bearingarms--2020-03-12--ID Senate Committee Considers Bill Allowing Guns At Schools

There ’ s a whole lot of people out there who are concerned .
While the coronavirus is a newer concern , many are still hung up over the idea of a supposed “ epidemic ” of mass shootings at schools .
It ’ s a concern that ’ s been growing since Parkland and will likely continue to grow for some time to come .
This despite evidence that the problem isn ’ t growing .
Yet , if one were to be concerned about some maniac walking into a school and opening fire , there ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite well .
That ’ s to allow people to lawfully carry firearms in schools .
While the idea is controversial , it ’ s already the law in a couple of states .
Now , an Idaho state senate panel is taking up the issue .
The Senate State Affairs Committee is weighing a bill to let school employees with enhanced permits carry concealed weapons on school grounds .
“ The reality is that law enforcement response time is measured in minutes , ” sponsor Sen. Todd Lakey , R-Nampa , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situations , lives are snuffed out in seconds.
” Lakey said he hopes the bill will help deter school shootings and give some protection to school staff and students .
Currently school boards in Idaho can vote to let employees carry weapons , but very few have .
Lakey ’ s bill would let any school employee with an enhanced concealed carry permit carry concealed .
They would be required to notify the school principal and district superintendent , who could tell school trustees .
No one else , including parents , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in situations where it is necessary .
No employee could be required to carry a gun , and anyone who does would have to keep it concealed and on their person .
“ I ’ m very passionate about our children and our schools and their safety , ” said Rep. Chad Christensen , R-Ammon .
“ This isn ’ t about toting guns or puffing up .
It ’ s about our children and safety.
” Christensen introduced a bill to let school employees carry concealed last year that never got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issue this year .
He said Lakey ’ s bill would help made Idaho schools safer .
He said similar laws passed in Utah in 2001 and South Dakota in 2013 and haven ’ t led to any problems .
And really , why would it ?
People with concealed carry permits have been found to be more law-abiding than the police , politicians , and judges .
They ’ re not people who go out breaking the law , hence why they get a permit to carry rather than just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys do .
As such , they ’ re not going to pull out their gun and go all John Wick on people like some anti-gunners seem to believe is inevitable .
It doesn ’ t happen , so there ’ s even less reason to restrict people from carrying guns in the kinds of places where they would do the most good .
If you ’ re going to require special permits for that , so be it .
I ’ d rather they didn ’ t ( it says “ shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , but I ’ d rather have guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens should something go wrong than not .
It ’ s moving the needle on the Second Amendment more toward freedom , so that ’ s a win .
Let ’ s hope the panel sees sense in this .

There’s a whole lot of people out there who are concerned. While the coronavirus is a newer concern, many are still hung up over the idea of a supposed “epidemic” of mass shootings at schools. It’s a concern that’s been growing since Parkland and will likely continue to grow for some time to come. This despite evidence that the problem isn’t growing.
Yet, if one were to be concerned about some maniac walking into a school and opening fire, there’s one common-sense solution that would address the problem quite well. That’s to allow people to lawfully carry firearms in schools.
While the idea is controversial, it’s already the law in a couple of states. Now, an Idaho state senate panel is taking up the issue.
The Senate State Affairs Committee is weighing a bill to let school employees with enhanced permits carry concealed weapons on school grounds. “The reality is that law enforcement response time is measured in minutes,” sponsor Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, told the committee Wednesday. “In these situations, lives are snuffed out in seconds.” Lakey said he hopes the bill will help deter school shootings and give some protection to school staff and students. Currently school boards in Idaho can vote to let employees carry weapons, but very few have. Lakey’s bill would let any school employee with an enhanced concealed carry permit carry concealed. They would be required to notify the school principal and district superintendent, who could tell school trustees. No one else, including parents, would be told, except for law enforcement in situations where it is necessary. No employee could be required to carry a gun, and anyone who does would have to keep it concealed and on their person. “I’m very passionate about our children and our schools and their safety,” said Rep. Chad Christensen, R-Ammon. “This isn’t about toting guns or puffing up. It’s about our children and safety.” Christensen introduced a bill to let school employees carry concealed last year that never got a hearing, and he continued to work on the issue this year. He said Lakey’s bill would help made Idaho schools safer. He said similar laws passed in Utah in 2001 and South Dakota in 2013 and haven’t led to any problems.
And really, why would it? People with concealed carry permits have been found to be more law-abiding than the police, politicians, and judges. They’re not people who go out breaking the law, hence why they get a permit to carry rather than just toting a firearm around like the bad guys do.
As such, they’re not going to pull out their gun and go all John Wick on people like some anti-gunners seem to believe is inevitable. It doesn’t happen, so there’s even less reason to restrict people from carrying guns in the kinds of places where they would do the most good.
If you’re going to require special permits for that, so be it. I’d rather they didn’t (it says “shall not be infringed,” after all), but I’d rather have guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens should something go wrong than not. It’s moving the needle on the Second Amendment more toward freedom, so that’s a win.
Let’s hope the panel sees sense in this.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Dems, Media Continue Spinning Biden's Anti-Gun Tirade

Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s anti-gun tirade is still dominating much of the gun control news , and it ’ s understandable .
After all , it ’ s not every day a presidential candidate tells a concerned citizen they ’ re “ full of s**t ” and it ’ s recorded for the world to see .
Yet here we are .
After spending the last four years decrying aggressive politicians who use coarse language , it ’ s amazing to see how the Democrats have shifted .
While 2020 Democratic hopeful Joe Biden faced controversy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , Fox News contributor Donna Brazile said on Wednesday that the former vice president gains support when he shows that type of passion .
“ I think he gained hundreds of votes .
He ’ s a man of passion , ” the former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman told “ Fox & Friends.
” Brazile said she has known Biden for 30 years and said that he “ will speak his mind.
” Of course , Trump was deemed unpresidential when he lashed out at folks , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gun rights proponents aren ’ t really people , right ?
It ’ s not just the Democrats working to spin this for Biden , but also their allies in the media .
An analysis piece published by CNN on Tuesday argues that former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s heated argument with a worker at a Detroit auto plant was “ probably a good thing ” for the 2020 front-runner , sparking a big response online .
Hours before polls closed in Michigan , Biden raised eyebrows after having a fiery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s stance on gun rights .
Along with profanity , the former vice president also threatened to “ slap ” him .
Despite it becoming a controversy on social media , CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza suggested it wasn ’ t the “ bad moment ” the Trump campaign framed it as on Twitter .
“ This was a bad moment — in the mind of the Trump team — for Biden .
I ’ m not so sure , ” Cillizza wrote .
“ It ’ s hard to see how Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy saying that Biden wants to take away peoples ’ guns ( fact check : not true ) and using a few expletives to make his point is a negative ( if it has any impact at all ) for him.
” Except that the only thing more false than Biden ’ s comments was Cillizza ’ s fact check .
Look at what Biden is proposing for a second here .
You ’ ll either be required to sell your AR-15s or AK-47s to the government or register them like a Class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not everyone gets approved for a Class III firearm , so we ’ re going to have to ask permission to keep our property .
How is that not taking our guns away ?
Everything Biden said about guns was wrong .
He couldn ’ t even get the name of the damn weapon right , for crying out loud .
There ’ s not a single accurate statement on Biden ’ s part .
Yet his allies want to make this about passion , about being “ real ” or something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that was the real Biden .
That and the hair-sniffing weirdo that freaks so many people out are definitely the real Joe Biden .
That ’ s not a compliment , though .
The real Joe Biden doesn ’ t know a damn thing about the subject of guns , despite having spent decades in his personal war against them .
Luckily for him , he has a complicit media that will allow him to get away with whatever .
The bigger question , however , is whether the electorate will or @ @

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s anti-gun tirade is still dominating much of the gun control news, and it’s understandable. After all, it’s not every day a presidential candidate tells a concerned citizen they’re “full of s**t” and it’s recorded for the world to see. Yet here we are.
After spending the last four years decrying aggressive politicians who use coarse language, it’s amazing to see how the Democrats have shifted.
While 2020 Democratic hopeful Joe Biden faced controversy for his feud with an autoworker over gun rights, Fox News contributor Donna Brazile said on Wednesday that the former vice president gains support when he shows that type of passion. “I think he gained hundreds of votes. He’s a man of passion,” the former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman told “Fox & Friends.” Brazile said she has known Biden for 30 years and said that he “will speak his mind.”
Of course, Trump was deemed unpresidential when he lashed out at folks, but it’s totally different with Biden. After all, gun rights proponents aren’t really people, right?
It’s not just the Democrats working to spin this for Biden, but also their allies in the media.
An analysis piece published by CNN on Tuesday argues that former Vice President Joe Biden’s heated argument with a worker at a Detroit auto plant was “probably a good thing” for the 2020 front-runner, sparking a big response online. Hours before polls closed in Michigan, Biden raised eyebrows after having a fiery exchange with Jerry Wayne over the candidate’s stance on gun rights. Along with profanity, the former vice president also threatened to “slap” him. Despite it becoming a controversy on social media, CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza suggested it wasn’t the “bad moment” the Trump campaign framed it as on Twitter. “This was a bad moment — in the mind of the Trump team — for Biden. I’m not so sure,” Cillizza wrote. “It’s hard to see how Biden getting in a shouting match with a guy saying that Biden wants to take away peoples’ guns (fact check: not true) and using a few expletives to make his point is a negative (if it has any impact at all) for him.”
Except that the only thing more false than Biden’s comments was Cillizza’s fact check.
Look at what Biden is proposing for a second here. You’ll either be required to sell your AR-15s or AK-47s to the government or register them like a Class III firearm. The problem with that is not everyone gets approved for a Class III firearm, so we’re going to have to ask permission to keep our property.
How is that not taking our guns away?
Everything Biden said about guns was wrong. He couldn’t even get the name of the damn weapon right, for crying out loud. There’s not a single accurate statement on Biden’s part.
Yet his allies want to make this about passion, about being “real” or something. No, I have no doubt that that was the real Biden. That and the hair-sniffing weirdo that freaks so many people out are definitely the real Joe Biden.
That’s not a compliment, though. The real Joe Biden doesn’t know a damn thing about the subject of guns, despite having spent decades in his personal war against them.
Luckily for him, he has a complicit media that will allow him to get away with whatever. The bigger question, however, is whether the electorate will or not.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Gun Company Now Offering 'ANGRYJOE-14' Lower Receiver

South Carolina ’ s Palmetto State Armory is having a little fun with Joe Biden ’ s meltdown in Michigan earlier this week when he was questioned about his plans for a ban on so-called assault weapons and “ high capacity ” magazines .
The firearms manufacturer is now selling an “ ANGRYJOE-14 ” stripped lower receiver that features several jibes at the anti-gun candidate .
You ’ ve got your “ Dog-faced ponysoldier ” reference ( actually , two of them ) , and a couple of Biden-centric options for your fire selector .
For $ 49.99 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owner who wants to laugh at Angry Joe and exercise their right to keep and bear arms at the same time , though with an 8-10 week delivery date , by the time the lower arrives Biden will likely have made several other bizarre statements about our Second Amendment rights .
I do hope that the gun company can find a way to get one of these to Jerry Wayne , the Michigan man who questioned Biden and drew his angry response .
Wayne kept his cool as Biden lost his , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his support for the Second Amendment ( which is apparently contingent on his owning a couple of shotguns and the fact that his son hunts ) .
Under Biden ’ s plans , lower receivers like this one would be illegal to sell online , along with ammunition and other gun parts .
It ’ s just a small portion of Biden ’ s anti-gun agenda , but one that would have a big impact on the nation ’ s legal gun owners .
Of course , Biden would also ban outright the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ANGRYJOE-14 .
Under his plan , owners of so-called assault rifles would be required to either try to register their firearms with the BATFE under the National Firearms Act , hand their firearms over in government-sponsored “ buybacks , ” or become a felon .
Biden claims that this doesn ’ t amount to gun confiscation , even though it would turn millions of Americans into criminals for simply maintaining possession of the guns and magazines they already own .
To Biden , this is simply “ reasonable ” and “ common sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners , it ’ s an outright infringement on their right to keep and bear arms .
No amount of finger-pointing or profanity on Biden ’ s part can change the fact that he wants to outlaw the most commonly sold rifle in the country today , as well as make it a federal felony to possess an unregistered ammunition magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
There ’ s nothing reasonable or common-sensical about his anti-gun agenda .
Biden ’ s going to help sell a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination in June , and I ’ m guessing that by the time he gives his acceptance speech in Milwaukee , there ’ ll be a lot of ANGRYJOE-14 ’ s in the hands of American gun owners .

South Carolina’s Palmetto State Armory is having a little fun with Joe Biden’s meltdown in Michigan earlier this week when he was questioned about his plans for a ban on so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” magazines.
The firearms manufacturer is now selling an “ANGRYJOE-14” stripped lower receiver that features several jibes at the anti-gun candidate.
You’ve got your “Dog-faced ponysoldier” reference (actually, two of them), and a couple of Biden-centric options for your fire selector. For $49.99, it’s an attractive option for any gun owner who wants to laugh at Angry Joe and exercise their right to keep and bear arms at the same time, though with an 8-10 week delivery date, by the time the lower arrives Biden will likely have made several other bizarre statements about our Second Amendment rights.
I do hope that the gun company can find a way to get one of these to Jerry Wayne, the Michigan man who questioned Biden and drew his angry response. Wayne kept his cool as Biden lost his, threatening to slap Wayne and bloviating about his support for the Second Amendment (which is apparently contingent on his owning a couple of shotguns and the fact that his son hunts).
Under Biden’s plans, lower receivers like this one would be illegal to sell online, along with ammunition and other gun parts. It’s just a small portion of Biden’s anti-gun agenda, but one that would have a big impact on the nation’s legal gun owners. Of course, Biden would also ban outright the continued possession of lower receivers like the ANGRYJOE-14. Under his plan, owners of so-called assault rifles would be required to either try to register their firearms with the BATFE under the National Firearms Act, hand their firearms over in government-sponsored “buybacks,” or become a felon.
Biden claims that this doesn’t amount to gun confiscation, even though it would turn millions of Americans into criminals for simply maintaining possession of the guns and magazines they already own. To Biden, this is simply “reasonable” and “common sense” gun safety, but to gun owners, it’s an outright infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. No amount of finger-pointing or profanity on Biden’s part can change the fact that he wants to outlaw the most commonly sold rifle in the country today, as well as make it a federal felony to possess an unregistered ammunition magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. There’s nothing reasonable or common-sensical about his anti-gun agenda.
Biden’s going to help sell a lot of guns before he officially gets the Democratic nomination in June, and I’m guessing that by the time he gives his acceptance speech in Milwaukee, there’ll be a lot of ANGRYJOE-14’s in the hands of American gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Rhode Island's "Gun Bill Night" Postponed Over Coronavirus Fears

Hours before a legislative hearing on more than a dozen gun control bills was slated to begin , lawmakers in Rhode Island announced that the House Judiciary Committee meeting would be postponed over concern that the large crowd expected to attend could help to spread the COVID-19 coronavirus .
According to WPRI-TV in Providence , House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello made the decision after hearing from the state ’ s top health official .
Concerns over possible spreading of the novel coronavirus prompted the “ strong suggestion ” from Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott , the state ’ s health director .
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread among people close contact — less than six feet apart .
“ Cancelling or postponing large events is an important tool to limit the spread in Rhode Island , ” she said in a statement officially making the suggestion to Mattiello .
The hearing dealing with gun control bills was the only legislative hearing to be postponed .
Frankly , that ’ s because it ’ s one of the few legislative hearings to draw a large number of citizens hoping to testify .
The 17 bills that were scheduled to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , but they are on hold , at least temporarily .
While not all of the bills in question were gun control bills , the vast majority of them would restrict , not expand or protect , the right to keep and bear arms .
Here ’ s just a partial list of the bills under consideration .
As you can see , some of the legislation is incredibly draconian , so it ’ s no surprise that the state ’ s gun owners want to speak out against these measures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and call their lawmakers to oppose these bills while the hearing is being rescheduled .
The fact that the hearing was postponed doesn ’ t mean that any of the bills in question are dead for the session .
It ’ s likely when these bills do get a hearing , the public will either not be allowed to attend , or the number of attendees will be greatly limited .
We should also expect that other legislative hearings in other states may soon be cancelled or delayed as well as the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early to tell if the coronavirus will actually force lawmakers to suspend or cancel any additional legislative sessions .
There are a lot of unknowns at the moment , but one thing we do know is that the anti-gun agenda of Gov .
Gina Raimondo isn ’ t going to simply disappear or fade away .
Lawmakers will certainly try to push these bills to the governor ’ s desk this session , and gun owners have to be able to respond as best we can , even if access to the capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Hours before a legislative hearing on more than a dozen gun control bills was slated to begin, lawmakers in Rhode Island announced that the House Judiciary Committee meeting would be postponed over concern that the large crowd expected to attend could help to spread the COVID-19 coronavirus.
According to WPRI-TV in Providence, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello made the decision after hearing from the state’s top health official.
Concerns over possible spreading of the novel coronavirus prompted the “strong suggestion” from Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, the state’s health director. Dr. Alexander-Scott noted that the virus can be spread among people close contact — less than six feet apart. “Cancelling or postponing large events is an important tool to limit the spread in Rhode Island,” she said in a statement officially making the suggestion to Mattiello.
The hearing dealing with gun control bills was the only legislative hearing to be postponed. Frankly, that’s because it’s one of the few legislative hearings to draw a large number of citizens hoping to testify. The 17 bills that were scheduled to be heard aren’t dead for the year, but they are on hold, at least temporarily. While not all of the bills in question were gun control bills, the vast majority of them would restrict, not expand or protect, the right to keep and bear arms. Here’s just a partial list of the bills under consideration.
H.7263: Defines “assault weapons” and bans selling them if they’re not registered
H.7264: Defines large-capacity weapons feeding devices and bans them
H.7472: Banning teachers from being offered an incentive to get firearms licenses
H.7591: Allowing law enforcement officers to use silencers
H.7327: Raise the minimum age for owning a firearm from 18 to 21
H.7928: Requiring anyone buying a gun to release their medical records for the past 5 years related to addiction to controlled substance or alcoholism, and/or mental illness
As you can see, some of the legislation is incredibly draconian, so it’s no surprise that the state’s gun owners want to speak out against these measures. I’d encourage them to email and call their lawmakers to oppose these bills while the hearing is being rescheduled. The fact that the hearing was postponed doesn’t mean that any of the bills in question are dead for the session.
It’s likely when these bills do get a hearing, the public will either not be allowed to attend, or the number of attendees will be greatly limited. We should also expect that other legislative hearings in other states may soon be cancelled or delayed as well as the coronavirus spreads, though it’s too early to tell if the coronavirus will actually force lawmakers to suspend or cancel any additional legislative sessions.
There are a lot of unknowns at the moment, but one thing we do know is that the anti-gun agenda of Gov. Gina Raimondo isn’t going to simply disappear or fade away. Lawmakers will certainly try to push these bills to the governor’s desk this session, and gun owners have to be able to respond as best we can, even if access to the capitol and facetime with legislators is limited.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Coronavirus Fears Sparks Gun Sales In Southern CA

California isn ’ t a gun-friendly state .
We all know this .
The state has done everything it could to discourage gun ownership and to demonize those who buy firearms anyway .
It ’ s probably best described as hostile territory for anyone who believes in the plain text of the Second Amendment .
Of course , not all of California is anti-gun .
There are large swaths of the state filled with red-blooded Americans who really do support the right to keep and bear arms .
They ’ re just drowned out by places like Southern California with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet with the coronavirus spreading and hitting California worst than most , fears of the disease and what it might bring about have a lot of people worried .
How worried ?
Buying guns worried .
Gun sales at some Southern California stores are surging in response to fears about the coronavirus .
“ Normally , we ’ re a pretty busy store , ” said Dennis Lin , owner of Gun Effects and Cloud Nine Fishing in Industry .
“ But this made it really , really crazy.
” Lin said his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be typically right now .
“ Our staff is not accustomed to this kind of rush , ” said Lin , who thinks fears concerning the coronavirus are overblown .
“ I think people need to gather themselves a little bit and take a step back.
” Many customers at Lin ’ s store are Asian .
And Lin said some of them are buying guns out of fear of being racially targeted because of the origin of the coronavirus .
Honestly , faulting Asians simply because they ’ re Asian is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in a state where gun control advocates have apparently done a very good job of telling people they don ’ t need a gun , what do these folks do when they feel threatened ?
How many of these folks supported various gun control laws believing they don ’ t need a gun until the moment they felt threatened ?
I don ’ t think anyone is going to blame folks for the disease just because they ’ re Asian .
That strikes me as one of those things you hear about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who was attacked for whatever reason , but you can never quite pin it down to a person .
Or we ’ ll find any actual attacks are a hoax just like most of the supposed violence from Trump supporters .
But , then again , I ’ m an optimist about this disease .
I don ’ t think it ’ ll be as bad as many claim–though I also think it ’ s prudent to take sensible precautions just in case I ’ m wrong–and I ’ m not about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houses shut down .
However , I ’ m also not a medical expert and might be horribly mistaken on both counts .
I also know of many who are stocking up on ammunition and a few buying their first guns outside of California based on their own coronavirus fears .
These aren ’ t people thinking they ’ ll be blamed , but fearful that a lack of civil services may well cause civil unrest .
For them , this is part of those “ sensible precautions ” I mentioned and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
As for the California gun buyers , I welcome these new gun owners to our ranks .
I hope they soon learn that for their handgun needs , there are a plethora of options available to the rest of the nation that they didn ’ t get to partake of because of the state ’ s draconian gun control laws .
I hope they understand that the odd nature of their AR-15-ish rifles are also because of those laws and the rest of us don ’ t have to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for gun rights in the state and change the attitude toward guns in California .
Lord know , something needs to .

California isn’t a gun-friendly state. We all know this. The state has done everything it could to discourage gun ownership and to demonize those who buy firearms anyway. It’s probably best described as hostile territory for anyone who believes in the plain text of the Second Amendment.
Of course, not all of California is anti-gun. There are large swaths of the state filled with red-blooded Americans who really do support the right to keep and bear arms. They’re just drowned out by places like Southern California with their high density of anti-gun voters.
Yet with the coronavirus spreading and hitting California worst than most, fears of the disease and what it might bring about have a lot of people worried. How worried? Buying guns worried.
Gun sales at some Southern California stores are surging in response to fears about the coronavirus. “Normally, we’re a pretty busy store,” said Dennis Lin, owner of Gun Effects and Cloud Nine Fishing in Industry. “But this made it really, really crazy.” Lin said his sales are close to double what they would be typically right now. “Our staff is not accustomed to this kind of rush,” said Lin, who thinks fears concerning the coronavirus are overblown. “I think people need to gather themselves a little bit and take a step back.” Many customers at Lin’s store are Asian. And Lin said some of them are buying guns out of fear of being racially targeted because of the origin of the coronavirus.
Honestly, faulting Asians simply because they’re Asian is beyond stupid. However, I note that in a state where gun control advocates have apparently done a very good job of telling people they don’t need a gun, what do these folks do when they feel threatened?
They buy a gun.
How many of these folks supported various gun control laws believing they don’t need a gun until the moment they felt threatened?
I don’t think anyone is going to blame folks for the disease just because they’re Asian. That strikes me as one of those things you hear about a friend’s friend who knew someone who was attacked for whatever reason, but you can never quite pin it down to a person. Or we’ll find any actual attacks are a hoax just like most of the supposed violence from Trump supporters.
But, then again, I’m an optimist about this disease. I don’t think it’ll be as bad as many claim–though I also think it’s prudent to take sensible precautions just in case I’m wrong–and I’m not about to start worrying until all the Waffle Houses shut down. However, I’m also not a medical expert and might be horribly mistaken on both counts.
I also know of many who are stocking up on ammunition and a few buying their first guns outside of California based on their own coronavirus fears. These aren’t people thinking they’ll be blamed, but fearful that a lack of civil services may well cause civil unrest. For them, this is part of those “sensible precautions” I mentioned and I’m not about to disagree with them.
As for the California gun buyers, I welcome these new gun owners to our ranks. I hope they soon learn that for their handgun needs, there are a plethora of options available to the rest of the nation that they didn’t get to partake of because of the state’s draconian gun control laws. I hope they understand that the odd nature of their AR-15-ish rifles are also because of those laws and the rest of us don’t have to deal with them either.
Maybe they can start pushing for gun rights in the state and change the attitude toward guns in California. Lord know, something needs to.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--CT Sued Over Its Absurd Ban On Common Ammo Magazines

Connecticut ’ s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 1o-rounds of ammunition is being challenged in court seven years after the law was first put in place following the Sandy Hook masssacre .
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the 2nd Amendment Foundation filed the lawsuit in federal court , arguing that the ban on commonly owned magazines violates both the right to keep and bear arms as well as the rights protected under the 14th Amendment .
From the Second Amendment Foundation : “ This law does nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while criminalizing components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal , ” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb .
“ This is a text book example of turning honest citizens into criminals by the mere stroke of a pen by the governor .
“ Original capacity magazines are not dangerous or unusual , ” he continued .
“ They ’ re in common use all over the country .
But the Connecticut law makes it illegal to use such magazines , which amounts to a deprivation of rights under federal law .
Neither SAF nor our partners at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen.
” The two named plaintiffs in the case both own magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition , but under the 2013 law were allowed to maintain possession of the magazines as long as they didn ’ t load them with more than ten rounds .
Seven years ago , that was a big achievement for gun control groups , though they ’ ve since modified their approach to one that simply bans the continued possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in New Jersey and California , and both of those laws are currently being challenged in federal court as well .
The argument for gun control advocates is simple ; the smaller the size of a magazine , the less damage a killer can do before having to reload .
But if that ’ s true , then that logic applies to those who need to use firearms for self defense as well .
In fact , Dr. James Eric Dietz from Purdue University ’ s Homeland Security Institute joined me on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in August of last year to talk about his research into magazine capacity as a self-defense enhancer .
Dietz used extensive computer modeling to simulate tens of thousands of home invasions and defensive reactions by an armed homeowner , and ultimately the data showed that the larger the magazine used by the homeowner , the greater their survivability of the encounter .
Given the fact that criminals , by their very nature , aren ’ t going to hand in their illegal magazines , Connecticut ’ s ban ultimately has one deterrent effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves in the most effective way possible .
Looming over this case and all other 2nd Amendment litigation is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association , which was heard by the Supreme Court in December .
A decision in that case is likely to come in June , and if the court doesn ’ t decide that New York City was able to moot the challenge to their gun control law by changing it , then the justices could hand down a decision that could have a direct impact on the Connecticut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners are hoping to see from the Supreme Court is clear guidance to the lower courts about what standard of review should be used to consider Second Amendment challenges .
For years , most courts have gone with “ intermediate scrutiny , ” a vague and fuzzy legal middle ground that ’ s allowed judges to uphold all kinds of gun control laws .
If the Supreme Court states in NYSPRA v NYC that courts must use strict scrutiny , or the highest level of judicial review , then laws like Connecticut ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surviving legal scrutiny .
Strict scrutiny requires laws to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose , and that the law is the least restrictive means of doing so .
Connecticut ’ s argument would be that the compelling governmental interest is public safety , but they ’ d have a much harder time proving that requiring legal gun owners have no more than ten rounds of ammunition in their firearms is the least restrictive means of preventing violent criminals from shooting innocent people .
As we ’ ve already pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners far more than those own and use guns illicitly .
Let ’ s hope that by the time Ross v Mellekas gets to the supreme court , justices have already weighed in loud and clear that laws like Connecticut ’ s misguided magazine ban can not withstand strict scrutiny .
A decision in NYSPRA v NYC should come by early June , so we ’ ll likely know soon enough if Second Amendment supporters will have some new ammunition in the form of a Supreme Court opinion to help in their @ @ @ @ @

Connecticut’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10-rounds of ammunition is being challenged in court seven years after the law was first put in place following the Sandy Hook massacre. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the 2nd Amendment Foundation filed the lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the ban on commonly owned magazines violates both the right to keep and bear arms as well as the rights protected under the 14th Amendment.
From the Second Amendment Foundation:
“This law does nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while criminalizing components of handguns they own that were previously legal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is a text book example of turning honest citizens into criminals by the mere stroke of a pen by the governor. “Original capacity magazines are not dangerous or unusual,” he continued. “They’re in common use all over the country. But the Connecticut law makes it illegal to use such magazines, which amounts to a deprivation of rights under federal law. Neither SAF nor our partners at CCDL could stand by and allow that to happen.”
The two named plaintiffs in the case both own magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, but under the 2013 law were allowed to maintain possession of the magazines as long as they didn’t load them with more than ten rounds. Seven years ago, that was a big achievement for gun control groups, though they’ve since modified their approach to one that simply bans the continued possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. That’s what anti-gun advocates have put in place in New Jersey and California, and both of those laws are currently being challenged in federal court as well.
The argument for gun control advocates is simple; the smaller the size of a magazine, the less damage a killer can do before having to reload. But if that’s true, then that logic applies to those who need to use firearms for self defense as well. In fact, Dr. James Eric Dietz from Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute joined me on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co back in August of last year to talk about his research into magazine capacity as a self-defense enhancer.
Dietz used extensive computer modeling to simulate tens of thousands of home invasions and defensive reactions by an armed homeowner, and ultimately the data showed that the larger the magazine used by the homeowner, the greater their survivability of the encounter. Given the fact that criminals, by their very nature, aren’t going to hand in their illegal magazines, Connecticut’s ban ultimately has one deterrent effect: preventing legal gun owners from protecting themselves in the most effective way possible.
Looming over this case and all other 2nd Amendment litigation is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which was heard by the Supreme Court in December. A decision in that case is likely to come in June, and if the court doesn’t decide that New York City was able to moot the challenge to their gun control law by changing it, then the justices could hand down a decision that could have a direct impact on the Connecticut case. One of the things gun owners are hoping to see from the Supreme Court is clear guidance to the lower courts about what standard of review should be used to consider Second Amendment challenges.
For years, most courts have gone with “intermediate scrutiny,” a vague and fuzzy legal middle ground that’s allowed judges to uphold all kinds of gun control laws. If the Supreme Court states in NYSPRA v NYC that courts must use strict scrutiny, or the highest level of judicial review, then laws like Connecticut’s will have a much harder time surviving legal scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires laws to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose, and that the law is the least restrictive means of doing so.
Connecticut’s argument would be that the compelling governmental interest is public safety, but they’d have a much harder time proving that requiring legal gun owners have no more than ten rounds of ammunition in their firearms is the least restrictive means of preventing violent criminals from shooting innocent people. As we’ve already pointed out, the law will impact legal gun owners far more than those own and use guns illicitly.
Let’s hope that by the time Ross v Mellekas gets to the supreme court, justices have already weighed in loud and clear that laws like Connecticut’s misguided magazine ban cannot withstand strict scrutiny. A decision in NYSPRA v NYC should come by early June, so we’ll likely know soon enough if Second Amendment supporters will have some new ammunition in the form of a Supreme Court opinion to help in their court fights going forward.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--Anti-Gunners Want To Ban "Ghost Guns" From Del Mar Gun Show

The Del Mar gun show has had issues in recent years , but none from their own doings .
No , its issues come purely from external sources .
In particular , the anti-gun jihadists that have declared a holy war against the show for having the temerity to sell legal products to law-abiding adults who wish to exercise rights that those jihadists don ’ t approve of .
Well , the anti-gunners are at it again .
Now , they want to ban sales of their favorite boogieman of the moment , “ ghost guns.
” Thousands will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Show this weekend in Del Mar , where one of the most popular items for sale is a type of untraceable , unregistered firearm known as a “ ghost gun.
” Now , San Diego gun control activists are pushing to ban them from the event .
Solana Beach City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to support this resolution banning the sale of ghost guns on the Del Mar fairgrounds .
According to law enforcement , nearly half of all guns used in recent crimes in Southern California involved these ghost guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not require background checks , or a waiting period .
While there ’ s legislation in the works to crack down on their sales , that will not go into effect until 2024 .
Local gun control activists though , want to take action now , and are focusing their fight here on the gun show on the Del Mar fairgrounds .
“ It really is the hidden loophole that not a lot of people know about , ” said Solana Beach city council member Kelly Harless .
Except , no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun show .
You see , licensed dealers don ’ t sell so-called ghost guns .
They ’ re required to record serial numbers for all firearms they deal with , something these ghost guns wouldn ’ t have .
If they ’ re selling anything , they ’ re selling lawful gun parts including less than 80 percent complete lower receivers .
These aren ’ t regulated , but they ’ re not “ ghost guns ” either .
They ’ re items that the ATF doesn ’ t classify as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is that there ’ s no way to regulate unfinished receivers .
A block of aluminum can be an unfinished receiver to an industrious sort of person , after all .
Someone with the right tooling and expertise can use that block to build an AR-15 or AK-47 lower receiver and the ATF be absolutely clueless on the subject .
Which is why this hysteria over “ ghost guns ” is so stupid .
It should be noted that these 80 percent lowers have been around for decades at this point and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem.
” At least this story give us something to evaluate the issue for ourselves .
However , it ’ s still short on details .
Regardless , though , what you ’ re likely to find at the Del Mar gun show isn ’ t going to be a slew of ghost guns .
People who come in looking for them will be sorely disappointed .
Contrary to what many think , the vast majority of gun sales will be from licensed dealers .
Those dealers have laws to follow and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns ” being sold .
Not that the opponents of the show care about facts or anything .

The Del Mar gun show has had issues in recent years, but none from their own doings. No, its issues come purely from external sources. In particular, the anti-gun jihadists that have declared a holy war against the show for having the temerity to sell legal products to law-abiding adults who wish to exercise rights that those jihadists don’t approve of.
Well, the anti-gunners are at it again. Now, they want to ban sales of their favorite boogieman of the moment, “ghost guns.”
Thousands will be heading to the Crossroads of the West Gun Show this weekend in Del Mar, where one of the most popular items for sale is a type of untraceable, unregistered firearm known as a “ghost gun.” Now, San Diego gun control activists are pushing to ban them from the event. Solana Beach City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to support this resolution banning the sale of ghost guns on the Del Mar fairgrounds. According to law enforcement, nearly half of all guns used in recent crimes in Southern California involved these ghost guns, which have no serial numbers, and do not require background checks, or a waiting period. While there’s legislation in the works to crack down on their sales, that will not go into effect until 2024. Local gun control activists though, want to take action now, and are focusing their fight here on the gun show on the Del Mar fairgrounds. “It really is the hidden loophole that not a lot of people know about,” said Solana Beach city council member Kelly Harless.
Except, no one is selling “ghost guns” at the gun show.
You see, licensed dealers don’t sell so-called ghost guns. They’re required to record serial numbers for all firearms they deal with, something these ghost guns wouldn’t have.
If they’re selling anything, they’re selling lawful gun parts including less than 80 percent complete lower receivers. These aren’t regulated, but they’re not “ghost guns” either. They’re items that the ATF doesn’t classify as a firearm.
More importantly, though, is that there’s no way to regulate unfinished receivers. A block of aluminum can be an unfinished receiver to an industrious sort of person, after all. Someone with the right tooling and expertise can use that block to build an AR-15 or AK-47 lower receiver and the ATF be absolutely clueless on the subject.
Which is why this hysteria over “ghost guns” is so stupid.
It should be noted that these 80 percent lowers have been around for decades at this point and it’s only now “becoming a problem.” At least this story give us something to evaluate the issue for ourselves. However, it’s still short on details.
Regardless, though, what you’re likely to find at the Del Mar gun show isn’t going to be a slew of ghost guns. People who come in looking for them will be sorely disappointed. Contrary to what many think, the vast majority of gun sales will be from licensed dealers. Those dealers have laws to follow and those laws include no completed “ghost guns” being sold.
Not that the opponents of the show care about facts or anything.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--The Myth Of "Moderate" Joe Biden

The Myth Of "Moderate" Joe Biden

Even with Bernie Sanders announcing that he ’ s staying in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination , odds are that it ’ ll be Joe Biden squaring off against Donald Trump in the November election , and Biden ’ s supporters are going to be spinning like crazy to try to present Biden as the moderate choice between the extremes of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders .
In fact , Team Biden has to be pretty pleased with Bernie remaining in the race as a foil to Biden , allowing him and his surrogates to paint him as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Townhall ’ s Ellie Bufkin reminds us in a new column , however , Biden ’ s policies are anything but moderate , including his stance on the Second Amendment .
Not only has Biden embraced Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke and vowed to put him in charge of gun control efforts , his own agenda outlines policies that would greatly diminish our right to keep and bear arms .
Let ’ s go through some of Biden ’ s malarkey here .
Biden claims that because machine guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t used in a lot of crimes , the reason must be because they ’ re regulated under the National Firearms Act .
What Biden leaves out is that so-called assault weapons aren ’ t used in a lot of crimes either .
In fact , according to the FBI , in 2018 there were 297 homicides in the United States in which a rifle of any type was used .
There were 672 homicides in which fists or feet were the murder weapon of choice .
Biden also wants to dramatically expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to include some of the most commonly owned arms in the country .
Not only are there tens of millions of firearms that would fall under Biden ’ s definition of “ assault weapon , ” there are hundreds of millions of ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition in the hands of American gun owners .
Biden ’ s gun control plans get even worse .
According to his own website , Biden also supports : • banning the online sale of firearms , parts , and ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ red flag ” and gun licensing laws • criminalizing allowing a minor access to a firearm , even for self-defense or hunting The really sad thing is it took a random voter like Jerry Wayne to ask Biden some actual questions about his gun control policy , and we saw how well that went for Biden .
There are a lot of questions that should be asked of Biden about a lot of his other policies , but unfortunately I don ’ t think there are enough reporters or anchors who know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep dive with the candidate on his proposals .
Frankly , there also aren ’ t many in the media who are interested in giving Biden tough questions in the first place , much less about gun control .
They ’ re on board and rooting for him , and helping to build that myth of moderation .

Even with Bernie Sanders announcing that he’s staying in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, odds are that it’ll be Joe Biden squaring off against Donald Trump in the November election, and Biden’s supporters are going to be spinning like crazy to try to present Biden as the moderate choice between the extremes of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In fact, Team Biden has to be pretty pleased with Bernie remaining in the race as a foil to Biden, allowing him and his surrogates to paint him as the middle-of-the-road, return-to-normalcy candidate.
As Townhall’s Ellie Bufkin reminds us in a new column, however, Biden’s policies are anything but moderate, including his stance on the Second Amendment. Not only has Biden embraced Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke and vowed to put him in charge of gun control efforts, his own agenda outlines policies that would greatly diminish our right to keep and bear arms.
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.
Let’s go through some of Biden’s malarkey here. Biden claims that because machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles aren’t used in a lot of crimes, the reason must be because they’re regulated under the National Firearms Act. What Biden leaves out is that so-called assault weapons aren’t used in a lot of crimes either. In fact, according to the FBI, in 2018 there were 297 homicides in the United States in which a rifle of any type was used. There were 672 homicides in which fists or feet were the murder weapon of choice.
Biden also wants to dramatically expand the use of the National Firearms Act to include some of the most commonly owned arms in the country. Not only are there tens of millions of firearms that would fall under Biden’s definition of “assault weapon,” there are hundreds of millions of ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition in the hands of American gun owners.
Biden’s gun control plans get even worse. According to his own website, Biden also supports:
universal background checks
banning the online sale of firearms, parts, and ammunition
providing grants to states to establish “red flag” and gun licensing laws
100% “transition” to so-called smart guns
criminalizing allowing a minor access to a firearm, even for self-defense or hunting
a federal “lost or stolen” law
a federal lgun storage law
a federal prohibition on armed school staff.
The really sad thing is it took a random voter like Jerry Wayne to ask Biden some actual questions about his gun control policy, and we saw how well that went for Biden. There are a lot of questions that should be asked of Biden about a lot of his other policies, but unfortunately I don’t think there are enough reporters or anchors who know enough about the issue to do a deep dive with the candidate on his proposals. Frankly, there also aren’t many in the media who are interested in giving Biden tough questions in the first place, much less about gun control. They’re on board and rooting for him, and helping to build that myth of moderation.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--Illinois Democrat Proposes Bill To Speed up FOIDs

The Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card program is a colossal wet fart .
It ’ s a complete disaster .
Not only does it not stop mass shootings , but it also doesn ’ t stop crime or anything else .
It just slows down law-abiding citizens who want to purchase a firearm , as is their constitutionally-protected right .
Worse , though , is how the state police have used funds set aside for that program and shifted them for other purposes , making a messy program even more of a trainwreck .
Yet there ’ s a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that , and it comes from a Democrat .
State Rep. Monica Bristow ( D-Alton ) is sponsoring legislation to ensure funds allocated for the processing of Firearm Owners Identification cards are safeguarded to prevent the backlog of applications and speed up the application process .
“ The FOID process already places an unnecessary burden on responsible gun owners , so the diversion of funds for the application process is only hurting those that are trying to follow the law , ” Bristow said .
“ My office is constantly getting calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it ’ s clear that we need a safeguard on these resources to meet the needs of residents.
” Bristow told Advantage News , “ These funds are intended to be set aside for certain services provided by the Illinois State Police , and this legislation will ensure they will be used properly and as they were intended.
” She added , “ This legislation that I am proposing will help secure the Second Amendment rights of citizens who are simply trying to abide by the law as responsible gun owners.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , believe it or not .
Of course , this bill isn ’ t nearly as good as a bill to repeal the FOID requirement might be , but let ’ s also be honest here .
This is about the best you ’ re going to see in Illinois .
Even so , the bill ( HB 4754 ) might still be a longshot in the vehemently anti-gun Illinois legislature .
So far , Bristow ’ s bill has precisely one co-sponsor despite having been first filed a month ago .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet there ’ s still a chance for this one unlike other pro-gun bills in the state .
After all , it shouldn ’ t be too hard of a sell to require money designated for a certain purpose not be used for whatever else an agency wants to use it for instead .
If anything , the concern should be that this bill is too specific and still allows agencies to pull this stuff with other funding .
Then again , this is Illinois .
They don ’ t actually want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise their Second Amendment rights .
However , I do want to applaud Bristow for the bill and for her comments about it .
I doubt those will make her popular with her fellow Democrats .
Pro-gun Dems are rare enough that we need to treat them like endangered species .
We need to cultivate them and protect them whenever we can , simply because they ’ re rare and we should all want more of them .
After all , if Democrats become pro-gun and Republicans remain pro-gun , then where is @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card program is a colossal wet fart. It’s a complete disaster. Not only does it not stop mass shootings, but it also doesn’t stop crime or anything else. It just slows down law-abiding citizens who want to purchase a firearm, as is their constitutionally-protected right.
Worse, though, is how the state police have used funds set aside for that program and shifted them for other purposes, making a messy program even more of a trainwreck.
Yet there’s a bill that seeks to change at least some of that, and it comes from a Democrat.
State Rep. Monica Bristow (D-Alton) is sponsoring legislation to ensure funds allocated for the processing of Firearm Owners Identification cards are safeguarded to prevent the backlog of applications and speed up the application process. “The FOID process already places an unnecessary burden on responsible gun owners, so the diversion of funds for the application process is only hurting those that are trying to follow the law,” Bristow said. “My office is constantly getting calls about the delay on FOID card processing, and it’s clear that we need a safeguard on these resources to meet the needs of residents.”
Bristow told Advantage News, “These funds are intended to be set aside for certain services provided by the Illinois State Police, and this legislation will ensure they will be used properly and as they were intended.” She added, “This legislation that I am proposing will help secure the Second Amendment rights of citizens who are simply trying to abide by the law as responsible gun owners.”
Sounds like a fairly pro-gun Democrat, believe it or not.
Of course, this bill isn’t nearly as good as a bill to repeal the FOID requirement might be, but let’s also be honest here. This is about the best you’re going to see in Illinois. Even so, the bill (HB 4754) might still be a longshot in the vehemently anti-gun Illinois legislature. So far, Bristow’s bill has precisely one co-sponsor despite having been first filed a month ago. That’s not a strong opening.
Yet there’s still a chance for this one unlike other pro-gun bills in the state. After all, it shouldn’t be too hard of a sell to require money designated for a certain purpose not be used for whatever else an agency wants to use it for instead. If anything, the concern should be that this bill is too specific and still allows agencies to pull this stuff with other funding.
Then again, this is Illinois. They don’t actually want to make life easier for those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
However, I do want to applaud Bristow for the bill and for her comments about it. I doubt those will make her popular with her fellow Democrats. Pro-gun Dems are rare enough that we need to treat them like endangered species. We need to cultivate them and protect them whenever we can, simply because they’re rare and we should all want more of them.
After all, if Democrats become pro-gun and Republicans remain pro-gun, then where is the threat to the Second Amendment?


bearingarms--2020-03-11--MN GOP Offers Counter Proposals To Dem Gun Control Bills

A legislative battle in Minnesota is heating up , with Democrats in control of the state pushing for a “ red flag ” firearm seizure bill as well as universal background checks .
Republicans , who are in charge of the state Senate , countered that push on Monday by unveiling a series of proposals of their own to crack down on violent crime .
Unlike the measures pushed by Democrats , the bills introduced by Republicans don ’ t focus on legal gun owners in the state , but instead focus on actual violent offenders .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since there ’ s no evidence whatsoever that universal background checks actually reduce crime , or even lead to more background checks .
We ’ ve also pointed out here at Bearing Arms that the states that have had red flag laws on the books for the longest period of time have seen their suicide rates increase , even with the law in place .
Besides , the proposals offered up by Senate Republicans appear to actually address some real issues in the criminal justice system .
One GOP proposal would increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony for straw buyers who knowingly transfer firearms to criminals .
Another would require courts to follow up to ensure that individuals subject to restraining orders comply with orders to surrender their firearms .
Another bill would clarify state law to define the crime of drive-by shootings to cover any shooting from a vehicle , after a 2013 Minnesota Supreme Court decision narrowed the definition to include only shootings outside a building .
And another would prohibit guns for sex offenders who ’ ve been civilly committed .
According to the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s secure program or living in the community under supervision don ’ t have adult felony convictions .
So they could conceivably own guns under current law if they ’ re every fully discharged , though only nine offenders are out on full releases , compared with 731 confined to secure facilities and 22 in community placements .
The civil libertarian in me has some issues with that last proposal .
If someone is not a prohibited person , should they really lose their right to keep and bear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about 64 people in the entire state at the moment , but just because only a few people would be denied their rights doesn ’ t make it okay .
Latz is looking at this issue purely from a political point of view , which is not surprising given that he ’ s a politician in an election year .
If I were a Republican state senator , I ’ d push back hard against his assertion that the GOP proposals are mere “ window dressing , ” and I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks and red flag laws have actually worked to reduce crime or overall suicide rates in states where they ’ ve been put in place .
With legislative control divided between the two parties , it ’ s highly unlikely that either of the Democrats ’ gun control proposals are going anywhere this session , but if they don ’ t become law this session , they will certainly be a campaign issue this fall , and Republicans will need to have a strong argument about why their ideas aren ’ t just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting lives and reducing violent crime in the state ’ s worst neighborhoods .

A legislative battle in Minnesota is heating up, with Democrats in control of the state pushing for a “red flag” firearm seizure bill as well as universal background checks. Republicans, who are in charge of the state Senate, countered that push on Monday by unveiling a series of proposals of their own to crack down on violent crime.
Unlike the measures pushed by Democrats, the bills introduced by Republicans don’t focus on legal gun owners in the state, but instead focus on actual violent offenders.
From KAAL-TV:
At a news conference ahead of the first hearings on their proposals, members of the Senate GOP majority said their bills can actually pass both chambers. They said that contrasts with two priorities of the House Democratic majority — universal background checks and a “red flag” law — which gun rights groups oppose and Senate Republicans have refused to hear. “We have a reality that we have to deal with. We have a divided government,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Warren Limmer said. ”… Any extreme gun bill is going to be very difficult to pass in the other chamber.” Senate Democrats were quick to dismiss the GOP proposals as window-dressing that might win bipartisan support but won’t save many lives.
That’s an odd criticism for Democrats to make, since there’s no evidence whatsoever that universal background checks actually reduce crime, or even lead to more background checks. We’ve also pointed out here at Bearing Arms that the states that have had red flag laws on the books for the longest period of time have seen their suicide rates increase, even with the law in place.
Besides, the proposals offered up by Senate Republicans appear to actually address some real issues in the criminal justice system.
One GOP proposal would increase penalties from a gross misdemeanor to a felony for straw buyers who knowingly transfer firearms to criminals. Another would require courts to follow up to ensure that individuals subject to restraining orders comply with orders to surrender their firearms. Another bill would clarify state law to define the crime of drive-by shootings to cover any shooting from a vehicle, after a 2013 Minnesota Supreme Court decision narrowed the definition to include only shootings outside a building. And another would prohibit guns for sex offenders who’ve been civilly committed. According to the Department of Human Services, 64 people confined in the state’s secure program or living in the community under supervision don’t have adult felony convictions. So they could conceivably own guns under current law if they’re every fully discharged, though only nine offenders are out on full releases, compared with 731 confined to secure facilities and 22 in community placements.
The civil libertarian in me has some issues with that last proposal. If someone is not a prohibited person, should they really lose their right to keep and bear arms? I realize we’re only talking about 64 people in the entire state at the moment, but just because only a few people would be denied their rights doesn’t make it okay.
Sen. Ron Latz, of St. Louis Park, the lead Democrat on Limmer’s committee, dismissed the Republican proposals as “milquetoast” and “window dressing.” Latz said they’re part of an election-year strategy to deflect attention from the House-passed-backed proposals, which he asserted got traction among swing voters and helped Democrats take over the House in 2018.
Latz is looking at this issue purely from a political point of view, which is not surprising given that he’s a politician in an election year. If I were a Republican state senator, I’d push back hard against his assertion that the GOP proposals are mere “window dressing,” and I’d challenge Latz to show how universal background checks and red flag laws have actually worked to reduce crime or overall suicide rates in states where they’ve been put in place.
With legislative control divided between the two parties, it’s highly unlikely that either of the Democrats’ gun control proposals are going anywhere this session, but if they don’t become law this session, they will certainly be a campaign issue this fall, and Republicans will need to have a strong argument about why their ideas aren’t just more constitutional, but more effective in protecting lives and reducing violent crime in the state’s worst neighborhoods.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--Proposed Bill Would Arm Maryland School Resource Officers

Schools aren ’ t really dangerous places , by and large , despite the hysteria perpetuated by anti-gunners and the media .
Most violence in schools are just the same fistfights that we all saw during our school days .
The odds of there being anything more than that are actually pretty low .
However , “ low ” doesn ’ t mean “ zero.
” For better or worse , there are threats and risks to our children .
There ’ s a reason so many places have school resource officers in place .
Now , a Maryland bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hearing in the Senate on Tuesday on a bill that would require all resource officers to carry guns in schools .
Senator J.B. Jennings , who sponsors the bill , says Baltimore City is the only school district that doesn ’ t allow its school resource officers to carry guns .
“ If they ’ re required to carry their weapon with them doing their job , whether they ’ re pulling somebody over on the side of the road or breaking up a fight at a a bar , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have the same tool with them when they are protecting our kids at school.
” Meanwhile , I ’ m sitting here amazed that Baltimore , of all places , doesn ’ t allow school resource officers to have guns .
Baltimore .
One of the most violent cities in the nation , and they won ’ t let the police officers charged with protecting their schools have guns ?
However , let ’ s also remember that Baltimore is a city also overrun by anti-police sentiment .
They simply don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , which isn ’ t a good place for any community to be in .
I pray it doesn ’ t come back to bite the city in the posterior because some tragedy could have been averted if only their school resource officers had been armed .
That said , I ’ m mighty much afraid that ’ s going to happen .
Jennings said that his bill is an effort to prevent other communities in Maryland from pushing such an insane policy position .
He also introduced a similar bill last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die in committee .
I don ’ t see this bill getting much further despite the common sense nature of it .
That ’ s because Baltimore has an outsized influence on state politics , much like how Chicago dominates Illinois .
As a result , the state will continue to be very anti-police and continue to put police officers ’ lives at risk simply because they got mad at the actions of a handful .
Worse yet , though , they ’ re putting students ’ lives at risk because of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a problem in and of itself if they didn ’ t also have such a pronounced anti-gun bias in general .
They won ’ t allow teachers to carry a gun and won ’ t allow even school police to carry one either .
How long until some deranged gunman decides to take advantage of that little tidbit ?
It ’ s not exactly classified information , so just how long ?
How many will die as a result ?
It ’ s well past time for Maryland to put an @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Schools aren’t really dangerous places, by and large, despite the hysteria perpetuated by anti-gunners and the media. Most violence in schools are just the same fistfights that we all saw during our school days. The odds of there being anything more than that are actually pretty low.
However, “low” doesn’t mean “zero.” For better or worse, there are threats and risks to our children. There’s a reason so many places have school resource officers in place.
Now, a Maryland bill seeks to arm theirs.
There was a hearing in the Senate on Tuesday on a bill that would require all resource officers to carry guns in schools. Senator J.B. Jennings, who sponsors the bill, says Baltimore City is the only school district that doesn’t allow its school resource officers to carry guns. “If they’re required to carry their weapon with them doing their job, whether they’re pulling somebody over on the side of the road or breaking up a fight at a a bar,” said Jennings. “Why shouldn’t they have the same tool with them when they are protecting our kids at school.”
Meanwhile, I’m sitting here amazed that Baltimore, of all places, doesn’t allow school resource officers to have guns. Baltimore. One of the most violent cities in the nation, and they won’t let the police officers charged with protecting their schools have guns?
It’s absolutely ridiculous.
However, let’s also remember that Baltimore is a city also overrun by anti-police sentiment. They simply don’t trust their police to do anything right, which isn’t a good place for any community to be in.
I pray it doesn’t come back to bite the city in the posterior because some tragedy could have been averted if only their school resource officers had been armed.
That said, I’m mighty much afraid that’s going to happen.
Jennings said that his bill is an effort to prevent other communities in Maryland from pushing such an insane policy position. He also introduced a similar bill last year, only to have that bill die in committee. I don’t see this bill getting much further despite the common sense nature of it. That’s because Baltimore has an outsized influence on state politics, much like how Chicago dominates Illinois.
As a result, the state will continue to be very anti-police and continue to put police officers’ lives at risk simply because they got mad at the actions of a handful. Worse yet, though, they’re putting students’ lives at risk because of their own anti-cop bias.
That wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself if they didn’t also have such a pronounced anti-gun bias in general. They won’t allow teachers to carry a gun and won’t allow even school police to carry one either.
How long until some deranged gunman decides to take advantage of that little tidbit? It’s not exactly classified information, so just how long? How many will die as a result?
It’s well past time for Maryland to put an end to this kind of stupidity.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--Protests Erupt After Police-Involved Shooting In Raleigh

Dozens of protestors burned flags and compared the Raleigh Police Department to the Ku Klux Klan after a police shooting in Raleigh late Tuesday evening .
The incident unfolded Tuesday evening when a caller to 911 reported seeing a man with a gun “ flashing it around , ” according to authorities .
When police arrived at the strip mall where the man with a gun had been reported , they saw 26-year old Javier Torres , who took off running .
A foot chase ensued , and officers repeatedly shouted for Torres to drop his weapon .
When he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Torres is at WakeMed hospital , police said .
They did not release information about his status .
Raleigh police said a handgun was found at the scene of the shooting .
In a pre-dawn news conference on Wednesday , Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown blamed “ reckless and false information that has been spread on social media ” for inciting the protests .
She said the body cameras worn by police will show those rumors were incorrect — including a rampant Twitter rumor that the suspect was simply coming out of a pizza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual does have a pizza box , but he also has a gun , ” she said .
As the police chief noted , rumors that a young boy carrying a pizza box had been shot by police quickly spread online , and soon hundreds of protesters had gathered in the downtown area .
A leader of the march was Rolanda Byrd .
After her son , Akiel Denkins , was shot and killed by a Raleigh police officer in 2016 , she began organizing for police oversight and police accountability .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have shown for the young man ( shot ) tonight , ” she said around 2 a.m. “ That ’ s why we are standing here tonight .
Because they did that to my son four years ago .
We are not going to stop.
” Zainab Baloch , an activist who has run for Raleigh mayor , told The News & Observer that the group had protested outside the police chief ’ s residence as well as Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin ’ s home .
Baldwin did not respond to a late-night text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we need power , ” Baloch said , referencing a newly created police advisory board that critics argue lacks teeth .
“ We need a community board with power .
… Everyone is tired.
” After protesting outside of the chief ’ s home , the crowd made its way to the governor ’ s mansion , where they pulled down and burned the U.S. and North Carolina flags .
While many left around 2 a.m. , some gathered for another hour in a tense stand-off with police near Moore Square .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street until officers warned they ’ d face arrest if they didn ’ t move to the sidewalk .
Some people played music , danced and joked about keeping people awake in nearby apartments .
A woman ran to the nearby McDonald ’ s and bought fries and chicken nuggets for the crowd .
At the same time , people screamed and yelled about their interactions with Raleigh police , their voices breaking with emotion.. At the press conference on Wednesday morning , Police Chief Deck-Brown asked the public “ not to rush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you allow this investigation to take its course.
” While she said she respected the right to protest , she added , “ We ask the protesters to please conduct themselves within the boundaries of the law.
” “ This is not who we are as a city , ” Deck-Brown said of the damage caused by protesters overnight .
“ But it is also important that individuals who have a desire to voice their concerns .
There is a method by which they can do that .
Without damaging other people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We saw that last night and early this morning.
” It ’ s fine to be skeptical of police accounts , but it ’ s not okay to destroy property or burn flags based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo .
Within a few hours of this incident , hundreds in Raleigh had already made up their minds that the police had done something wrong , even though they had almost no real information to go on .
Viral video and word-of-mouth was enough to bring the protests to the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a court order to release officers ’ bodycam video of the incident as soon as possible , and that would be a wise move .
There are legitimate questions that remain to be answered , but rather than wait for facts to emerge , we saw in Raleigh that some are willing to exploit this incident to cause turmoil , rather than calm tensions .

Dozens of protestors burned flags and compared the Raleigh Police Department to the Ku Klux Klan after a police shooting in Raleigh late Tuesday evening.
The incident unfolded Tuesday evening when a caller to 911 reported seeing a man with a gun “flashing it around,” according to authorities. When police arrived at the strip mall where the man with a gun had been reported, they saw 26-year old Javier Torres, who took off running.
A foot chase ensued, and officers repeatedly shouted for Torres to drop his weapon. When he did not, shots were fired.
From the Raleigh News & Observer:
Torres is at WakeMed hospital, police said. They did not release information about his status. Raleigh police said a handgun was found at the scene of the shooting. In a pre-dawn news conference on Wednesday, Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown blamed “reckless and false information that has been spread on social media” for inciting the protests. She said the body cameras worn by police will show those rumors were incorrect — including a rampant Twitter rumor that the suspect was simply coming out of a pizza shop. “You will see the individual does have a pizza box, but he also has a gun,” she said.
As the police chief noted, rumors that a young boy carrying a pizza box had been shot by police quickly spread online, and soon hundreds of protesters had gathered in the downtown area.
A leader of the march was Rolanda Byrd. After her son, Akiel Denkins, was shot and killed by a Raleigh police officer in 2016, she began organizing for police oversight and police accountability. “Thank you for the love that you have shown for the young man (shot) tonight,” she said around 2 a.m. “That’s why we are standing here tonight. Because they did that to my son four years ago. We are not going to stop.” Zainab Baloch, an activist who has run for Raleigh mayor, told The News & Observer that the group had protested outside the police chief’s residence as well as Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin’s home. Baldwin did not respond to a late-night text message. “We need accountability, but we need power,” Baloch said, referencing a newly created police advisory board that critics argue lacks teeth. “We need a community board with power. … Everyone is tired.”
After protesting outside of the chief’s home, the crowd made its way to the governor’s mansion, where they pulled down and burned the U.S. and North Carolina flags.
While many left around 2 a.m., some gathered for another hour in a tense stand-off with police near Moore Square. Many stood in the middle of Blount Street until officers warned they’d face arrest if they didn’t move to the sidewalk. Some people played music, danced and joked about keeping people awake in nearby apartments. A woman ran to the nearby McDonald’s and bought fries and chicken nuggets for the crowd. At the same time, people screamed and yelled about their interactions with Raleigh police, their voices breaking with emotion.. At the press conference on Wednesday morning, Police Chief Deck-Brown asked the public “not to rush to judgment. … We ask that you allow this investigation to take its course.” While she said she respected the right to protest, she added, “We ask the protesters to please conduct themselves within the boundaries of the law.” “This is not who we are as a city,” Deck-Brown said of the damage caused by protesters overnight. “But it is also important that individuals who have a desire to voice their concerns. There is a method by which they can do that. Without damaging other people’s property. Without harming other folks. We saw that last night and early this morning.”
It’s fine to be skeptical of police accounts, but it’s not okay to destroy property or burn flags based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Within a few hours of this incident, hundreds in Raleigh had already made up their minds that the police had done something wrong, even though they had almost no real information to go on. Viral video and word-of-mouth was enough to bring the protests to the streets.
Police say they’ll ask for a court order to release officers’ bodycam video of the incident as soon as possible, and that would be a wise move. There are legitimate questions that remain to be answered, but rather than wait for facts to emerge, we saw in Raleigh that some are willing to exploit this incident to cause turmoil, rather than calm tensions.


bearingarms--2020-03-11--Dem Covers Biden's Gun Control Argument As "Human Moment"

President Trump is still getting a lot of flak over some of the things he said and did during the 2016 election .
He mocked people , made comments about covering legal fees for people if they did things to others , stuff like that .
The media latched onto it and Democrats have long used that to illustrate how he wasn ’ t fit to be president of the United States .
Yet , when a video surfaced of former Vice President Joe Biden getting into an argument with a Detroit autoworker–complete with a bit of profanity just for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , as noted yesterday , they pretty much applauded it .
To make matters worse , though , we have at least one Democrat trying to defend this as Biden having a “ human moment.
” Rep. Debbie Dingell , D-Mich. , told “ Outnumbered Overtime ” Tuesday that former Vice President Joe Biden had a “ human moment ” when he got into a heated argument with a worker at a Fiat-Chrysler auto plant in Detroit after the man accused the Democratic presidential candidate of trying to take away his Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all human and we ’ ve seen the president does that a lot , and I think he [ Biden ] had a human moment , ” Dingell told host Harris Faulkner on Tuesday .
The dispute , caught on camera , took place as Biden stumped for votes in Michigan , the biggest prize among the states holding Democratic presidential primaries Tuesday with 125 delegates at stake .
Yet President Trump still catches hell from both the media and his opponents ( but I repeat myself ) for his “ human moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Especially since there ’ s been little media coverage delving into just how Biden lied to the poor guy .
You see , the video the autoworker was referring to ?
Most likely , it was the video of Biden with Beto O ’ Rourke stating that he was going to have Beto handle gun control for his administration .
Beto famously said he was coming for our AR-15s and AK-47s .
Biden ’ s own plan calls for either selling your gun to the government or having to register it like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t “ coming for your guns , ” what is ?
He did it again when he claimed he had some kind of respect for the Second Amendment .
He doesn ’ t and he never has .
He ’ s made a career out of infringing on the right to keep and bear arms .
He ’ s spent years in public office traipsing all over gun rights .
Then he has the audacity to claim he respects the Second Amendment like we can ’ t see ample evidence to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
That ’ s hardly surprising , though .
If it weren ’ t for double standards , most anti-gun Democrats wouldn ’ t have any standards at all .
Dingle , who invokes her history as some kind of shield against criticism , essentially took a stand defending the exact same behavior that her party has been claiming makes someone unpresidential .
Not the lying part , of course .
One should never expect a Democrat to call out Biden for that .
I ’ m talking about the behavior in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to call him out for his profanity-laden lies and I ’ m calling Dingle out for her and her party ’ s hypocrisy in letting it pass .

President Trump is still getting a lot of flak over some of the things he said and did during the 2016 election. He mocked people, made comments about covering legal fees for people if they did things to others, stuff like that. The media latched onto it and Democrats have long used that to illustrate how he wasn’t fit to be president of the United States.
Yet, when a video surfaced of former Vice President Joe Biden getting into an argument with a Detroit autoworker–complete with a bit of profanity just for flavor–the media isn’t silent. No, as noted yesterday, they pretty much applauded it.
To make matters worse, though, we have at least one Democrat trying to defend this as Biden having a “human moment.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., told “Outnumbered Overtime” Tuesday that former Vice President Joe Biden had a “human moment” when he got into a heated argument with a worker at a Fiat-Chrysler auto plant in Detroit after the man accused the Democratic presidential candidate of trying to take away his Second Amendment rights. “We’re all human and we’ve seen the president does that a lot, and I think he [Biden] had a human moment,” Dingell told host Harris Faulkner on Tuesday. The dispute, caught on camera, took place as Biden stumped for votes in Michigan, the biggest prize among the states holding Democratic presidential primaries Tuesday with 125 delegates at stake.
Yet President Trump still catches hell from both the media and his opponents (but I repeat myself) for his “human moments” while Biden gets a free pass.
Especially since there’s been little media coverage delving into just how Biden lied to the poor guy.
You see, the video the autoworker was referring to? Most likely, it was the video of Biden with Beto O’Rourke stating that he was going to have Beto handle gun control for his administration. Beto famously said he was coming for our AR-15s and AK-47s.
Biden’s own plan calls for either selling your gun to the government or having to register it like a fully-automatic weapon. If that isn’t “coming for your guns,” what is?
So Biden lied.
He did it again when he claimed he had some kind of respect for the Second Amendment. He doesn’t and he never has. He’s made a career out of infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. He’s spent years in public office traipsing all over gun rights.
Then he has the audacity to claim he respects the Second Amendment like we can’t see ample evidence to the contrary.
And Dingle is covering for him. That’s hardly surprising, though. If it weren’t for double standards, most anti-gun Democrats wouldn’t have any standards at all. Dingle, who invokes her history as some kind of shield against criticism, essentially took a stand defending the exact same behavior that her party has been claiming makes someone unpresidential.
Not the lying part, of course. One should never expect a Democrat to call out Biden for that. I’m talking about the behavior in general.
Me? I’m going to call him out for his profanity-laden lies and I’m calling Dingle out for her and her party’s hypocrisy in letting it pass.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Breaking: NRA Cancels Annual Meeting Set For Nashville In April

The National Rifle Association has officially cancelled its upcoming Annual Meeting in Nashville , Tennessee , which was set to kick off on April 16th and run through the 19th , with events throughout the downtown area .
In a statement posted on the NRA ’ s website , the organization said that it reluctantly made the decision to cancel the event , which was expected to draw 80,000 or more gun owners to Nashville , after “ closely monitoring updates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Tennessee Department of Health , ” and noting that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency earlier on Thursday .
Therefore , we have reluctantly decided to cancel this year ’ s NRA Annual Meeting , planned for April 16 – 19 in Nashville .
This applies to all events and scheduled programs , including the NRA-ILA Forum .
We sincerely regret the need for this action , particularly for our many loyal members who join us for this annual celebration of the NRA and our constitutional freedoms .
Details regarding a rescheduled NRA Members ’ Meeting will be forthcoming .
Under the direction of NRA President Carolyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is working with the Office of the Secretary in relation to board elections , meetings , and the like .
Please know that we did not reach this decision lightly .
We were ultimately guided by our responsibility to help ensure the safety and well-being of our NRA members , guests , and surrounding community .
Please coordinate directly with any hotels , airlines or others who have assisted with your travel arrangements .
Most companies have announced plans to accommodate travelers dealing with event cancellations .
Given the timing of the convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen in the past two days , this isn ’ t a huge surprise .
I think everyone is hoping that by mid-April , the worst will have passed and we ’ ll be getting back to normal , but the truth is that we don ’ t know that will be the case .
With so much uncertainty , it was the safe move and the right call to cancel the Annual Meeting , though I know I and tens of thousands of members are disappointed that we won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I call the world ’ s biggest family reunion .
The loss of the NRA Annual Meeting will certainly be felt by the city of Nashville as well .
The economic impact of the NRA convention every year is somewhere in the range of $ 50 to 65-million , and the city is already reeling from the tornado that struck earlier this month .
The decision to cancel the event may also have a political impact with the loss of the NRA-ILA leadership forum , and the NRA won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend either .
The NRA Annual meeting is a big deal , and so is its cancellation .
We ’ ll have more on the cancellation and its impact here on Bearing Arms , but in the meantime if you want more information you can visit nraam.org for more details .

The National Rifle Association has officially cancelled its upcoming Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, which was set to kick off on April 16th and run through the 19th, with events throughout the downtown area.
In a statement posted on the NRA’s website, the organization said that it reluctantly made the decision to cancel the event, which was expected to draw 80,000 or more gun owners to Nashville, after “closely monitoring updates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Tennessee Department of Health,” and noting that the governor of Tennessee declared a state of emergency earlier on Thursday.
Therefore, we have reluctantly decided to cancel this year’s NRA Annual Meeting, planned for April 16 – 19 in Nashville. This applies to all events and scheduled programs, including the NRA-ILA Forum. We sincerely regret the need for this action, particularly for our many loyal members who join us for this annual celebration of the NRA and our constitutional freedoms. Details regarding a rescheduled NRA Members’ Meeting will be forthcoming. Under the direction of NRA President Carolyn Meadows, the NRA Board of Directors is working with the Office of the Secretary in relation to board elections, meetings, and the like. Please know that we did not reach this decision lightly. We were ultimately guided by our responsibility to help ensure the safety and well-being of our NRA members, guests, and surrounding community. Please coordinate directly with any hotels, airlines or others who have assisted with your travel arrangements. Most companies have announced plans to accommodate travelers dealing with event cancellations.
Given the timing of the convention and the amount of closures that we’ve seen in the past two days, this isn’t a huge surprise. I think everyone is hoping that by mid-April, the worst will have passed and we’ll be getting back to normal, but the truth is that we don’t know that will be the case. With so much uncertainty, it was the safe move and the right call to cancel the Annual Meeting, though I know I and tens of thousands of members are disappointed that we won’t be able to get together for what I call the world’s biggest family reunion.
The loss of the NRA Annual Meeting will certainly be felt by the city of Nashville as well. The economic impact of the NRA convention every year is somewhere in the range of $50 to 65-million, and the city is already reeling from the tornado that struck earlier this month. The decision to cancel the event may also have a political impact with the loss of the NRA-ILA leadership forum, and the NRA won’t be able to hold its fundraising events that weekend either. The NRA Annual meeting is a big deal, and so is its cancellation.
We’ll have more on the cancellation and its impact here on Bearing Arms, but in the meantime if you want more information you can visit nraam.org for more details.