest level in a decade , as America ’ s First Freedom recently reported .
One can only assume that when the new firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ardern and her anti-gun cronies will respond with yet another law aimed squarely at the dwindling number of legal gun owners instead of focusing their efforts on combatting gang violence .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https @ @

Lawmakers in New Zealand have approved another round of gun control measures, including the mandatory registration of firearms in the country, as authorities say they want to be able to track and trace every gun in the nation. The new gun control measures are part of the government’s response to the Christchurch massacre in 2019, which resulted in the ban and compensated confiscation of around 50,000 legally-owned firearms. Critics of the ban claim that only about one-third of the firearms banned by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern were actually turned in, however, and there are some big questions about compliance with the new laws as well.
The most significant change is the new firearms registry, which license holders will be required to update as they buy or sell guns. Other changes include prohibiting high-risk firearms like short semi-automatic rifles, tighter rules for gun dealers, and reduced the length of the firearms license from 10 to 5 years for first-time license holders and those who had their license revoked or allowed it to expire. “The new law is designed to stop firearms falling into the wrong hands. It spells out for the first time that owning a firearm is a privilege, limited to responsible licensed owners,” Minister of Police Stuart Nash said in a statement. The legislation was an important step in making New Zealand a safer place, Nash said. “But it does not define us, what defines us is the actions we took to stop such a terror attack happening again.”
Nash says that these new laws are about stopping future terror attacks, but Ardern’s government is coming under increased scrutiny after multiple media outlets reported that the suspect in the Christchurch attack was able to legally purchase his firearms thanks to government mistakes.
Stuff has been told that, among other errors, police failed to interview a family member as required, instead relying on two men who met the terrorist through an internet chatroom. The error was overlooked when police granted him the firearms licence, allowing the Australian citizen to stockpile the semi-automatic guns later used to murder 51 people. More than a year on from the March 15 terror attack, police insiders say the error was the product of a long neglected police firearms system that did not have the resources to properly handle applications. “This was avoidable. If police had addressed some of the issues with administering firearms years ago, this could have been avoided,” a source said.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--Utah Pharmacist Foils Robbery Amidst Rise In Pharmacy Break-Ins

Pharmacies have become a popular target for looters and thieves around the country in recent weeks .
In Philadelphia , for instance , police estimate that as many as one-third of the city ’ s pharmacies have looted , with thieves focusing on opioids like oxycontin and morphine , which they can then turn around and sell on the street .
It ’ s not just looting of pharmacies that have taken place .
Burglaries of pharmacies are also being widely reported at the moment , perhaps because police resources are spread thin in many cities and thieves feel like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of getting away with their crimes with law enforcement distracted by protests and unrest .
In St. George , Utah , authorities say four men from southern California targeted Siena ’ s Pharmacy late on Tuesday evening .
The men used crowbars to pry open the front door of the business , but didn ’ t realize that pharmacist and store owner Steve Kirkland was inside the business .
He was in one of the back rooms when he heard a loud “ crack ” coming from the front of the store , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falling shelf or something hitting the floor , he said .
When he stood up to listen more closely , he said he realized it was “ somebody messing with my door , ” which is when he grabbed his 9 mm handgun and called 911 as he headed for the back door .
“ I thought I ’ d hear glass shatter as I headed for the rear exit , ” Kirkland said , “ but that never happened.
” Instead , he heard the lock snap inside the front door frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three suspects entered the store , two of whom ran toward the rear of the building into the pharmacy section , he said , while the third ran toward the restrooms on the north side of the business .
At that moment , the 911 dispatcher answered Kirkland ’ s call , and he shouted into the phone that he was being robbed .
The noise caught the attention of the suspects , “ who both turned toward me with such a look of shock and fear it was crazy.
” Both intruders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the suspects continued yelling , “ He has a gun .
He has a gun , ” Kirkland said .
The third suspect also heard the commotion and ran out of the building with Kirkland behind him .
Once outside , the pharmacy owner attempted to get the license plate number of the black Ford Fusion the men were driving , “ but it was so dark over there I could only tell it was an out-of-state plate.
” While St. George police were coming the area looking for the suspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other local pharmacies .
One officer staged near an independent pharmacy soon spotted a black Ford approaching the store , and pulled over the car and its occupants .
While speaking with the driver , the officer detected the odor of marijuana and then noticed two crow bars inside of the car , one red and one blue , which is when officers conducted a search of the vehicle .
In addition to the two crowbars spotted initially , officers also found a set of bolt cutters , a sledgehammer and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matched the items seen in the video footage , including dark jackets , face masks and gloves .
They also found a pair of Nike Jordan shoes with a tread pattern that was consistent with the shoe impression found by detectives at the scene in St. George .
The four suspects from Southern California – Donovan Moore , 32 , of Compton , and 30-year-old Randy Johnson , 26-year-old Dequan Hamilton and 23-year-old John Davis , all from Anaheim – were arrested and transported to Purgatory Correctional Facility .
Thanks to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kirkland , the four men are all now behind bars and facing felony counts of burglar and criminal mischief .
Like most defensive gun uses , Kirkland never actually had to fire his gun , but the presence of the firearm may very well have prevented a 4-on-1 attack against the pharmacist .
I ’ m glad he ’ s all right , and hopefully other would-be pill thieves learn that St. George , Utah isn ’ t the right place to try to pull off a heist .

Pharmacies have become a popular target for looters and thieves around the country in recent weeks. In Philadelphia, for instance, police estimate that as many as one-third of the city’s pharmacies have looted, with thieves focusing on opioids like oxycontin and morphine, which they can then turn around and sell on the street.
It’s not just looting of pharmacies that have taken place. Burglaries of pharmacies are also being widely reported at the moment, perhaps because police resources are spread thin in many cities and thieves feel like they’ve got a better chance of getting away with their crimes with law enforcement distracted by protests and unrest.
In St. George, Utah, authorities say four men from southern California targeted Siena’s Pharmacy late on Tuesday evening. The men used crowbars to pry open the front door of the business, but didn’t realize that pharmacist and store owner Steve Kirkland was inside the business.
He was in one of the back rooms when he heard a loud “crack” coming from the front of the store, which he initially thought came from a falling shelf or something hitting the floor, he said. When he stood up to listen more closely, he said he realized it was “somebody messing with my door,” which is when he grabbed his 9 mm handgun and called 911 as he headed for the back door. “I thought I’d hear glass shatter as I headed for the rear exit,” Kirkland said, “but that never happened.” Instead, he heard the lock snap inside the front door frame. Just as he turned around, three suspects entered the store, two of whom ran toward the rear of the building into the pharmacy section, he said, while the third ran toward the restrooms on the north side of the business.
At that moment, the 911 dispatcher answered Kirkland’s call, and he shouted into the phone that he was being robbed.
The noise caught the attention of the suspects, “who both turned toward me with such a look of shock and fear it was crazy.” Both intruders immediately ran toward the front entrance as one of the suspects continued yelling, “He has a gun. He has a gun,” Kirkland said. The third suspect also heard the commotion and ran out of the building with Kirkland behind him. Once outside, the pharmacy owner attempted to get the license plate number of the black Ford Fusion the men were driving, “but it was so dark over there I could only tell it was an out-of-state plate.”
While St. George police were coming the area looking for the suspects, they also dispatched officers to check on other local pharmacies. One officer staged near an independent pharmacy soon spotted a black Ford approaching the store, and pulled over the car and its occupants.
While speaking with the driver, the officer detected the odor of marijuana and then noticed two crow bars inside of the car, one red and one blue, which is when officers conducted a search of the vehicle. In addition to the two crowbars spotted initially, officers also found a set of bolt cutters, a sledgehammer and a yellow crowbar, as well as clothing that matched the items seen in the video footage, including dark jackets, face masks and gloves. They also found a pair of Nike Jordan shoes with a tread pattern that was consistent with the shoe impression found by detectives at the scene in St. George. The four suspects from Southern California – Donovan Moore, 32, of Compton, and 30-year-old Randy Johnson, 26-year-old Dequan Hamilton and 23-year-old John Davis, all from Anaheim – were arrested and transported to Purgatory Correctional Facility.
Thanks to the quick thinking and sharp eye of Steve Kirkland, the four men are all now behind bars and facing felony counts of burglar and criminal mischief. Like most defensive gun uses, Kirkland never actually had to fire his gun, but the presence of the firearm may very well have prevented a 4-on-1 attack against the pharmacist. I’m glad he’s all right, and hopefully other would-be pill thieves learn that St. George, Utah isn’t the right place to try to pull off a heist.